Original Meaning
IN 3:27–31, PAUL BRIEFLY mentions two implications of the truth that we are justified by faith and not by “observing the law” (v. 28): We cannot boast in our own religious accomplishments (v. 27), and Jews and Gentiles have equal access to justification (vv. 29–30). In chapter 4 he develops both these points with reference to Abraham (see comments on 3:27–31).
In 4:1–8, Paul shows that Abraham himself had nothing to boast about before God because he, also, was justified by faith. Then, in 4:9–17, he argues that Abraham’s justification by faith means that he is qualified to be the spiritual father of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Verses 18–22 expand on the nature of Abraham’s faith before Paul wraps up his exposition with a final application to Christians (vv. 23–25).
Throughout the chapter, Paul grounds his exposition in the key verse, cited in 4:3, of Genesis 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The focus is especially on the nature and meaning of Abraham’s believing. Another way to look at the chapter, then, is in terms of a series of antitheses by which Paul unfolds the significance of Abraham’s faith—and of ours:
1. Faith is something completely different from “works” (vv. 3–8).
2. Faith does not depend on any religious ceremony (e.g., circumcision) (vv. 9–12).
3. Faith is not related to the law (vv. 13–17).
4. Faith often rests in a promise that flies in the face of what is natural and normal (vv. 18–22).
As he does so often in Romans (see also 3:1, 9, 27; 4:9; 6:1, 15; 7:1, 7, 13; 9:14, 30; 10:14; 11:1, 11), Paul uses a question to introduce the next stage of his argument. The question he asks in 4:1 about what Abraham “discovered in this matter” relates to the argument of 3:27–31. Paul introduces Abraham here for two reasons. (1) The Jews revered Abraham as both the ancestor of God’s people and as a model of faithfulness to the law. If the apostle is to convince Christians in Rome who know Jewish history and tradition to endorse the gospel of justification by faith, he must prove that Abraham, in fact, is on his side in this dispute.
(2) Abraham is a key figure in God’s plan of salvation as revealed in the Old Testament. One of Paul’s purposes in Romans is to demonstrate that the gospel is in continuity with the Old Testament (see, e.g., 1:2; 3:21). Proving that the story of Abraham fits into Paul’s conception of salvation history is an important step toward this goal.
Having introduced Abraham in 4:1, Paul now moves directly to the attack: “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [as, apparently, at least some Jews believed], he has something to boast about [and our argument in 3:27–31 that boasting is excluded falls to the ground].” Paul immediately responds to his line of argument: “but not before God.” Just what Paul means by this response is not clear. He may mean that Abraham’s justification by works would give him a reason to boast before other people—but not before God.1 But the logic of Paul’s argument, as 4:3–8 reveals, is to reject the possibility of justification by works at all. Thus, his response probably means something like “from God’s perspective, Abraham has no right at all to boast because he was not, and could not be, justified by works.”2
Paul grounds this response in Scripture (4:3). Genesis 15:6 is a foundational Old Testament verse for Paul’s characteristic emphasis on justification by faith (see also Gal. 3:6). This verse describes Abraham’s response to God’s promise that he would have descendants as innumerable as the stars in the sky. But this promise, in turn, stands in a sequence of similar divine promises to Abraham about his role as the founder of a nation and mediator of worldwide blessing (see esp. Gen. 12:1–3). So Paul probably reads Genesis 15:6 as a summary of Abraham’s response to God’s promise to him generally.
But what does “crediting” Abraham’s faith “as righteousness” mean? Some interpreters think the text equates Abraham’s faith with righteousness. That is, Abraham’s belief is taken by God to be a righteous act. Jewish tradition tended to take this interpretation. But the Hebrew construction in this verse (awkwardly taken over in the Greek) suggests a different interpretation. “Crediting” Abraham’s faith as righteousness means “to account to him a righteousness that does not inherently belong to him.”3 When Abraham believed God, God granted him the status of “righteousness”; he considered him “right” before God.
