Romans

4:1-12

Arguments in support of the proposition, 1:18-11:36

2. The impartial nature of God's righteous vindication of the just in Christ, 3:21-4:25

ii] a) The example of Abraham: righteous by faith alone

From 4:1-25, Paul draws on the example of Abraham to support his contention that God's righteous vindication of the just in Christ is impartial in nature, that there is no distinction between a faithful Jewish believer and a Gentile believer and thus no ground for boasting, and this because a person's justification, their being set right with God on the basis of Christ's faithfulness appropriated through faith, is not in any way influenced by their submission, or otherwise, to the law of Moses. A person's justification and thus their full appropriation of the promised Abrahamic blessings is apart from works of the law. First, in 4:1-12, the scriptures show us that Abraham was set right before God on the basis of the promise of God appropriated through faith without any support whatsoever from the law, in that he was accounted righteous while he was virtually an uncircumcised Gentile.

Dodd sees chapter 4 as a "digression", while Robinson argues that it is an "excursus", although Jewett holds that it is a skillfully shaped diatribe fused with a midrashic exegesis. It is certainly difficult to analyze Paul's compacted argument at this point in Romans and for this reason the passage has been interpreted in countless ways. Cranfield and Fitzmyer are probably right in identifying "glorying" as central to Paul's argument, ie. "thinking to establish a claim on God on the ground of one's works." Such "glorying is excluded" because a person's justification is based on "the law of faith." "The case of Abraham" confirms this truth.

The following interpretive approaches are included for reference purposes:

The traditional approach to this passage is nicely summarized by Osborne. Having established universal sinfulness such that both Jews and Gentiles stand under the judgment of God, 1:18-3:20, Paul now presents "the thesis statement (of the whole epistle, building on 1:16-17) in 3:21-26; the centrality of righteousness by faith not by works in 3:27-31; and the supreme model of Abraham, who was justified by faith not works, in 4:1-25." Morris, also reflecting a traditional interpretation, argues that 3:21-31 establishes "Paul's position that the way of salvation", of righteousness before God, is "by God's grace" through faith, apart from the law, and that the example of Abraham in 4:1-25 shows that this position "is no innovation." Similarly Moo: in chapter 4 "Paul appeals to Abraham to support his insistence that righteousness can be attained only through faith", that it stemmed from God's grace and that by implication it has "inclusive" consequences. So also Schreiner: "The burden of 3:27-28 is that righteousness is by faith, not by keeping the works of the law. Verses 29-30 affirm that justification by faith applies to all people, both Jews and Gentiles. Chapter 3 concludes with the affirmation that righteousness by faith does not nullify the commands of the law; instead, it establishes and confirms them. The law is a `law of faith' that fulfills the moral prescriptions of the law. Paul introduces Abraham in chapter 4 in order to confirm the first two themes of 3:27-31." Also Hunter, who makes the point that Paul, having stated in 3:31 that his thesis of righteousness through faith is confirmed by "the old revelation" ("law") explains what the scriptures say of Abraham who is "a shining example of the man `who through faith is righteous.'" Also Black: chapter 4 "provides scriptural support of the doctrine of justification by faith." See also, Murray, O'Neill.

Davies, leaning toward a new perspective position, holds that 3:27-4:2 sets out a proposition (3:31 serving as a qualification, and 4:1-2 focusing on the example of Abraham) and that 4:3-22 serves as an exegetical argument in support of the proposition. "Glorying" ("boast", NIV) is the key to Paul's polemic. Davies argues that Paul condemns the Jews' "glorying in God without obeying him", 3:27. "The root of Israel's failure" being a "lack of faith", 3:28a, a problem that "cannot be remedied by mere performance (works of the law)", 3:28b, and this because "the works, as the law requires, must be the fruit of faith - `the obedience of faith'." "Though obedience evidences justification, 2:13, it is only faith that enables one to be justified, 3:24f. This is true for Jews and Gentiles alike, 3:28-30" The example of Abraham demonstrates "that Abraham's obedience was in no way a ground for his justification before God", rather "he was justified by faith."

Dumbrell, again reflecting a new perspective position, explains that in 3:21-31 Paul argues for the equality of access to salvation / justification of Jew and Gentile ("all humanity, and not by any ethnic or religious distinction") and this by faith. "To add force" to his argument, "Paul now (in chapter 4) appeals to the key role of Abraham within the divine plan."

