Blessed: A Survey of Romans 4:1-25

Paul concluded his chapter on mankind’s depravity with a startling proposition: the only way to be declared righteous is through faith, not works, and this applies to both Jews and Gentiles. Naturally, Jewish people are skeptical of such a claim: do gentiles really get saved in the same way as God’s covenant people? Doesn’t an emphasis on faith undercut the importance of the law?

The apostle responds to these concerns by addressing them directly. He speaks to the Jewish members of his audience, those who, like him, can point to Abraham as their “forefather according to the flesh.”

The Gift of Justification (1-8)

The opening question, “What then…was gained by Abraham…?” is answered with the single word ‘justification.’ Abraham found or obtained justification, so that he is treated as righteous before God. As one of the most significant figures in Jewish history, Abraham’s example is definitive: whatever Paul can rightfully argue from Abraham must be accepted as true.

If Abraham obtained his right standing before God through doing lawful deeds, then he can claim that he contributed a part (or all) to his own right standing. Paul adds the caveat, “but not before God,” essentially meaning, “but he could never make such a boast in God’s presence.” Paul is filling us in on the fact that no man has the right to make such a boast, and hence, this approach to justification is logically impossible.

In fact, Scripture itself denies that this is the approach that Abraham used to be right in God’s sight. Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6. Abraham received the promise of becoming a great nation years earlier, but though he has left everything, the promise seems no closer to fulfillment. In fact, Abraham just finished rescuing his nephew Lot, and he returned all the spoils of war to the king of Sodom. When God appears to him with encouragement, Abraham is clearly bothered about the promise: he reminds God that he continues ‘childless.’ God directs his attention to the brilliant stars of the near eastern sky, stating that Abraham’s offspring would resemble their multitude. “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”

Abraham’s ‘faith’ – a simple trust in the God who makes promises – was ‘counted’ as righteousness. This word (which we’ve already noticed before) implies that it was ‘put down in the ledger books’ under the ‘righteousness’ column. God is able to treat Abraham as an innocent man – even a righteous man – not because of Abraham’s moral deeds, but because Abraham takes God at his word.

In verses 4-5, Paul outlines two ways in which justification, this right legal standing, can be obtained. The first approach is through performing moral deeds. In this case, justification is not a gift but essentially a paycheck for one’s efforts. Paul implies, without stating, that this is obviously illogical: how can we think that God ‘owes’ anything to us, or that we ‘deserve’ anything from God?

The other approach, which Abraham clearly used, is to “believe in him who justifies the ungodly.” For the man who does so, “his faith is counted as righteousness.” Such a person is treated by God as ‘righteous.’ Nor is this righteousness a mere legal fiction: the individual actually has righteousness, as Paul himself states in verse 11. But this isn’t because his deeds are righteous or his life is reformed. This righteousness is the gift of God, external to himself, and solely due to God’s grace. Indeed, to the casual observer, it appears that God has ‘randomly’ written ‘faith’ in the ‘righteousness’ column of the ledger. Later on, Paul will explain why this isn’t random; but for now, he is proving that righteousness is obtained by this external working of God.

Carrying on with the illustration of the balance books that Paul uses, even ‘faith’ should be understood as merely a ‘placeholder’ in the accounting. God doesn’t look on faith as a moral deed that, like other law-keeping, could merit or deserve righteousness. Instead, faith is merely a placeholder in the ledger, and wherever that is written, it means that God undertakes to provide the righteousness for that person’s account. This idea is subtle but significant. It is why Paul can rightly speak of a person as possessing righteousness (as he does in verse 11) so that this is not simply a legal fiction or God ‘pretending.’ At the same time, it explains why Paul always refers to faith as being counted ‘as’ righteousness rather than ‘being’ the righteousness itself. This, in turn, keeps us from thinking of faith as merely another moral or legal deed that entitles us to something from God.

Although Jews may be uncomfortable with the idea, Paul is clearly willing to refer to Abraham as an ‘ungodly’ person. This is backed up by the Old Testament, such as in Joshua 24:2-3, where Abraham is described as an individual whom God pulled out of an idol-worshipping family. Clearly, Abraham’s right standing before God is due to God’s initiative. If Abraham himself can be described as ‘ungodly,’ then it is clear that everyone else is, too.

Paul buttresses his case by referring to another Old Testament saint, David, who also experienced justification apart from moral deeds. David is an individual who deserves nothing from God: his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah clearly put him outside the list of individuals who could hope to ‘deserve’ any innocent verdict from God. Nevertheless, David is ‘righteous,’ accepted in God’s eyes. In Psalm 32:1-2, David hymns the wonders of this righteousness. He doesn’t chalk it up to his own law-keeping but presents it entirely as the gift of God: forgiveness is an undeserved act.