Paul himself is concerned to unpack the significance of this “crediting” of Abraham’s faith for righteousness. Thus, in 4:4–5 he explains the nature of this crediting and in verses 6–8 furnishes further scriptural support for the idea. Note, then, how Paul returns to the language of “crediting” both at the end of verse 5, in verse 6, and again in the quotation in verse 8 (the word translated “count” represents the same Greek word [logizomai] translated “credited”).
The logic of verses 4–5 is not easy to understand at first sight because Paul does not express the major premise of his argument. Thus it may be helpful to unpack his logic in a slightly different arrangement of his argument:
When we “work,” an employer pays us wages not “as a gift” but “as an obligation” (v. 4).
God is a God of grace, who always gives freely and without constraint; he can never be “obligated” to any person (the assumed premise in the argument).
Therefore, God cannot “credit” human beings anything on the basis of their “works” (v. 5)
The premise we have added is implied in the language of “gift” in verse 4 and the famous assertion of verse 5 that God “justifies the wicked.” Indeed, the fact that God always relates to his creatures freely and without compulsion, by grace, is a theological axiom in Paul. That is, this is a fundamental perspective on God that he never argues but assumes as self-evident. If God were to justify people on the basis of their works, this axiom would be violated: God would be giving people something they had earned. In the context of this argument, then, Paul’s description of the Christian as one who “does not work” (v. 5) is not, as Morris puts it, “canonizing laziness.”4 As the contrast shows (“but who trusts God”), Paul is referring to the fact that Christians do not base their relationship to God on their actions.
In typical Jewish fashion, Paul now confirms the truth he has found in a text from the “Law” (Gen. 15:6) with a text from the “Writings” (see Bridging Contexts section). He quotes Psalm 32:1–2a. In these verses, David joins his testimony to that of Moses, revealing that it is people “to whom God credits righteousness apart from works” that are truly blessed. Since Paul sees this verse as confirmation of his interpretation of Genesis 15:6, his careful wording shows that the view of Genesis 15:6 we defended above is on the right track.
The key point in what David says in Psalm 32 for Paul is that the people who are blessed are not those who have earned something from God; they are the ones who have received something from him. Their transgressions are forgiven, their sins “covered,” and God does not hold their sin against them. That these people continue to sin is obvious, but God does not hold their sin against them. He accepts them and blesses them. These verses therefore confirm what Paul has argued in Romans 4:4–5: God “justifies the wicked.” That is, he “declares innocent” people who are really not, in themselves, innocent. He grants them a status they have not earned and do not deserve.
Here we find the heart of the good news: God accepts us, through our faith, just as we are. In his grace he “covers” our sins, not counting them against us. We will elaborate this point in the Contemporary Significance section.
Bridging Contexts
MODERN READERS UNACQUAINTED with Jewish methods of scriptural argument or with the way Abraham was understood in Paul’s day cannot fully appreciate the argument of verses 1–8. So we will briefly survey each of these points.
Abraham. The story of Abraham in Genesis 12–22 revolves around God’s promise to Abraham. The basic elements of that promise are found in Genesis 12:2–3. God promises that Abraham will become a great nation, that he will magnify and bless Abraham, and that Abraham, in turn, will be a cause of blessing for “all peoples on earth.” Time passes, yet Abraham remains childless. God therefore responds to Abraham’s concern by renewing his promise about descendants and emphasizing that they will possess the land of Israel. God then ratifies his promise by entering into a covenant with Abraham (ch. 15).
A further step comes in Genesis 17. God elaborates on his promise, stressing especially the many nations that will come from Abraham (vv. 4–6) and the land that Abraham’s descendants will have as an “everlasting possession” (v. 8). God then institutes circumcision as a “sign of the covenant” between God and Abraham (v. 11). He also promises that Abraham’s descendants will come from his union with Sarah, even though she is past child-bearing age (vv. 15–16). Abraham laughs at the idea of Sarah having a child (vv. 17–18), as does Sarah herself when the promise is later renewed (18:10–12). Yet God fulfills the promise, and Isaac is born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age (21:1–7).