Dunn proposes that the example of Abraham serves as "an exposition of the basic theme of the argument so far (summarized in 3:28) - that God justifies through faith (so Gentile as well as Jew) and does not limit his saving righteousness to the circumcised."

Barrett holds that 3:21-31 presents "Paul's discussion of justification by faith through God's act of redemption in Christ", concluding with a denial that "faith does away with the law, rather, it establishes the law." This Paul demonstrates in the example of Abraham.

For a Jew, Abraham is the perfect example of a person who was approved before God because of his faithful attention to God's commands. Paul sets out to show that Abraham's approval before God was based on his faith, without any reference whatsoever to obedience - "faith" in the sense of trust in / reliance on God's promises / God's faithfulness, not "faith" as a good work, a response action to a divine command.

oun "then" - [what] therefore. Paul is not about to draw a conclusion, but rather to support the argument made in 3:21-33, "a kind of scriptural proof", Kuss. "From the point of view of physical descent, Abraham is our forefather. What are we to say his special discovery was?" Barclay.

eroumen (eipon) fut. "shall we say" - will we say. The "we" is obviously "we Jews (believing Jews or Jews in general??)."

euJrhkenai (euJriskw) perf. inf. "discovered" - to have discovered, found. Textual variants exist, both of position and omittion, JB, NEB, indicating that it may have originally been a marginal note. Best retained, as NIV. Properly an infinitive forming a dependent statement indirect speech of stating, "what will we say that Abraham discovered?" The NIV ties this infinitive with the adverbial phrase "in this matter", literally "according to the flesh". It seems better to read the infinitive before "Abraham" and arrange the sentence as Barclay above. So, "according to flesh" is a comment about Abraham as the ancestor of Jews, a comment that is probably disparaging. Abraham discovered that nothing is gained by "flesh", but by faith, and if that was true for Abraham it is true for Paul and his fellow Jewish believers.

ei "if" - Introducing a conditional sentence, 1st class, where the condition is assumed a reality, although here in the sense, "for argument sake." The force of the argument is clearer if we set aside the condition, eg. "does Abraham really have a matter of boasting before God? Not at all, for scripture says ...." Morris.

edikaiwqh (dikaiow) "was justified" - declared/made right/righteous. Granted "covenant status", Dumbrell, "count/treat as right/righteous", Barrett; or in reformed terms, "confer a righteous status on", Cranfield, although better "acquit." It is clear that Paul does not intend an ethical sense such as "make virtuous." "If Abraham was set right before God by works ...."

ergwn (on ou) "works" - "Works of the law."

kauchma "something to boast about" - a boast [negative] / a reason for boasting / glorying [positive]. Usually in the sense of the content of the boast/glorying, or the object of the boast/glorying. "He hath whereof to glory", RV. Paul has already used this word of "the weak", referring to the boast of their standing before God on the basis of "works of the law." New perspective commentators argue that the boast is of their possession of the law.

alla "but" - A strong adversative, "but certainly not before God."

ou proV qeon "not before God" - Paul's point is illusive: i] Abraham has something to boast about before men (indeed, he was held in esteem), but not before God, Sandy & Headlam; ii] the phrase serves to refute the condition stated in the "if" clause (protasis) of the conditional sentence, Cranfield; iii] If Abraham had been justified by works he would have ground for glorying, but not toward God, but rather toward himself. Only if his justification stemmed from the grace of God would his glorying rightly be directed toward God, Chrysostom .... Myer. "Only faith justifies and enables one to glory in God", Davies.

Within Judaism, Genesis 15:6 is tied to Genesis 22 producing the idea that Abraham was justified on the basis of his faith and his faithfulness. Paul's exegesis of Gen.15:6 in v4-5 seeks to separate the two ideas, tying justification to faith alone, apart from works. The traditional view that Judaism saw justification in terms of law-obedience is counted by new perspective commentators who argue that faithful Jews saw covenant inclusion as a matter of grace, not works, although Sanders has shifted somewhat toward a synergy of both (according to Cranfield). Sanders' contention is that the law served to maintain covenant standing ("covenant nomism", or "sanctification", Dumbrell). It does seem that Paul is confronting the heresy of nomism, that although getting in is by grace/faith, staying in is by law/obedience.

gar "-" - for. The particle here possibly serves to introduce the counter argument to the notion that Abraham had something to boast about, and this with the support of scripture; "but that is not how God sees him (Cranfield, v2b) for what does the passage of scripture [relevant to the matter] say", Barrett. Yet, it is more likely that the preposition takes its usual sense expressing cause/reason. If Abraham was justified by works he would have no reason to glory in God, rather, he would glory in his own achievements, but in fact, he did glory in God and this because he was justified by faith.

