Romans 4 Parkview University 2015

4:1-8

Chapter 4 really starts with 3:27 and is a continuation of Paul’s series of rhetorical questions:

Rhetorical Questions:1. Then what becomes of our (Jewish) boasting? - Excluded (3:27)2. By what kind of law? By law of faith.3. Is God the God of Jews only? Also of Gentiles (3:29)4. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! (3:31)5. What shall we say was gained by Abraham…? (4:1)

The potential of Abraham’s boasting in 4:2 rests directly upon the rhetorical question of 3:27!

Paul is going to discuss the question of “what role does the law play since Jesus Christ?” Instead of an argument from logic he’ll use Abraham as a case study. More than answering the question about the law, Paul’s argument is designed to show the continuity of God’s plan for humanity from the beginning. So the righteousness provided through Jesus Christ is not “a new, last ditch effort to redeem people.” (Runge)

1. It has been attested by the law and the prophets (3:21)2. Shown in the promises made to Abraham and then Abraham’s response in

faith.

Paul is arguing that God’s plan has always been grace through faith. Thus the gospel is connected with God’s original promise to bless all nations through Abraham. (Gen 12:1-3). “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Notice how Paul introduces Abraham in this case study: “…our forefather according to the flesh?” Here “flesh” stands in opposition to belief. Abraham is the father of the Jewish nation and of other nations besides, yet not everyone who is of this lineage partakes of the covenant community. Besides coming up in 4:11 Paul will argue that belief is more important than lineage. Introducing Abraham in this fashion sets up Paul’s developing arugment.

So what if Abraham had been able to be justified by “works” instead of by “faith”?If possible then people may have something to boast about before each other but still not before God. This would be a self-righteous pride which would be totally out of place before a holy and just God. But justification by faith means that no one – not even Christians – have a right to pride or to boasting. We are humbled by the fact that we have not contributed anything to our justification.

The Jewish Christians took pride in their heritage which was based on the Mosaic Law, however, Paul is saying that not even Abraham believed his works justified him and quotes Genesis 15:6 to support this argument “believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” So Abraham was, in actuality, justified by his faith. So “boasting” is an illegitimate arrogance that fundamentally contradicts the gospel message of justification by grace through faith.

Paul’s next argument continues the rhetorical question of 4:1:4:4 – Two part argument:

1. How do we regard credit for work done verses credit granted without work?Ones a paycheck and ones a gift. There’s a huge difference between the two.

There is no grace involved in payment for work. However, if you receive payment for work never done than you have committed fraud. Work and wages goes hand in hand. So if works are involved in justification, then there is no room for grace.2. If, on the other hand, we are being given something that we did nothing to

earn, we have no grounds for boasting. What defines a gift is that it is free, not based on anything we have done. Obligation is the distinguishing mark of this argument.

4:6-8 – Paul then follows verse 5 with a lengthy subordinate clause. Quoting David from Psalm 32:1-2, Paul asserts that blessing comes from receiving unmerited favor.

4:9-25Paul now moves on to argue with potential counter-arguments:

Rhetorical question:1. Is this blessing then only for the circumcised…? (4:9) Paul use of this question is

continuing his case study of Abraham. Did Abraham’s circumcision credit him with righteousness? So, if not, what role does circumcision play?

2. How then was it counted to him? Before or after…? (4:10)

So Paul asks a question in vs 9 that he does not answer except by asking several more questions in verse 10. Is the blessing exclusively for those who are circumcised? Partial answer at end of verse 9 by repeating the Genesis quotation he already used in 4:3.

So??? What role does circumcision play if it did not factor into his justification?Answer – vs 11 – It is a sign, a seal of what has already been obtained by faith. This allows that Abraham can be the father of all – the circumcised and the uncircumcised.

So, in answer, it takes circumcision and faith (vs 12) – walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

So, and this is the hard part for the Jewish Christians in Rome:

1. Both Jewish and Gentile believers are counted as heirs of Abraham’s faith.2. Circumcision or the lack of it does not matter.

What’s worse Paul implicates that circumcised Jews who rely only on circumcision for justification have no part in Abraham! Jesus is the embodiment of “faith” and if one rejects Jesus and yet is circumcised they will not have any part of Abraham’s inheritance and therefore are not truly children of Israel nor Jehovah God. (Paul will continue to develop this argument in 11:17-20).

Faith is the only qualifier – an uncircumcised faith!

So Jewish believers in Christ who wanted Gentiles to imitate their covenantal lineage practice of circumcision (Acts 15:1) are totally missing the point of what just happened!

4:13 is often marked as a new section in English bibles but this does not do justice to the Greek. Verse 13 is obviously crafted to support Paul’s argument from verses 10-12. So verse 13-25 is not a new point but just more information about Abraham’s circumcision and what it meant.

Paul uses positive and negative statements in 13 to say the same thing twice. By stating in 13 “did not come through the law” sets up verse 14’s statement that “if the promise came through the Law, then faith is void and the promises made to Abraham and David are null.

The law only produces “wrath” (vs 15) – wrath stemming from the judgment of sin. Where there is no law, there is no wrath. (cp 2:12)

In Romans 3, Paul asked whether some Jews’ unbelief nullified God’s promise (remember, God’s promises were unconditional). The answer was a resounding “no”.

So how did these promises come about in the first place? If they came about based on keeping the law then there is no way these promises could be kept. Why? Because the law only produces death. It reveals God’s holiness to a sinful world.

So 4:16 is the logical conclusion to Paul’s statements in 14-15 – the promises are based on faith! Paul uses the “not only…but also” connection. Instead of “circumcised” versus “uncircumcised”, he uses “those of the law” versus “those of the faith of Abraham.” Paul is actually casting Jews in the role of non-faith based group (which the Jews had previously thought was the exclusive domain of Gentiles).

4:17 – Paul adds new material to the Genesis narrative of Abraham and Sarah being well beyond child-bearing years.

“who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”

This statement sets up what he is going to say next:

Abraham saw himself as a dried up, almost dead man and Sarah was barren. (vs 19)

It wasn’t just that Abraham received a promise and was willing to believe – he received an unbelievable promise!

Vs 20-21 – Abraham had unwavering faith.Vs 22 – The Greek construct shows that this verse begins Paul’s summation: Abraham showed complete and unwavering faith when faced with logical impossibilities, and, therefore, his faith was credited to him as righteousness. This is saving faith.Paul trots out Genesis 15 one last time – he quotes it for our belief, daring anyone to challenge it. Works (outward signs) like circumcision, have zero impact on God’s assessment of our lives. What matters is our unwavering faith in something that makes no logical sense. This has always, according to Paul, been God’s standard for justification.