David’s sins of adultery and murder are clearly deeds that should go down in the balance-books. David is guilty, and he deserves God’s wrath. What is wonderful is that God ‘forgives,’ he ‘covers,’ and he does not ‘count’ this sin against David. God chooses to remove David’s sins from the record. Once again, this could appear to be a random act on God’s part, which Paul will explain later in more detail. At present, it is enough to see that this murderous adulterer is completely innocent in God’s sight. Such a criminal clearly received a gift that he didn’t deserve. This is why David is so ecstatic about God’s forgiveness; it’s a blessing of the highest order. Any sinner who receives such forgiveness can be considered among the ‘favored’ or ‘uniquely blessed’ individuals on earth.

What is the nature of the righteousness that David speaks of in verses 7-8? To this point, Paul has spoken of the ‘righteousness of God,’ referring to a gift that given to the ungodly. This seems to imply that it is something active – ‘positive righteousness.’ ‘Positive righteousness’ refers to a sinner actually having goodness and righteousness on their account, so that they are morally good or right. Isn’t that what God’s righteousness is like? But David’s quote seems to imply the opposite. David doesn’t reference this positive reference, only a ‘negative righteousness.’ Far from implying that there is anything on the ‘good’ side of the ledger, David’s righteousness seems to consist entirely in removing the ‘bad’ from the account. 

In fact, both are true. Righteousness consists of both negative and positive righteousness, the sin removed from the account and moral goodness added to it. At this point, Paul is focusing on negative righteousness, but later his focus will shift to positive righteousness (specifically, in chapter 5). Yet as sinners, those who are charged as being ‘under sin,’ the great need of the hour is for the slate to be ‘wiped clean.’ As long as we are condemned as sinners, there is no hope of escaping God’s judgment. This is why forgiveness is such a crucial aspect of the righteousness that God gifts.

The Father of the Faithful (9-16)

Paul’s next question has to do with the qualifications for this gift. Since David was a circumcised Jew, many Jews probably assumed that one must be a member of the covenant to receive forgiveness of sins.

Paul returns back to Abraham and points out that the great patriarch was uncircumcised at the time when his faith was counted as righteousness. Abraham believed in Genesis 15, but it wasn’t until Genesis 17 – at least 13 years later – that Abraham was told about circumcision. Hence, circumcision is unnecessary for justification.

Why, then, did God require Abraham to be circumcised? Paul answers this in verses 11-12. Circumcision was meant to mark Abraham as a man of faith, a visible symbol (to himself) of his right standing before God which he obtained by faith.

Further, circumcision was the unique token that would indicate Abraham as the father of all believers. Paul makes an implicit reference to Abraham’s name change, which took place at the same time as his circumcision (Genesis 17). The former ‘Abram’ was renamed as ‘Abraham’ (‘father of a multitude’). This multitude, Paul says, refers to the multitude of believers, even the uncircumcised. However, it also includes all those who are Jewish, provided that they have faith like Abraham. This is the meaning of verse 12 – the truly ‘circumcised’ man has not only the physical mark, but also the faith of his forefather.

In a complex series of logical steps, Paul makes this case in verses 13-16. He just made the controversial claim, in verses 11-12, that Abraham is father of two groups of people: those who believe without being circumcised, and those who believe being circumcised. He backs this up with the reason in verse 13: ‘because the promise did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.’ The promise to Abraham is dependent on, and fulfilled through, ‘the righteousness of faith.’ It is logically disconnected from Abraham’s law-keeping (or the law-keeping of his descendants).

The promise that Paul nonchalantly refers to – ‘that he would be heir of the world’ – is not an obvious one. Genesis never records such a promise given to Abraham. Although Abraham would become father of a great nation and be a means of blessing to all nations, the only inheritance that he is promised is that of Canaan. Perhaps that is why the promise is not only “to Abraham” but also to his “offspring” – by examining more of the Old Testament, we find that the Davidic king would have a world-wide kingdom. Jews of Paul’s day also took this for granted.

Paul’s emphasis, however, is on the manner in which the promise came about: not dependent on law-keeping but on the righteousness of faith. He has already proved this, but he now provides a reason to support this view: “For if it is to be the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void” (v. 14). In other words, the promise has to come about through the righteousness of faith. Otherwise, “faith is null” – there is no place for faith, faith is unnecessary, and the faith of Abraham is not something that would be worth highlighting (as the text of Genesis clearly does). Further, “the promise is void” – it would not even be something that could be received!

Why would Paul say that the promise is void, something that cannot be received? His reasoning is explained in verse 15 – “For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.” Paul has already shown that no one keeps the law. Hence, rather than bringing justification and a verdict of innocence, the law only aggravates human sinfulness, calling down the wrath of God. The law is like high-octane fuel in the presence of God’s wrath, causing it to burn much brighter.

On the other hand, even though men are still sinful and accountable to God without the law, there is, technically speaking, ‘no transgression’ where there is no law – that is, the law has not been broken where it does not exist. Paul probably highlights this ‘no law’ scenario because it is what defined Abraham’s relationship with God: a relationship based on God’s grace and Abraham’s faith, rather than the rigor of God keeping account of all Abraham’s legal violations.

