of Abraham and applied to us, means that a quality, attribute, or characteristic of ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) that would not normally be attributed to that person or thing (Abraham is ungodly, ἀσεβή, in Rom 4:5, and so are we in Rom 5:6), is attributed to that person or thing (Abraham, and those of his faith), and the quality so attributed is not inherent or otherwise attributable to that person or thing (Abraham and we are ungodly, ἀσεβή, which would normally be a barrier to the reckoning by a just God in the ordinary course of events), but there are appropriate reasons for the reckoning (the faith, pistis, πίστις, of the person justified, and the obedience, satisfaction, resurrection, and session of Christ: Rom 3:25-6; 4:25; 5:6-9, 16-19; 8:3) for the attribution or characterization through the process denoted by logizomai (λογίζομαι). As Jipp observes, “Paul utilizes the language of λογίζομαι, hinted at in 3.28, in this section to indicate God’s free transfer of δικαιοσύνη, a process indicated as κατὰ χάριν (‘according to grace’) and thus excluding works” (Rom 4.4: Jipp 2009: 222).

The construction ‘reckoning X as Y’ elsewhere involves reckoning something (X) as something else (Y) even though X is not in and of itself Y, and that reckoning is appropriate because, from the perspective of the ‘reckoner’, there are good reasons to do so, even when there is a barrier to that reckoning, which is a situation that must be ignored or overcome for that reckoning to occur. OT examples are Gen 31:15, 38:15; 1 Sam 1:13, 16; Job 13:24; cf. 19:11, 33:10, 19:1, 41:27; Prov 27:14). In each of these examples we see a pattern: someone reckons X ‘as’ Y or X ‘to be’ Y, even though X ‘is not’ Y, but there are good reasons, from the perspective of the one doing the reckoning or considering, even though there is a barrier to such a reckoning.

An important parallel to Romans 4:5 is found in Romans 2:26, where the gentile law-keeper is reckoned ‘as if’ he is circumcised, because although circumcision and uncircumcision may not matter, they can never be ‘identified’ or be ‘equivalent’. Rather, it is appropriate that God treat the ‘uncircumcised law-keeper’ as if he is ‘circumcised’ because (moral) law-keeping is what God really requires for righteousness by law, and is more important for that purpose than a symbolic cutting of the flesh (Rom 2:13-16, 10:5; cf. 1 Cor 7:19).

Some commentators view the promises made to Abraham found in Genesis 12 and the declaration made in Genesis 15:6 as related. Moo argues “the promise with reference to which Abraham believes in Yahweh includes the worldwide blessing promised in Gn 12:1-3” (Moo 1996a: 261-2). Schreiner argues, “Gen 15 simply ratifies Gen 12, showing that Abraham’s willingness to leave his homeland stemmed from his faith” (Schreiner 1998: 217 fn 13). While there is clearly a relationship (cf. Heb 11:8), we should be careful not to collapse the Abrahamic chronology, as Paul carefully observes and makes points concerning Abraham’s justification from the temporal progress of the narrative, and the specific nature of God’s interactions with Abraham. See further below on verse 10. While Paul does allude to other passages in the Abrahamic narrative, the fact that he introduces and concludes his discussion of Romans 4 using Genesis 15:6 (vv. 3, 22) suggests that his objective is to expound that verse and its particular unique vocabulary and teaching, rather than the wider narrative (Lambrecht 2013: 192).

Considering verses 4 and 5 together, Paul introduces a formal comparison and establishes two alternatives:

4 τῷ δὲ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα,

5 τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην·

The parallelism between Romans 4:4 and verse 5 strongly suggests that Paul is setting up a comparison or contrast between the two verses.

Verse 4 features the word ‘pay’ (ὁ μισθὸς) which is recompense due to a person’s works (τῷ […] ἐργαζομένῳ), and gracious gift (κατὰ χάριν) which is undeserved because the recipient is implicitly ἀσεβῆ (v. 5). The second δὲ (v. 5) probably has adversative force as a result of the comparison (Lambrecht 1985: 368; Schreiner 1998: 214-15; Stuhlmacher 1994: 71).