pisteusen (pisteuw) aor "believed" - Relied, rested on the faithfulness of God.

tw/ qew/ "God" - Dative of direct object, "believed in God."

elogisqh (logizomai) "it was credited" - reckoned, taken into account, considered, credited as of a credit added to an account. Righteousness, right-standing before God, is reckoned to the account of a person who trusts God, as Abraham trusted God. "God reckons his faith to him ...... for righteousness", Godet; "one may infer from reckon that God treats faith as though it were righteousness", Kasemann. Faith is as good as righteousness because it is a resting on the faithfulness / righteousness of God. "Was reckoned to him as righteousness", Cassirer.

dikaiosunhn (h) "righteousness" - Right before God.

Paul's compressed argument in v4-5 has caused problems. Barrett suggests that Paul wants to undermine the notion that "faith [as a meritorious work] counted for righteousness" such that "credited / reckoned" aligns with the "faith / grace" correlatives, but not with "work / debt". Yet, it does seem more likely that "reckoned" aligns with both "work" and "faith". So, Paul's point is that work produces a reward reckoned according to a debt, while faith produces a reward reckoned according to grace. Abraham's pay, which was accounted to him, namely righteousness, was the product of faith, not work, a gift of grace, not a due/debt to be paid. This, for Paul, is a substantial truth. Here is a faithful man rich in good works, yet he stands right before God, not on the ground of his deeds, but on the ground of his faith.

de "now" - but, and. Here obviously transitional, not adversative.

tw/ ergazomenw/ (ergazomai) pres. part. dat. "when a man works" - [the wages] to the one working. Participle as a substantive, dative of advantage. The application of effort and talent to a task receives something in kind, here wages. "A worker has his wage counted to him as a due", Moffatt.

oJ misqoV (oV) "his wages" - the wages, pay / reward. Probably better "reward", ref. Gen.15:1.

kata carin (iV ewV) "as a gift" - according to grace. The NIV surely misses the point. Paul has Abraham in mind whose right-standing before God rests on the covenant mercy of God rather than his own "works" for which right-standing would then be a "due." "To a man who works, his reward is not reckoned as a matter of grace but as something which is his due", Bruce.

ofeilhma (a atoV) "obligation" - debt. There is an obligation to return kind for kind; payment for work undertaken. "Now the reward given to one who works to earn it is not reckoned as a favour but as his due", Cassirer.

de "however" - but, and. Contrastive.

tw/ mh ergazomenw/ (ergazomai) pres. part. dat. "to the man who does not work" - to the one not working. Participle as a substantive, dative of reference. Obviously "work" in the sense of "effort applied to the commands of God in order to earn merit (brownie points)"

pisteuonti (pisteuw) pres. part. dat. "trusts" - the one trusting, believing. Participle again as a substantive. The same person is being referred to, as NIV.

epi "-" - upon on. "Faith upon [God] the one who justifies."

ton dikaiounta (dikaiow) pres. part. "God who justifies" - the one justifying. Participle again as a substantive, referring to God, as NIV. The meaning of the verb "justifies" is contentious, so for example: the one who grants "covenant acceptance", Dumbrell; "count/treat as right/righteous" Barrett; "confer a righteous status on", Cranfield. "The God who treats me JUST IF I'D never sinned", so "acquits", "forgiven", "declares the guilty to be innocent", TEV. The problem we face by moving from the "set right", or "judged right" sense (one's theological perspective determines which we choose) to that of "forgiveness", is that "the weak" probably saw justification in terms of forgiveness rather than Paul's wider inclusive totality of new life in Christ. For Paul, a person's justification incorporated the fullness of God's promised blessings.

ton asebh (hV) "the wicked" - without God, impious. One who is undeserving of divine attention. A strong word which serves to compare the two ways. One works and receives their reward, another believes and receives the same reward, and this person is ungodly and not deserving of any reward. "God is the one who can make even those who are evil right in his sight", NCV.

eiV "[his faith is credited] as [righteousness]" - [faith reckoned of him] to, for [righteousness].

