Paul has spent the past two-and-a-half chapters making his case that everyone, both Jews and Gentiles alike, is in the same position before God: in need a salvation that is grounded not in performing the ‘works of the Law’ but a relationship grounded in faith(fulness). But if that’s the case, one might wonder, why would God suddenly flip the script on Israel? In the passage we’ll look at today, Paul argues, through a fascinating reinterpretation of the Abraham story, that it’s actually been about faith all along.
Summary Text
(Because this post deals with a whole chapter, I won’t translate it all here. Instead, here’s a summary. Please consult your preferred Bible for the whole text)
If we are now saved by faith, why didn’t God establish the covenant on these terms in the first place? Well actually, it’s always been about faith, from Abraham on. “Abraham had faith in God and it was credited to him as justice” (Genesis 15.6); so Abraham was justified by faith, not works. The covenant and promise God made with Abraham, that he would be the father of many nations and so inherit the world and bless it was not a reward for his circumcision or Law-following more generally. The fact that Law came later did not undo that faith-based covenant. In a sense, the Law only serves to create sin, since you can’t break a law you don’t have. So the covenant is and has always been based on faith. In Abraham’s case, he trusted in God’s promises despite the long delays in their fulfillment and his (and Sarah’s) advancing age. So it is right that his faith was credited to him as justice. It’s the same with us. We too will be considered to be just and right with God on account of our good-faith relationship with Jesus, whom God raised from the dead for our justification after he was killed on account of our sins.
Experience
When I read Romans 4, I’m struck by Paul’s great rhetorical turn here, turning Israel’s founding father into a poster-child for justification by faith(fulness). At the same time, I know that it relies on a pretty narrow way of reading Abraham’s story, so I wonder what might be said about that, and the appropriateness of Paul’s choice. Finally, I also notice the way Paul ends the passage with a quasi-credal statement about Jesus, and I’m curious as to how this description fits into the range of atonement images and theories.
Encounter
The main character here is Abraham, whom Paul uses as a historical exemplar for saving faith. We also encounter God, upon whose initiative all this rests.
Explore
Three questions have arisen in the study so far that merit further investigation:
- How does Paul’s use of the Abraham story fit into his larger argument structure?
- Is this a fair reading of the Abraham story?
- How does the end of the chapter describe the work of Jesus?
We’ll look at the first and third here in this section, and take up the second in the ‘Challenge’ step.
Argument and Rhetoric
This section takes the form of another diatribe, asking and then answering imagined objections. Here, Paul answers the question through the rhetorical device of exemplum (historical precedent), in this case a midrash, a Jewish literary genre which expands on and provides theological commentary on Scripture (Witherington 113; Gorman, Eberhart). As the patriarch originally called by God, Abraham had long been seen as the “epitome” of Judaism, and so was the natural choice: If it was going to be true for Jews it would have to be true of Abraham (Eberhart; Witherington 115). In his midrash, Paul emphasizes the themes of chapter 3: works, what it means to be right with God, faith(fulness), and circumcision.
In Second Temple Jewish literature, Abraham was understood to be the perfect law-keeper, someone justly rewarded for his obedience to God: leaving his homeland, circumcising himself and his household, and faithfully waiting to see the fulfillment of God’s promises. But Paul flips this on its head: No, God declared Abraham ‘just’ for trusting God’s promise in Genesis 15, long before any legal stipulation. Circumcision, which does not appear until decades after this encounter (Genesis 17), does not create the relationship but is its sign, or seal. (I’m reminded of a few married couples I know who did not buy official wedding bands until years into their marriage; a relationship exists apart from its symbols.) To support his argument, Paul quotes Psalm 31, attributed to David, which likewise emphasizes God’s grace and human trust in it, rather than Law-following, in establishing the right relationship with God (Gorman; Eberhart).
Therefore, in Paul’s reading, Abraham is not the posterchild for following the law but for faith, and is therefore not only the forefather of Jews but also, spiritually speaking, of faithful Gentiles too. Within Paul’s larger argument, this disarms claims to superiority by both Jewish and Gentile Jesus-followers. For on the one hand, it means that the Jewish persons in Paul’s audience can’t claim Abraham as their own, but on the other hand, it also means that the Gentiles must abandon any supercessionist ideas because their salvation is grounded in Abraham’s example (Witherington 116; Nanos 430).
All this is about God’s grace and God’s initiative. Abraham was certainly called to action and obedience, just as his Hebrew descendants were when they received the Law on Sinai, and just as we who are ‘in Christ’ are called to obedience (remember from chapter 1 that the goal of Paul’s gospel message is “the obedience of faith” (1.5)). But in none of those cases is the relationship established because of that obedience. It is only initiated by God’s gracious kindness and established through our trust and good-faith response to it (Eberhart; Gorman; Gaventa). As Gorman notes, this emphasis on God’s initiative is heightened by all the passive verbs found in the story: Abraham may be the main character, but it’s God who is taking all of the action.