NT Wright’s most recent view is that Paul’s use of μισθὸς in verse 4 should be attributed the the same meaning that it has in Genesis 15:1 LXX, thus meaning ‘reward”. If this reasoning was adopted, Paul’s meaning in Romans 4:4 is that the ‘reward’, μισθὸς, is not a reference to the principle of obedience to the law of Moses but is a reference to the reward promised to Abraham, of a multi-ethnic family. While it is true that in Genesis 15:1 LXX, that μισθὸς is used in the sense of ‘reward’ rather than ‘pay’, in Romans 4:4, μισθὸς seems to be used in the sense of ‘pay’ or ‘wage’, because it is something that a worker (τῷ […] ἐργαζομένῳ) receives as a matter of debt or obligation (κατὰ ὀφείλημα) (Barclay, 2015: 485). Therefore, the fact of the co-incidence of the two occurrences of μισθὸς (Genesis 15:1; Romans 4:4) and the natural suggestion that the meaning ‘reward’ might apply to both uses, is not adequate to displace the contextual clues of the immediate verse where Paul co-locates and expounds his use of ὁ μισθὸς with τῷ […] ἐργαζομένῳ and κατὰ ὀφείλημα. The parallelism likewise suggests that a contrast is being offered. Further, Paul specifically says that to the one not working, the reward/wages are not credited κατὰ χάριν. Yet, in verse 16, the inheritance by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) that Abraham enjoyed is explicitly said to be ‘according to grace’ (κατὰ χάριν). How can Abraham’s inheritance, explicitly said to be by faith in both verses 3-5 and verse 16, at one and the same time not be κατὰ χάριν in verse 4 but then be κατὰ χάριν in verse 16? These facts cast doubt on the recent recharacterization of the meaning of μισθὸς proposed by NT Wright.

The fact that a different noun describing wages (τὰ ὀψώνια) is used in Romans 6:23 is interesting, and it too is opposed to the gift of God (τὸ χάρισμα)

τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. (Rom 6:23)

The first alternative (v. 4), righteousness as payment to the worker, “never became a reality” (Lambrecht 1985: 368). The second (v. 5) “already took place in Abraham’s life”, who exemplifies righteousness coming τῷ […] μὴἐργαζομένῳ; πιστεύοντι δὲ. The present participles are probably gnomic—each side of the comparison suggests a principle or basis on which God could conceivably bless, reward, or bequeath righteousness to a person. Romans 1:18-3:20, 23, shows that no one will receive righteousness in accordance with the principle of verse 4. The Genesis narrative demonstrates that Abraham, forefather according to the flesh, had many good works, but for Paul, Abraham had no good works which constituted a claim on God (Lambrecht 1985: 368). He was not justified by the principle enunciated in verse 4, but the principle of verse 5.

In verses 5, the object of Abraham’s faith is a substantive describing God (τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ; cf. Rom 5:6: ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν: Fitzmyer 1993: 375). This bold paradox stands in stark contrast to various Old Testament statements (Ex 23:7; Is 5:23, Pr 17:15: Moo 1996a: 264; Stuhlmacher 1994: 72; Dunn 1988: 204).

Both NPP and RC authors find a distinction between the Jews, Abraham’s descendants according to the flesh, κατὰ σάρκα (v. 1) and the Gentiles represented by the uncircumcised Abraham described as the ἀσεβης (v. 5). In short, they take ἀσεβης to refer not to moral or ethical wickedness, but to ethnic identity. Abraham was a gentile.

But is unlikely that Paul recalls Abraham’s state prior to his call (Gen 12:1-3), more than 25 years before Genesis 15:6, though Jewish tradition considered him at that time a ger (Gen 23:4). Fitzmyer argues that ‘at the moment of Abraham’s putting his faith in Yahweh, he had already been called and was scarcely “godless”’ and thus argues τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ is instead a generic description of God himself (Fitzmyer 1993: 375). While it is true that Abraham at the time of Gn 15:6 was in a sense ‘godly’ (cf. Calvin, Institutes, III, XIV, 11, p778-9), this fails to appreciate the antithesis of verses 4-5 (Fitzmyer 1993: 375) and the logic of Paul choosing to use ἀσεβης in the phrases’ necessary relation to Abraham. Byrne rightly regards ἀσεβης as having specific relation to Abraham at the time of Genesis 15:6; however, Abraham is only ἀσεβης in an ‘ethnic/social’ sense, ‘a conventional sinner’, excluded from the covenant simply by being a gentile (Byrne 1996: 149; Dunn 1988: 1:205).