In v6-8 Paul supports his thesis from Psalm 32:1-2, "the blessed man is not the sinless man, but the one whose sins God does not count, the man whose sins he forgives", Hunter.

kaqaper "[David says] the same thing" - as, just as, like [David speaks]. "So also David pronounces his blessing upon the man ..", Cassirer.

makarismon (oV) "the blessedness" - the happiness, blessedness. David says the blessing, so "pronounces a blessing", RSV, although possibly "speaks of the blessedness of those ...", NRSV, as NIV, ie. "when he said the man whom God accepts as righteous is truly happy", TH.

logizetai (logizomai) pres. "[to whom God] credits" - reckons, counts, credits. See v3. "God accepts him as righteous", TEV.

dikaiosunhn (h) "righteousness" - right. Right-standing before God, "covenant compliance", Dumbrell.

cwriV + gen. "apart from [works]" - without. "Apart from obedience to the law of God".

The psalm expresses the happiness of a person whose sin has not been reckoned to him. Paul uses the non-crediting of sin to support his argument for the crediting of righteousness. This is a form of rabbinic Biblical interpretation.

makarioi adj. "Blessed" - blessed, happy. Again the meaning is illusive. The sense may be "God blesses people whose sins are forgiven ..", CEV, but taken at face value the sense is "O the bliss (happiness) of those who have broken the law and have been forgiven, whose sin has been put out of sight", Barclay, so NIV. None-the-less, it is likely that Paul is not using the word for "happiness" as such, but rather with the Old Testament sense of "blessed before God". Given the context, the promised Abrahamic blessings are not far from Paul's mind.

ai anomiai (a) "transgressions" - lawlessness. "Evil as a lack of conformity to God's law", Morris.

afeqhsan (afihmi) aor. pas. "are forgiven" - It is interesting that such an important word gets only limited use by Paul: the verb 5 out of 142 NT uses, and the noun only twice. This reminds us that "the weak" are not weak when it comes to forgiveness, in fact, they probably understand justification in terms of forgiveness, so Paul has no need to argue for forgiveness. It is very unlikely "the weak" think that "works of the law" attain forgiveness, rather they would know full-well that forgiveness rests on God's mercy in Christ appropriated through faith. Law, for "the weak", addresses what follows forgiveness. For Paul, what follows forgiveness, namely, the fullness of new life in Christ, has nothing to do with law-obedience, but is rather part of the justification package which rests on faith, Christ's faith and ours.

ou mh + subj. "[will] never [count against him]" - never [would account]. This construction forms an emphatic negation. "Happy is the man to whom the Master refuses, in any way, to post his sins against him", Junkins.

Having established that the righteous reign of God, his setting all things right, rests on faith (God's faithfulness appropriated through faith) and not works, Paul now in v9-12 identifies those who are the rightful recipients of God's "reckoned" right standing. He points out that Abraham's standing before God, Gen.15:6, was secured before he was circumcised, Gen.17:11. Abraham found God's acceptance when he was as uncircumcised as any Gentile, v9-10. Thus Abraham now stands as the spiritual father of all for whom "faith is reckoned as righteousness", to both Jewish believers and Gentile believers, v11-12. In this is God's divine purpose exposed, namely, that it has always been his intention to gather an inclusive people unto himself.

"Is" - The verb, obviously present tense, must be assumed and probably best treated as introducing a question.

oun "-" - therefore. Indicating an important step in the argument. The quote establishes that the fullness of God's promised blessings, encapsulated in the reckoning of righteousness, rests on God's grace. "Given therefore that blessedness before God does not rest on works, but on God's grace ....."

oJ makarismoV "blessedness" - the blessed. "The blessed before God"; "does this blessedness before God only apply to circumcised Jews, or can it apply to Gentiles as well?"

legomen (legw) pres. "we have been saying" - we say. Paul answers his question by referring to his stated argument: it was Abraham's reliance on the covenant mercy of God, his covenant faithfulness, that accounted him right before God and therefore being right before God, and thus blessed, has nothing to do with circumcision and its attendant requirement for a strict observance of the Mosaic law.

The purpose of Paul argument, in this and the next two verses, is to show that "the blessedness of 4:6-8 applies equally to the uncircumcised", Dumbrell.

oun "-" - therefore. "In what circumstances, then, was it so reckoned?", Cassirer.

pwV "under what circumstances [was it credited]?" - how [was it reckoned]. Nicely expressed in the NIV.

onti (eimi) pres. part. "was it after [he was circumcised]" - being [in circumcision]. The dative participle of the verb to-be probably forms a temporal clause, "while he was in a state of circumcision". Best treated as a question; "when this happened, was he a circumcised man?", Phillips.

ouk en peritomh/ all en akrobustia/ "it was not after, but before" - not in circumcision but in uncircumcision. "He was not (a circumcised man), he was still uncircumcised", Phillips.