From Abraham to Christ
At the end of the passage, Paul transitions from talking about Abraham to talking about Jesus:
[4.20] He did not waver in a lack of faith when it came to God’s promises, but grew strong in faith giving glory to God [21] and having full assurance that God is able to do what was promised. [22] It was on this account that it was ‘credited to him as justice.’ [23] Now, ‘it was credited to him’ was not written for only his sake, [24] but also for the sake of us to whom it will be credited, who are faithful to the one who raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, [25] who was betrayed for the sake of our trespasses and was raised for the sake of setting us to rights.
This is the crux of Paul’s midrash: in just the same way as Abraham’s trust and faithfulness to God’s promises ‘was credited to’ him for putting him in right relationship with God, so too is our trust and faithfulness in the resurrection of Jesus ‘credited to’ us for putting us in right relationship with God (Gorman). It’s interesting to note that Abraham’s faith is described in terms of “giving glory to God,” which is the very thing Paul said was lacking from humanity writ large in 1.21-23.
At first glance, the quick transition from Abraham’s trust in God’s promises to our trust in Christ’s resurrection seems to come out of nowhere. But, as Gorman points out, Paul has foreshadowed this turn in the way he wrote about Abraham’s story. Abraham was “as good as dead” (literally, “already dead”) when he was awaiting God’s promises and understood the “deadness” (nekrosis) of Sarah’s womb (4.19). As Gorman notes, in a society where children were understood to be a continuation of one’s own life, “a barren womb and the lack of children were a living death.” And so, trust in God’s promise was in a real way for Abraham trust in a kind of resurrection from the dead:
Ultimately, then, Abraham bears witness not only to the nature of faith as trust, hope, and fidelity but also to the nature of justification—receiving both the forgiving mercy of God and the new, resurrection life of God. (Gorman)
Challenge
But now we have to ask the awkward question: Is this a fair reading of Abraham’s story? Scholars are quick to point out that the Scriptures do focus on Abraham’s obedience (Gaventa; Eberhart; Witherington 119). The Deuterocanonical book of Sirach is representative when it writes:
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. (Sirach 44:19–21a; cf, Wisdom 10:5; 1 Maccabees 2:52; 4 Maccabees 16:20; 2 Baruch 57.2)
Rabbinic Judaism likewise focuses on Abraham’s obedience: “We find that Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given…” (Mishnah Kiddushin 4.14, quoted by Witherington 123). Even in the New Testament, Abraham’s obedience is often the focus (e.g., Acts 7.3-4; Hebrews 11.8). So Paul is definitely reinterpreting Abraham’s story. But to what extent? Once again, it call comes down to what we’re talking about when we’re talking about faith. For Abraham’s example perfectly captures the two-way, relational definition of faith on which I’ve insisted throughout this series. Abraham’s faith put him in right relationship with God but that faith looked like leaving his home in Mesopotamia, trusting in God’s promises despite all appearances, and following through with his covenant responsibilities. These actions did not ‘save’ him — his relationship with God saved him — but they are what his good-faith relationship with God looked like. In the same way as you don’t ‘earn’ your marriage by doing your chores and caring for your spouse but these things are just what a marriage relationship looks like, so too are ‘good works’, including identity markers like circumcision or baptism, what a good-faith relationship with God looks like.
One of the most successful and important aspects of the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ has been its (correct) recognition that contrary to traditional Protestant understandings, Judaism is not and has never been a religion of ‘works salvation’. God’s election of Abraham and Israel was always understood to be ‘by grace’ (to use Christian language). So Paul’s interpretation of the Abraham story is creative but primarily in a) focusing on the grounds of the relationship (as Gaventa helpfully frames it, “on promise rather than covenant”) and b) including the Gentiles within its orbit. As Witherington notes, Paul is a narrative rather than a systematic theologian, and is happy to repurpose stories for his present needs; in Galatians, for example, Paul had previously used the Abraham story, but in a different way and to suit different rhetorical needs (Witherington 115; cf Eberhart).
One final point to consider here is that if Paul was addressing a competitive, hustle- and merit-based culture in which grace was a foreign idea, that described Gentile Roman culture, not Jewish culture. So once again, the thrust of his argument has something to challenge his whole audience, including those of both Jewish and Gentile heritage (Eberhart).
Expand
How does this reading of Romans 4 help to grow in faith? Mostly, by reaffirming the whole argument so far, that everyone no matter their religious or ethnic heritage enters into relationship with God on the same grounds: faith. But by creatively retelling Abraham’s story, Paul also reminds us that there is always more than one way to interpret a story, and we would do well to follow his example of openness, curiosity and ‘what else’-ness when we read our Scriptures.
Summary & Conclusions
In this section, Paul heads off criticisms of his argument on the grounds of Abraham’s election by insisting that Abraham was put in right relationship with God by trusting in God’s promises, not for the obedience that that trust ultimately required of him. In the same way, he argues, are we also put into right relationship by trusting in God’s promises as enacted in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, irrespective of the ‘obedience of faith’ that that also requires of us.
* For full references, please see the series bibliography.
Matthew Root 