However, Paul includes within the category of ἀσεβης, ‘ungodly’, everyone for whom Christ died, including himself (Romans 5:6). It does not only include gentiles there but all believers. Compare also Rom 1:18, which has what is immediately characterized as Gentile sins as ἀσέβεια, ‘ungodliness’ (Cranfield 2001: 232; Stuhlmacher 1994: 73; Davies 1990: 160).

In view of the Abraham narrative, the stark phrase in verse 5, τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ should be seen as “tantamount to saying that [Abraham] was ungodly”. This is confirmed by the citation of Genesis 15:6b (v. 5c) and explains why justification is κατὰ χάριν (v. 4). By describing himself as τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, God does what he forbids Israel’s Old Covenant judges to do. Consider the woe declared by God on those who justify the ungodly in the Old Testament: “those who are justifying the ungodly” || οἱ δικαιοῦντες τὸν ἀσεβῆ (Isa 5:23); “he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD” (Prov 17:15; cf. Exod 23:7).

It is difficult to see that this phrase speaks of ‘the inclusion of gentiles’. Rather, it expresses ‘the forensic acquittal of the guilty’. In these Old Testament passages, to justify the ungodly “is not to extend the boundaries of the covenant community but to allow an injustice to occur within it” (Shaw: 2015, 58).

The quote from David in Psalm 32:1-2 LXX in verses 6-8 cannot be characterized as either gentile entrance into the covenant, or forgiveness of pre-conversion or pre-baptismal sin only. The context is that David is an existing member of the Old Testament covenant community, not an outsider entering the covenant. You cannot get more within the covenant than Messiah David! Yet David’s words in Psalm 32 form part of his ongoing life of faith, and his forgiveness of sin illustrates the proposition, ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων (v. 6). Nothing limits the forgiveness to David’s initial experience; rather, Psalm 32 describes David’s ongoing relationship with God and refers to his personal (notorious) sins (Schreiner 1998: 219).

In verse 6, καθάπερ καὶ (‘just as also’: Romans 4:6) can mark what follows as a basis or ground for what precedes. Most exegetes take καθάπερ καὶ to be equating ‘righteousness’ with ‘not counting unrighteousness’. This implies ‘justification is forgiveness, nothing but forgiveness’. The minority of exegetes argue that the introductory formula implies justification requires more than forgiveness. The majority view tends to confirm that justification is only the non-imputation of sin. The minority view allows in addition that the imputation of positive righteousness gained through Christ’s active obedience may be included in justification.

The conjunction need not imply equivalence, in some sort of mathematical sense, but might indicate a basis, where one element grounds the other, especially given it introduces a scriptural citation. There is a clear conceptual distinction between imputing a positive thing (God reckons righteousness: v. 6), and not imputing a negative thing (to whom the Lord does not reckon sin: v. 8), so neither concept should be compromised nor merged into each other. Forgiveness of sins, therefore, is a ‘basic component’ of justification (Moo, 1996: 266). To say that ‘Paul interprets the (negative) blessing in a positive way’ is to beg the question (Hoekema 1989: 175, 178). Both concepts should be allowed to sit together to complete the picture Paul is painting. What we have then is an example of a merismus, metonymy, or synecdoche. Paul cites one component of justification to stand for the whole. One discrete idea (forgiveness of sin) stands as the basis or ground metonymically for the other (imputation of righteousness), and justification is therefore the remission of sins plus the imputation of righteousness.

The proposition in verse 6 constitutes one of Paul’s paraphrases of Genesis 15:6. Paul understands it to mean that ‘God reckons righteousness’ to a person. In the phrase, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων·(v. 6), the noun δικαιοσύνην is the object of the finite verb λογίζεται, and the recipient is ᾧ. Compare also Paul’s second paraphrase in verse 11 which is likewise an exposition of Genesis 15:6: εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην (v. 11). The noun δικαιοσύνην in verse 11 is the accusative of respect of the divine passive infinitive λογισθῆναι, and the recipient αὐτοῖς (cf. Rom 4:24; Carson 2004: 65). As Dunn rightly says:

