Synopsis on Romans (Part 4- Chapter 4:9 -17)

A couple notes about the previous verses that I forgot to include:

First, my comments on the first eight verses of chapter 4 fall in line with a covenantal view where one freely enters into the covenant but must have works to remain in the covenant and for the covenant to be fulfilled by God (BTW I might soon do a post on Abraham's covenant to validate this). In other words, at first one is justified freely by faith, but if there is time to, one must have works in addition to trust in God to remain justified. But with that said, I find impressing the idea of covenant upon Romans any more than as simply a possible explanatory framework of how Paul's theology developed is pressing too much on Paul's message in my opinion.

Secondly, I alluded to this point a little bit, but I failed to develop it further. The importance of faith in justification is that it is by faith that righteous character springs forth. Paul states in 1:18. Also, this is central to Paul's discourse on Jesus' faith. Faith is the human means of obtaining righteous obedience. This is important point to see in Paul's development of faith in order to see what Paul is stating in 4:1-8; not that faith is some part of a checklist needed to be fulfilled to be justified, but rather that it is the human means by which the righteous life may be lived and hence it is acceptable to justification.

Third, while I concluded my previous post at verse 8, it would in fact be a mistake to think that Paul's primary motivation was to prove that works were not necessary to first become justified. He does on the side prove that point, but it is only a minor point with him in this letter. He is trying to prove that a person does not need the works of the Law in order to become justified. The point is made by noting that Abraham was justified by faith before he was ever circumcised. If God credited Abraham with righteousness before circumcision and if God is one who does not change His dealings with humanity (implicit in Paul's argumentation), then the conclusion that could be drawn is that it was never necessary to be circumcised to be justified (and by implication the Law as a whole).

What was the role of circumcision then? Paul states that it was a seal or a sign of the righteousness he had beforehand when he trusted in God. The question that must be asked here about this is whether this seal was a sign of God seeing Abraham as righteous or as a sign that Abraham was vindicated by his obedience in being circumcised. If we presume that Paul is pulling this from what is said in the Old Testament narrative (specifically in Genesis 17 here), the latter is probable. There is no statement from God to the effect of "this is a sign of my acceptance of you" or "you are righteous, therefore I ask you to be circumcised" Rather, God simply commands Abraham and his household to be circumcised as part of the covenant. As the narrative reveals in Genesis 17:23, Abraham obeys God's command. It is from this part of the patriarchal story that Paul concludes that circumcision was a sign of righteousness. Or another way to put it is that circumcision is the sign that Abraham is obedient to God.

Now faith was also pivotal to the story of Abraham. Because Abraham trusted that God would fulfill the covenant He had made and because Abraham believed that God would give him a son to be his heir (compare Genesis 15:1-6 with 17:15-21), Abraham in turn obeyed God's command for circumcision. So faith here is the human means needed to accomplish righteous obedience.

What is the result of all this? Paul states there are two conclusions. First off, the uncircumcised who do not have Abraham has a genealogical father may be a father for all those that do believe. Once again, this must be seen in light of the Genesis story. Paul is stating that the whole world can in effect become part of Abraham's promise regarding his descendants. The concept of "father" and the promise Abraham received is being broadened by Paul. It now being envisioned as meaning a person who does something that other people then do later on (though not necessarily by cognitively following the example of the "father").

Paul then shifts focus to those of the circumcision, which is synonymous with being Jewish. Abraham was to be a father to them too, but there was another qualification they needed. They needed to follow in Abraham's example of faith. Otherwise, Abraham is their father only in the biological sense, but not necessarily a true descendant according to the promise given to Abraham (mentioned in the follow verse). This coincides with the thrust of Romans 9, which we will address more at that point.

Why then are those who are not circumcised included? And why are those who circumcised must also have faith? Because the promise Abraham received came when he had trust in God but had not yet been circumcised, although it is a bit more than that. How exactly was this promise received? And what exactly is the promise that Abraham is referring to? It is all likely a reference to the story of Genesis 12.

In Genesis 12, Abram is told two things. First, he was told to leave his home and go into a new land that God would show him. Secondly, as a result of going he would then be made a great nation and all families of the earth would be blessed because of him (the Hebrew waw-consecutive verb would argue this). What happens next? Abram goes off. As a result, God then says that his descendants would inherit the land he had come to (the waw-consecutive again).