The last significant stage in the history of Abraham and the promise comes when God tests Abraham by ordering him to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, an order that is rescinded at the last minute (Gen. 22). Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, God’s people refer to the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the foundation for their existence and hope for the future (e.g., Ex. 32:13; Deut. 1:8).
Jews in Paul’s day continued and elaborated this tradition. They revered Abraham as their “father” (see Isa. 51:1–2; m. Qidd. 4.14; cf. Rom. 4:1), the ancestor to whom they could trace their own unique status as God’s covenant people. His life was a model of true piety. The following representative texts give a sense of how highly Jews regarded Abraham:
Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well-pleasing in righteousness all the days of his life. (Jubilees 23:10)
Abraham … did not sin against you. (Prayer of Manasseh 8)
Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness? (1 Macc. 2:52)
Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations,
and no one has been found like him in glory.
He kept the law of the Most High,
and entered into a covenant with him;
he certified the covenant in his flesh,
and when he was tested he proved faithful.
Therefore the Lord assured him with an oath
that the nations would be blessed through his offspring;
that he would make him as numerous as the dust of the earth,
and exalt his offspring like the stars,
and give them an inheritance from sea to sea
and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth. (Sirach 44:19–21)
Especially important for what Paul says about Abraham in Romans 4 is the tendency, revealed in these sources, to attach Abraham’s righteousness to the “testing” episode of Genesis 22 and to draw a connection between God’s covenant with Abraham and his obedience of the law. In contrast, Paul argues that Abraham’s faith in response to the promise of God was the basis for his righteousness (Rom. 4:3) and that the law had nothing to do with his stature or the promise made to him (4:13–16).
Methods of citing the Old Testament. The significance of Genesis 15:6 for all of chapter 4 is obvious. Paul introduces this text as the basis for his exposition (Rom. 4:3), closes his argument with another formal reference to the verse (4:22), and refers to its language throughout (vv. 5, 6, 8, 9). Romans 4, then, is an exposition of Genesis 15:6 or, at least, a theological reflection on this passage of the Pentateuch. This kind of broad elaboration of an Old Testament passage (often given the term midrash) was common among the Jews in Paul’s day. Many scholars use this term to describe Romans 4. But considerable debate surrounds the proper meaning and application of this term, so we should probably be cautious in using it here. Yet the way Paul plays various themes on a single text was familiar to his first readers.
Another specific element in Paul’s use of the Old Testament in this chapter is also familiar: the corroboration of the point he makes about Genesis 15:6 by appealing to Psalm 32:1–2a. In our day, Jews typically divide the Old Testament into three basic parts: the “Law” (torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch), the “Prophets” (nebiʿim, including books like Samuel and Kings), and the “Writings” (ketubim, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). Indeed, a common Jewish way of denoting the Old Testament is to use the first three letters from these Hebrew names: the “Tanak.” In Paul’s day, Jews often collapsed together the second and third parts of the Old Testament.
The point of all this is that a common method of argumentation from Scripture was to cite passages from both the “Law” and the “Prophets and Writings”—just as Paul does. Furthermore, Paul follows a common Jewish practice by using a common word as the link between these passages: In both Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1–2a we find the crucial term “credited” or “reckoned” (logizomai). The Jews called this technique gezerah shewa (“equal decision”).
Whatever we call it, therefore, Paul’s way of arguing from the Old Testament was thoroughly familiar to his readers in Rome, who, whatever their ethnic background, were conversant with Jewish tradition. Yet these same Jewish techniques can pose a problem for modern readers, for many do not recognize them today as legitimate methods of interpretation. The problem is a big one, and we will return to it elsewhere. Suffice to say here that the techniques Paul uses in chapter 4 should prove no stumbling block to us. The significance the apostle finds in Genesis 15:6 is fair to that text, and his association of that text with Psalm 32:1–2a is based more on a genuinely common theme than on a common word.