That Paul puts δικαιοσύνην as the direct object (in place of εἰς δικαιοσύνην in Gen 15:6) confirms that he does not think of God accepting faith merely as a substitute for righteousness, but that righteousness is actually accorded […] the idea is of God treating someone as […] (Dunn 1988: 1:205-6)

The aorist passives (ἀφέθησαν, ἐπεκαλύφθησαν: v. 7) and the emphatic future negative (οὐ μὴ λογίσηται: v. 8) are probably gnomic, general principles drawn from David’s specific experience. It is Paul, not the Psalm’s necessary and explicit content, who applies this blessing beyond the Jews (Schreiner 1998: 224; contra Cranford 1995: 82; Davies 1990: 166). Paul’s use of Psalm 32:1-2 can be contrasted to rabbinic interpretations which limit Psalm 32:1-2 to apply exclusively to the Jews (Cranfield 2001: 234-5). If it is a deliberate contrast, it appears to be a pointed one.

In verse 9a, inferential conjunction οὖν marks a progress in the discourse, but based on what has already been established from verses 7-8. Paul now turns to determine the scope of the recipients, objects, or beneficiaries of this blessedness: Ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν; ||“Is this blessedness, then upon the circumcision or even upon the uncircumcision?” This is a rhetorical question which will find its answer in verse 10. Fronted ὁ μακαρισμὸς with emphatic demonstrative οὗτος refers back to verses 6-8, particularly referencing the earlier instance of the noun μακαρισμὸς in verse 6 and the two instances of the cognate adjective μακάριος in verses 7-8. In verse 9a, Paul asks whether this blessedness of forgiveness applies even (ἢ καὶ) to the uncircumcised gentiles (τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν), or is it to be received by and are its exclusive beneficiaries only the circumcised (ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν). Preposition ἐπὶ suggests a metaphorical spatial movement of the ‘blessedness’ from God on high ‘upon’ the recipients. The conjunction ἢ καὶ probably is ascensive: 'or even'.

In verse 9b, Paul reminds his reader of his key text, Genesis 15:6, and his key principle, that it is Abraham’s faith that was instrumental in God reckoning him righteous. The reiteration of Genesis 15:6 was required because of the interposition of the secondary and supporting text, Psalm 32:1-2 LXX. Paul brings his two texts into a close and mutually interpreting inter-relationship. By speaking of the blessedness of Psalm 32:1-2 (ὁ μακαρισμὸς: v. 9a), Paul is going to equate the blessedness spoken of and experienced by David with the declaration of righteousness Abraham experienced, and he is going to allow the circumstances of Abraham when righteousness was imputed to him to condition and explain the scope of Psalm 32:1-2 (Cranfield 2001: 235; Schreiner 1998: 224). In the clause, λέγομεν γάρ ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην (again quoting Gen 15:6), inferential post-positive γάρ and 1^st person present tense form verb λέγομεν refers to his previous exposition in Romans 4:1-6.

In verse 10, Paul question ‘how’ using the interrogative (πῶς) asks the state of Abraham regarding circumcision, and thus implies ‘when’.

(a) 10πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη;

(b) ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ;

(c) οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ·

In verse 10a-b, the interrogative πῶς in the double-barrel question πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη; ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ; does not ask about the mechanism or means of the reckoning of righteous (‘by what means/through what instrument was it reckoned’), but the circumstance of the reckoning (in what condition was Abraham when it was reckoned, note the ontological situation of Abram indicated by the phrase ‘ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ’), which effectively amounts to a question about the time of the reckoning ('When was it reckoned').

Paul answers his own question as to ‘when’ righteousness was reckoned to Abraham in verse 10c: οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ. God reckoned Abraham righteous while he was still uncircumcised, still a gentile. In this answer, Paul carefully observes the chronological distinction between Abraham’s being imputed righteousness by faith in Genesis 15:6 and the ceremonial work of circumcision he performs in obedience to the command of God in Genesis 17. He does not read each event into the other, as, for example, we saw in 1 Maccabees 2:51-2 above, but carefully observes a salvation historical distinction. Genesis 15:6 antedates Genesis 17:1ff, in the Rabbinic reckoning by 29 years (Cranfield 2001: 235; Moo 1996a: 268; Schreiner 1998: 224; Stuhlmacher 1994: 73; Dunn 1988: 208). This careful chronological argument is not unique to Romans: Paul makes a soteriological point of the temporal precedence by 430 years of the promise to Abraham over the law of Moses (Gal 3:17-18). Indeed, James likewise observes a temporal distinction between Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 22 when he says that earlier scripture of Genesis 15:6 is ‘fulfilled’ (ἐπληρώθη) by the later event of Genesis 22 (Jas 2:23).