In verse 16, the apostle restates the point that he was proving: the promise rests on grace (not works of the law) and because of that, it is guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring, the individuals who have faith regardless of their DNA. The reference to ‘the adherent of the law’ does not mean those who are trying to earn their righteousness, but those who keep the law as evidence of their faith. This is clear because the two groups mentioned here are the same groups mentioned in verses 11 and 12.

In this section of text, then, Paul has shown decisively that justification must be by grace through faith alone. Not only is this the way by which Abraham was justified, but it is also the way by which his descendants will inherit the Abrahamic promises. To use the ‘law’ route only leads to the dead end of verse 15 – “the law brings wrath.” The only way to escape this is by seeking the promise in another way, through the righteousness of faith. 

The Faith of Abraham (17-22)

Although verse 17 is the middle of a sentence, it also marks a shift in Paul’s emphasis. He just said that the promise is guaranteed to all those who share the faith of Abraham – now he explains what that faith is like. We are reminded again that Abraham is the father of many nations, a nod to his name-change in Genesis 17:5.

Abrahamic faith exists “in the presence of the God in whom he believed.” Abraham knew, and believed, that God gives life to the dead, as the author of Hebrews makes clear (Hebrews 11:19). Of course, this same Abrahamic faith also believes in the God who raised Jesus from the dead, and grants resurrection to the faithful. But there is another theological truth that Abraham knew and believed: God is able to “call into existence the things that do not exist.” Based on the context, this clearly refers to God’s creation of Isaac and all of Abraham’s future generations – individuals who literally did not exist until God ‘called them into existence.’

Because his hope was in God, Abraham faith was not diminished, even as physical circumstances appeared increasingly hopeless. This is because he had the direct promise of God that his descendants would be as the stars of heaven. In fact, even as his own body and the body of his wife were weakening, his faith was growing more robust – “he grew strong in his faith.” This was not a faith that ignored or overlooked human circumstances. He was well aware that his body was ‘as good as dead’ and that Sarah’s womb was barren. However, because he had the certainty of God’s promise, he did not focus on these depressing realities. He focused on the promise that was backed by God’s character.

Paul goes so far as to say that Abraham did not “waver” because of “unbelief.” The Genesis account seems to indicate that Abraham had many periods of fluctuating faith. But the apostle is not focused on individual moments. He is looking at the entire trajectory of Abraham’s life, and the summary is that Abraham was a man of faith who – despite temporary failings – never ultimately gave up his confidence that God’s promise would be fulfilled. Instead, he was “fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.”

Abraham is also described as one who “gave glory to God.” This is intriguing, since it contrasts with the depravity of gentiles in chapter 1:21. The fundamental fault of pagans is that they did not “honor” (or ‘glorify’) “him as God.” Abraham, on the contrary, gives glory to God. This glory occurs through his faith. As Schreiner (246) points out, “faith glorifies God because it acknowledges that life must be lived in complete dependence on him.”

In the final analysis, Abrahamic faith is one that is based on theological truths of who God is (v. 17). It does not deny physical reality (v. 19), but it anchors itself on God’s promise (v. 18). It glorifies God by living in dependence on him (v. 20), and it never let’s go of the certainty of God’s power (v. 21).

Applying Abraham’s Faith (23-25)

Paul has now convincingly argued that justification must be through faith, rather than law-keeping. He has also shown us that Abraham being a ‘father of many nations’ means that individuals are justified in the same way as the patriarch. Now he brings it into the present: the ancient text of Genesis wasn’t written as a mere historical record. It was also intended for our spiritual benefit.

The same righteousness that Abraham had will also be credited to our account – those of us who, from an Old Testament perspective, were going to believe. By saying that “it will be counted,” Paul isn’t indicating that the justification hasn’t yet happened. He is only indicating that, from the perspective of the past, we hadn’t yet believed. But our faith is the same as Abraham’s, because we also believe in a God who raises the dead (compare 4:17). 

More specifically, we believe that God has already raised “Jesus our Lord.” These final words of the chapter are a pithy summary of Christian belief. Our faith rests in the God who raised Jesus, and that Jesus is our Lord or ultimate authority. Jesus’ death had a specific purpose. He was “delivered up” (or ‘handed over’) for our trespasses. The word indicates that this was ‘because of’ or ‘on account of’ our trespasses – they are the reason why he was delivered up to death. But he was “raised for our justification.” The same word is used here, but probably in a more general sense. His resurrection ‘has to do’ with our justification. Paul doesn’t elaborate, but probably means that it gives evidence or confirms the work of justification that Jesus intended to accomplish.

In place of comments, I would love to hear from you personally. Please reach out to me via the Contact Page to share your thoughts and perspectives on this post!

Enjoying this content? Subscribe to receive it directly in your email, once a week.