Lets read between the lines in this story. God commanded and conjoined a blessing to it if Abraham went. Abraham did. How was the obedience to God's command initialized (for lack of a less technical term) in Abram though? Implicit here is that Abram believed God. His obedience allowed him to follow through with God's command to him (this echoes the statement of the Pauline influence letter of Hebrews in 11:8). Once Abraham traveled there, God gave him the promise that his descendants would inherit the land. So we can infer that if Abram had not obeyed, Abram would not have received the promise. But more than that, if Abram had not trusted God, he would not have obeyed God, and therefore would not have received the promise.

It is because of that that Paul can say that the promise was received not merely by faith, but by the righteousness of faith (synonymous with the obedience that comes from faith). Both the righteousness/obedience and the trust in God are necessary. This serves as a natural contrast against the righteousness that comes from the Law, as opposed to merely a belief that does not follow through with obedience.

Now there still is the matter on what basis can Abram would become an "heir of the world." There are two possible interpretation of this phrase. One is that Abraham would receive the entire world. However, there is not Old Testament precedent for this and that premise is also lacking the context of Romans. So the second interpretation would be taking "world" as referring to the world of people, Jews and Gentiles (or circumcised and uncircumcised) alike. So a better translation would be "the world's heir," identifying Abraham as the one through whom the world, Jews and Gentiles alike, would receive an inheritance. This comes from Paul transplanting his idea of both circumcised and uncircumcised alike having Abraham as a "father" upon the "descendants" of Genesis 12:7. It is in all likelihood not a direct reference to Genesis 17:4, as it does not directly talk about inheritance that would constitute a reference of being an "heir" (though doubtlessly it influences Paul's view of "father" and "descendants" as 4:16-17 shows, which in turn affected his interpretation of Genesis 12:7).

Nor does Paul mean to see "the promise" as collective of all the episodes centered around the covenant between God and Abraham in addition to Genesis 12. It is an interesting interpretation on the part of some, such as Douglas Moo. However, it is rather unnatural, especially considering that Paul is developing his argumentation from specific episodes and not so much general themes or ideas. Plus a specific phrase like "the righteousness of faith" suggests a particular means of reception, which would more naturally be taken as a reference to an episode of the "righteousness of faith" where it could be seen as being the cause of reception, rather than merely a broad generalization with no one specific episode in mind about the nature of the promise (which it would have to be if "the promise" is collective).

Having now established through Abram's life and how what he found (look back to 4:1), Paul goes on to state that the Law if it is essentially is mutually exclusive to faith and the promise in verse 14. In other words, it can not be a mixture of the two. The reason why is because the Law ultimately brings about wrath for those who are under it and thus invalidates those who do have the Law to follow it. Also, Paul is not validating an antinomian premise when he states "where there is no law, there is no violation." He is not affirming there is no type of law at all, but rather he is giving a general proposition. If the Law of Moses is not in effect for the the inheritance, then it brings up no violation that takes away the right of inheritance. There is in fact another law that is in effect than can disqualify one, but it is the law of faith (or the righteousness that comes from trust in God) that Paul has talked about.

From his argumentation, Paul infers that the inheritance is received by faith. There are two results from that. First off, grace is shown to people on the basis of faith, as his argumentation showed 4:1-8. Secondly, the promise of an inheritance is not given only to those who have the Law, in exclusion of the rest of the world, but it is given to all who have the same type of faith that Abraham had (notice Abraham has an example of faith, just as Christ is an example of faith in chapter 3).

Here Paul then calls Abraham father of everyone, based upon the statement of Genesis 17:5 that he quotes. This goes back to the expanded meaning of "father," where Abraham walks in the life of faith and the others follows in the pattern he had. However, it is at this point then that Paul goes on to allow Abraham's "fatherhood" to be more than just a mere example-copy relationship.

Paul then makes a statement that has resounds with the statement of the John the Baptist, as recorded in Matthew 3:9 (amongst other places). I would contend the reference of life to the dead is a implicit reference to the idea that John the Baptist presented about raising up (or resurrecting) children of Abraham from lifeless (or dead) rocks. After that then, Paul proclaims that God can speak into existence that which is not yet the case. Or in other words, those who are not descendants of Abraham God can make them descendants. So in addition to the example-copy meaning of "father," Paul also includes a more "spiritual" connotation to it (see Galatians 3:29). While generally double meanings are to be avoided in interpretations, Paul here purposefully does it to convey both the idea of following a pattern and the idea of a spiritual family (however one should not press the concept of spiritual family too far in an exegesis of Romans).

While I initially intended to complete chapter 4 in this post, it was getting rather long so I conclude it here at a logical stopping point. The next post I should in fact finish Romans 4.