We could take the lead from Paul and observe other chronological distinctions in the Abraham narrative. Indeed, we could observe the same care in observing the chronology of Abraham’s initial calling (Gen 12:1ff; Heb 11:8), or even within chapter 15, and the reckoning of righteousness at Genesis 15:6 through Abraham’s faith, and the covenantal formalization of that promise and faith later that evening in response to Abraham’s further request (Gen 15:7-20). As Fitzmyer comments, “circumcision had nothing to do with [Abraham’s] being reckoned upright. It came into Abraham’s life only at a later stage” (Fitzmyer 1993: 380). “This status is unmerited and independent of deeds (even of circumcision), depending only on faith” (Fitzmyer 1993: 381).

Verse 11 has a main clause with two infinitives, probably examples of result clauses, but as they have slightly different topics or content, they cannot be said to be expressing the relationship between the same things or operating in the same way.

(a) καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ,

(b) εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας,

(c) εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην

The main clause (v. 11a) has Paul describing circumcision as a ‘sign’ (σημεῖον […] περιτομῆς: v. 11a; cf. Gen 17:11) and as a ‘seal’ (σφραγῖδα: v. 11a) not of the covenant, but of the righteousness of faith (τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως) that Paul had prior to even the covenant of the pieces (Gen 15:7-20), but certainly the covenant sign of circumcision, both of which come temporally after the divine declaration of Genesis 15:6. Abraham’s circumcision, on Paul’s reasoning here and in so far as Abraham is concerned, is not a symbol of the law (as it is in Galatians) but rather confirms the faith-righteousness Abraham already possessed in his state of uncircumcision (Cranfield 2001: 236). Paul characterises this righteousness as ‘τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως’ (v. 11, cf. ἀλλὰ διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως: v. 13). In these parallel constructions Paul “is making use of a Rabbinic conception which refers to Abraham’s life of faith in righteousness” (Stuhlmacher 1994: 74; my italics).

The first infinitival clause (v. 13b) is probably a result clause. Abraham received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith he received in his condition as uncircumcised, and this has the result that he is the father of those who believe during their state of being uncircumcised.

The second infinitival clause (v. 13c) is probably a result clause and further explicates the τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ and πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας. It particularly points out the result of the two instances of the πίστις and πίστευω, given the context that Romans 4 is an extended exposition of Genesis 15:6. The result of Abraham’s righteousness by faith is that righteousness might also be reckoned to those who believe as uncircumcised gentiles—for that is when Abraham himself was reckoned righteous by God.

In verse 12, Paul reaffirms that Abraham is indeed the father of some Jews, but on a completely different basis.

(a) καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς

(b) τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον

(c) ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ. (v. 12)

The true heirs of Abraham are those with Abraham’s faith, whether they are Jews or gentiles. Co-ordinating conjunction καὶ places the proposition enunciated in verse 12 as of the same or equal importance as that which has been articulated by verse 11. This is confirmed by the word ‘father’ (πατέρα), which appears in both verses 11 and 12. There are not two ways for Abraham to be spiritual father—there is only one way—for his spiritual children to be of his faith. However, there are two families of the world, two ethnicities, from which Abraham’s spiritual children are drawn: the uncircumcision (ἀκροβυστίας: v. 11) and the circumcision (περιτομῆς: v. 12). All those who believe (πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων: v. 11) during the time of their uncircumcision (δι’ ἀκροβυστίας: v. 11) have Abraham as their father (πατέρα), just as do some of those from the circumcision. But while Abraham is the father of the circumcision (πατέρα περιτομῆς: v. 12), that fact does not mean that every circumcised Jew is Abraham’s spiritual heir, or that Abraham is their spiritual father. Rather, Abraham is the spiritual father of those from the circumcision who in addition to their physical circumcision, also walk in the footsteps of the faith that Abraham had during his uncircumcision (τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως: v. 12). The insufficiency of circumcision is expressed by the substantival phrase τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον (v. 12). Circumcision was never enough. What else is required, what must be added to circumcision, is Abraham’s faith that he had in uncircumcision. Those who have faith like Abraham’s are described as those who walk in the footsteps of the faith that father Abraham had in his uncircumcision. The articular adjectival prepositional phrase (τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ). The appositional description of Abraham as πατρὸς ἡμῶν probably is a reference to Abraham’s spiritual fatherhood of all believers, and thus includes all believers: it should not be thought to include those who are only Abraham’s children according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα: v. 11). The phrase “the faith of our father Abraham” (πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ) binds both Jew and gentile believers together, but the phrase “to those not only from the circumcision but also” (τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ) serves to exclude those whose claim to inheritance from Abraham is only according to the flesh.