Abraham received the sign of circumcision [an attestation ("seal") of the righteousness he possessed before God on the ground of faith] while he was still uncircumcised, in order that he might be the father of all who, although uncircumcised, believe. The bracketed clause seems to function as a parenthetical remark, an aside, explaining the actual function of circumcision, ie. "seal" is in apposition to "circumcision". See Barrett who argues that v11a is a parenthesis and that the two purpose clauses refer to v10.

shmeion (on) "sign" - a distinctive mark. cf. Gen.17:11 where circumcision is a sign of the covenant, although Paul sees it as a sign of the righteous that is grounded on / out of faith. Are they the same?

peritomhV (h) gen. "of circumcision" - Presumably the genitive is adjectival, limiting "sign", a circumcision type of sign, "epexegetic", Moo, although Moule says it is it is appositional, "a sign consisting in circumcision", Sandy and Headlam.

sfragida (iV idoV) "a seal" - That which "confirms the validity of a reality already present", Jewett, "an attestation of", Morris.

thV pistewV (iV ewV) "[righteousness] that he had by faith" - of faith. Again adjectival, the faith type of righteousness, ie. a righteousness that rests on / comes out of faith - God's faithfulness and Abraham's faith in his faithfulness / covenant mercy.

thV en th/ akrobustia/ "while he was still uncircumcised" - in uncircumcision. The introductory article serves to form an adjectival clause. The preposition, en, being local, "in the state of uncircumcision", is best treated temporally, as NIV. So, "he received ..... a seal of righteousness .... which was his while he was uncircumcised." The adjectival clause relates to "righteousness", not "faith", so Moo, contra Cranfield.

eiV to einai "so then" - in order that. This preposition with the articular infinitive usually forms a purpose clause, not a consecutive/result clause as NIV. "In order that he might be the father of all who have faith while they are uncircumcised", Barclay.

twn pisteuontwn (pisteuw) pres. part. "[all] who believe" - [all] the ones believing. The participle as a substantive.

dia "but [have not been circumcised]" - through, by means of [uncircumcision]. Sandy and Headlam suggest the preposition here takes the particular use of attendant circumstance; "though in a state of uncircumcision", manner of acting, Zerwick 114, or possibly temporal, "while they are uncircumcised", Barclay, Zerwick 115.

eiV to logisqhnai "in order that [righteousness] might be credited" - for to be reckoned. Again, this preposition + the articular infinitive usually forms a purpose clause, so Dunn, Barrett, but it can form a consecutive/result clause and that seems more likely here, so Cranfield, Moo. "The object of this eiV to einai = purpose) was to make him the father of all who believe as uncircumcised persons and thus eiV to logisqhnai = result) have righteousness counted to them", Moffatt.

kai "and" - Verse 12 continues the sentence begun with the purpose clause "This happened (Abraham's receiving the sign of circumcision after being reckoned righteous out of faith) in order that ("so then", NIV)" he might be the father of the uncircumcised and the circumcised, the circumcised who, like Abraham, rest on the faithfulness of God.

toiV ouk ek peritomhV monon "who not only are circumcised" - to the ones not of circumcision only. The article is plural while referencing "circumcised" singular. Obviously Paul is thinking ahead to the next clause, "the ones who walk in the footsteps of ......... Abraham [while] in uncircumcision." It seems likely that Paul's qualification here limits the fatherhood of Abraham to those "who are not circumcised merely, but also walk in the footsteps of that faith which our father Abraham had when we was as yet uncircumcised", Cassirer, so, not Jews and Jews of faith. "Not to those of the circumcision only" would be written ouk toiV ek peritomhV monon.

toiV stoicousin (stoicew) pres. part. "[but] who also walk" - to the ones walking. The articular participle would normally be taken as substantive and therefore imply a second group of children of Abraham, the first Jews and now believing Jews. Hort replaced the article with autoiV, "to those who walk" (the participle is then adjectival), while others have expunged it. It is obviously original and best treated as "an intrusive article", Moule.

toiV icnesin "in the footsteps" - walk in the tracks of, march in line = imitate, do as others do. "But also take that same way of faith as our father Abraham did", Barclay.

en akrobustia/ (a) "before he was circumcised" - of the in uncircumcision. The preposition is local, best expressed as a temporal clause, "when he was yet uncircumcised", Cassirer.

Romans Introduction.

lectionarystudies.com