Contemporary Significance
JUSTIFYING THE WICKED. The “God who justifies the wicked” (v. 5) is a famous, troubling, and controversial description of God. It is famous because it expresses in a compact way the essence of the traditional Protestant view of justification: that when God justifies us, he does not change us morally but rather grants us a new “legal” status before him. Most Christian theologians before the Reformation had taught that justification included both acceptance with God and a transformation of our very being. They generally believed also that people had to “prepare” themselves to receive God’s gift of justification, that God declared people righteous who really were righteous because of the prior working of God’s grace in a person’s life.
Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers insisted that Paul taught otherwise. They systematically separated “justification” from “regeneration” and “sanctification” and argued that a person could do nothing to prepare himself or herself for God’s justifying work. One can easily understand how Romans 4:5 was an important proof text for the Reformers’ view. By boldly asserting that it is “the wicked” whom God justifies, Paul makes clear that justification is his creative, “synthetic,” act by which he accounts a person righteous in his sight—a person who is really not, in himself or herself, righteous. Justification, as the Reformers put it in their famous slogans, is sola gratia, “by grace alone,” and sola fidei, “by faith alone.”
What can be troubling about the idea that God “justifies the wicked” is that it seems to make God guilty of an injustice. He does, in fact, what he told judges in the Old Testament never to do (Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23) and what he himself pledges not to do: “I will not acquit [or justify] the guilty” (Ex. 23:7). The Reformers’ understanding has therefore been criticized as a violation of principles of justice, a “legal fiction” that makes no sense whatsoever.
The Reformers responded to such criticisms by advancing the idea of “imputed righteousness.” The people whom God justifies are not righteous in themselves. But because they are “in Christ,” his perfect righteousness is “credited” to them. God’s justification is ultimately “just,” then, because it is based on the righteousness that every believer has in Christ. Even theologians who accept the general Reformation position on justification debate whether this idea is correct or not. I am not sure myself about the idea, although it makes logical sense and has some exegetical basis (see, e.g., Rom. 8:1–4; 2 Cor. 5:20).
But it is important to bring out into the open one of the main reasons why a lot of theologians find the idea of “imputed righteousness” troubling: It is perceived as letting Christians “off the hook” in their own pursuit of holiness. If Christ’s righteousness is credited to us and he fulfills the law in our place, then we might conclude it is unimportant whether we actually please God or not. Has not Christ already done it for us? Or, to relate the objection to the general Reformation teaching on justification: If God justifies us while we are “wicked,” why should we bother trying to lead holy lives? God has already accepted us, right?
This objection is an old one, as Romans 6 reveals. We will have a chance there to explore Paul’s response to it in some detail. But what must be said here is that Paul’s teaching about God’s “justifying the wicked” cannot be seen in isolation. Yes, it is clear that God puts us right before him when we are still sinners and that justification in itself does not change our moral status or basic nature. But Paul insists that God does more than “justify” us when we become Christians. He also “regenerates” us, “sanctifies” us, and causes his Spirit to indwell us. These acts of God change us “from within.” Paul is one with James in insisting that a genuine Christian must always reveal the transforming work of God in a new life of obedience. But what the Reformers saw so clearly—and I think so accurately—was that becoming a Christian is first and foremost a change in our status before God. Sentenced to eternal death because of sin, God intervenes in a sheer act of grace and declares us innocent before him.
What difference to us does it make when we truly appreciate that we are justified “by grace alone,” “by faith alone”? Perhaps the most important thing is an overwhelming sense of amazement at what God has done for us, an amazement that immediately spills over into worship. It is not by accident that some of our greatest hymns focus on just this sense of awe at the grace of God. We sing of “amazing grace,” “amazing love”—and truly it is amazing that the almighty and all-holy God would give us, people who live sinfully in rebellion against him, a new status of righteousness, completely free of charge.
Once we truly understand this, worship follows as a matter of course. This is why it is so important that our worship singing focuses on God and not on ourselves. Well-crafted, theologically accurate lyrics set to effective music is one of the greatest stimulants to worship that God has given his people. May we use that gift well!