In verse 13, postpositive inferential particle γὰρ means that Paul’s proposition in verse 13 provides support or evidence for previous discourse material, probably verses 11 and 12.

(a) Οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ,

(b) τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου,

(c) ἀλλὰ διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως. (v. 13)

Paul denies (note οὐ) that “the promise” (ἡ ἐπαγγελία) ‘came’ or ‘was’ [the verbless clause requires a verb to be supplied] “through the law” (διὰ νόμου). ‘The promise’ (ἡ ἐπαγγελία) refers not to the original promise as a divine verbal commitment of blessing, but to the benefit of the promise, that which God by the promise promised, the ‘promised inheritance’. This is particularly suggested by the clause in verse 13, “[that] he be heir of the world” (τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου). That is, the benefit of the promise is explicitly mentioned. The comprehensive scope of the content of this promise is a remarkable summary of all the Genesis promises, and is Paul’s own formulation, perhaps influenced by later Jewish interpretation (e.g. Ecclus 44:21; Jub 22:14; 32:19: Cranfield 2001: 239; Moo 1996a: 274; Schreiner 1998: 227).

The nature of the case suggests that God will be faithful to the unconditional promises that he gives. Thus, receipt of the inheritance promised is sure once the recipient, Abraham, believes it. However, Paul’s statement is not a statement about why God gave Abraham the original verbal commitment. Faith does not constitute the basis, ground, or meritorious cause of God giving his verbal commitment to Abraham in the first place. There is no sense that Abraham’s foreseen faith was the meritorious cause for God giving him the promise; nor that God gave his unconditional verbal commitment in response to or on account of either Abraham’s existing or future faith.

Some take νόμος (v. 13a, cf. vv. 14, 15[x2]) to refer to national boundary markers (e.g. Dunn 1988: 213-4). Davies (1990: 170) takes νόμος in verse 13 here as a reference to circumcision. This is really a revivification of the ancient view found as early as Origen, that took νόμος to refer to ceremonial laws such as circumcision. For rejections of this view see Moo 1983: 73-100; Seifrid 1992. Others take νόμος as a reference to the salvation-historical Mosaic law (Cranfield 2001: 238; Moo 1996a: 273), and still others take νόμος to refer to a system of divine commands requiring obedience, the Mosaic law being the pre-eminent salvation historical example (Murray 1959: 141). Given Paul’s argument that gentiles are not without law but have a law for themselves (Rom 2:14-15), and Paul’s emphasis on the moral commands of the Mosaic law (Rom 7:7-25), along with the universal condemnation that Paul has decreed over all, Jews and gentiles, the last option is preferable—that is, a reference to the Mosaic law is not exclusive of, but suggestive of, an underlying law of command based on the ontology of creation built into the fabric of God’s created moral order.

More generally speaking, the NPP imposes a monocovenantal meta-narrative upon Paul’s letter to the Romans and upon Paul in general. That is, the NPP almost always read the Mosaic covenant of law and works into the Abrahamic covenant of promise and faith. It presents a monocovenantal framework that does not adequately distinguish between the law (Mosaic covenant) and the promise and faith (Abrahamic covenant, broadly considered). But the Mosaic covenant’s demand for works is clear. Consider Deuteronomy 6:25 and Ezekies 18:5ff, which is not the Abrahamic covenant on view, but the Mosaic covenant, that is, the law covenant, which will justify no one who doesn’t fulfill its strict terms (Lev 18:5; Rom 7:10, 10:5, Gal 3:10-14, 5:3).

It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the LORD our God, just as He commanded us. (Deut 6:25 ESV)

5“But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness, 6and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period— 7if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, 8if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man, 9if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully—he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord GOD (Ezek 18:5-9 ESV)

These passages speak of the righteousness of the law indicated by the Mosaic covenant. Paul in Galatians 4:24-25, however, sharply distinguishes two covenants (δύο διαθῆκαι), the first being the Sinaitic (μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα), that is, the Mosaic covenant of law and bondage, and the second, that of Abraham and Sarah’s son of the promise, which is free, which is what the Christians are part of as the new Jerusalem (Gal 4:26-31).

The denial of the law being the instrument of receiving the benefit of the promise to Abraham (v. 13a-b) is grounded on the reality that the inheritance has already come proleptically through the righteousness of faith (v. 13c), in both the experience of Abraham, David, and also through the “righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Strong adversative ἀλλὰ (v. 13c) refers to the previous negation (Οὐ: v. 13a) and presents the true instrumentality as “through the righteousness of faith” (διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως) The chronological fact that the Mosaic law had not been given to Abraham at Genesis 15:6 (430 years later according to Gal 3:17) certainly supports Paul’s argument (Stuhlmacher 1994: 74; ‘possible’ for Cranfield 2001: 238), but here it is not clear (Moo 1996a: 273), nor the focus of Paul’s attention, as Paul here is interested in the chronology of the Abrahamic narrative only, and not in terms of the law of Moses. Dative τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ might perhaps refer to Christ (Gal 3:16), but it most probably refers to both Jew and Gentile who walk in Abraham’s faith (cf. vv. 11-12, 16-17; Cranfield 2001: 239; Moo 1996a: 274; Dunn 1988: 212).

An appreciation of the distinction for Paul between the ‘fulfillment of the law’ and the ‘doing’ or ‘keeping’ of the law is required to fully understand the nature of the Christian’s response to the law under grace, and the inability of keeping the law in sin. Some scholars treat the ‘doing’ and ‘keeping’ terminology in Paul as effectively interchangeable with the ‘fulfilling’ terminology of πληρόω and cognates. However, Kern (1996: 52-3) following Barclay (1988: 138-9), observes that the connection of the law with the fulfillment terminology is a Pauline innovation and it is what Christians are said to do in Christ (cf. Moo 1996b: 359-60).

In verse 14, Paul sets up a simple condition (Cranfield 2001: 240).

(a) εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ νόμου κληρονόμοι,

(b) κεκένωται ἡ πίστις καὶ κατήργηται ἡ ἐπαγγελία·

Again, postpositive γὰρ shows verse 14 supports previous discourse. The protasis (v. 14a) sets up the hypothetical condition of “those who are heirs” (οἱ […] κληρονόμοι) of Abraham’s promised inheritance being so “from the law” (ἐκ νόμου). If the protasis was true, then this fact would have emptied ‘faith’ (ἡ πίστις) and nullified ‘the promise’ (ἡἐπαγγελία). The falsity of the apodosis in the experience of Abraham because of the faithfulness of God, shows that the protasis also is untrue, because it has already been established that Abraham has been promised the world through the righteousness of faith. Thus, ‘the law’ (ὁ νόμος) is exclusive of and the antithesis to ‘faith’ (ἡ πίστις) and the promise (ἡ ἐπαγγελία), and vice versa (cf. Rom 4:2-5: Schreiner 1998: 229).

In verse 14b the verb καταργέω means ‘I annul, abolish, bring to naught, discharge, sever’, and perfect tense form of verb κενόω means ‘I empty, render null, make unreal’. Thus the promise would become void if the inheritance came by law since the receipt of the benefit of the promise requires faith and not law, and the law brings wrath (v. 15a). The nature of ‘faith’ (which is trust) and ‘promise’ (which is a commitment by God to give a blessing) indicates that they, and not the law (which only operates on the principle of meritorious reward of good works), are the reason why Abraham and his seed receive the benefit of the promise.

In verse 15, the fact that “the law brings wrath” recalls what Paul established in Romans 1:18-3:20, 3:23, and indicates that that Israel as much as the Gentiles need to receive free justification if they are to be saved (Shaw: 2015, 60 fn 47). Verse 15 provides a reason (note γὰρ) for the proposition of verse 14, being ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὀργὴν κατεργάζεται . The law works wrath, not inheritance (cf. Rom 3:20, 5:20, 7:7-13; Schreiner 1998: 230-1). Present tense form κατεργάζεται is gnomic (Schreiner 1998: 229 fn 5; cf. Moo 1996a: 276), indicative of a timeless principle when the law is weakened by the flesh (Rom 8:2-3). This is because it gives what is due to each person, and if we have sinned, it gives us our due. So the promise of inheritance to Abraham and his seed cannot come by law. It is in that way that the promise is rendered null, because of the operation of the law, and its conditionality on good works.

Verse 16 brings a summation of the previous discourse (διὰ τοῦτο).

(a) Διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως,

(b) ἵνα κατὰ χάριν,

(c) εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι,

(d) οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον

(e) ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ,

(f) ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν,

In verse 16, for reason that the character of the law is to bring wrath not salvation (διὰ τοῦτο is backward referring: contra Moo 1996a: 277; Schreiner 1998: 231), God’s plan of blessing the sinners of the world (Cranfield 2001: 242) is to be received by faith (ἐκ πίστεως: v. 16a, e) not by law (ἐκ νόμου) (v. 14, cf. v. 16d), with twin purposes (nb. ἵνα […] εἰς τὸ εἶναι), that it be according to grace (κατὰ χάριν: v. 16b; cf. v. 4) and the promise be confirmed to Abraham’s seed (v. 16c). ‘Abraham’s seed’ (παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι) here refers to all believers, whether Jew or Gentile (vv. 16c, 17; Gen 17:5 LXX; Cranfield 2001: 242-3; Moo 1996a: 279-81). The law cannot merit, receive, deserve or obtain the benefit of what God promised Abraham. The promise (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν) refers not only to the verbal divine commitment given freely by God of his own election, but also the benefit of the promise, the promised benefit, the inheritance itself. “Abraham’s individual faith becomes the model for all his children and the grounds of their unity—he is the father of us all” (Shaw: 2015, 61).

¹⁶Because of this, it is by faith, so that it may be according to grace, so that the promise might be guaranteed to his seed, not to the one from the law only, but also to the one from the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, ¹⁷just as it is written that “I have made you father of many gentiles”, before God whom he believed, the one giving life to the dead and calling the things not being as being.

¹⁶Διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως, ἵνα κατὰ χάριν, εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι, οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ, ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν, ¹⁷καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴὄντα ὡς ὄντα.

Verses 17-22 “is the most detailed delineation of the nature of πίστις anywhere in the Pauline corpus. Paul holds up Abraham’s faith as both the means whereby God’s promises are fulfilled and as that which subsequently enables him to be the father of Jew and Gentile.” (Jipp: 2009, 236).

Verse 17, with conjunction καθὼς, provides supporting evidence for what has preceded.

(a) καθὼς γέγραπται

(b) ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε,

(c) κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ

(d) τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς

(e) καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα.

Conjunction καθὼς in verse 17a links verse 17b with verse 16e-f as scriptural proof (note γέγραπται: v. 17a) The quotation (note ὅτι) in verse 17b is from Genesis 17:5 LXX. The original context is in the midst of the narrative of the covenant of circumcision. The text is πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε: “I have established you father of many nations”.

In verse 17c, God verbally calls (καλοῦντος) the dead to life just as he verbally declares the ungodly righteous (vv. 3-6). Abraham faces the deadness of his own body and Sarah’s womb (νενεκρωμένον; νέκρωσιν: v. 19). But God makes the dead alive (ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς: v. 17d) and calls those things not being as being (καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα: v. 17e). The background of verse 17e is not creation ex nihilo as is commonly held (Moo 1996a: 232; Schreiner 1998: 236-7; Kruse 2012: 217)—or even if it is, the creational theme is well and truly in the distant background, and has been eclipsed by another theme in the foreground—because the seed (τῷ σπέρματι) already exists in Abraham and Sarah’s ‘dead’ bodies. That is, humanly speaking their unfruitful bodies are naturally unable to conceive. From their supposedly ‘dead’ bodies, living seed will be drawn (Schreiner 1998: 236). The paradigm (at least the immediate one) is not ‘something from nothing’ (ex nihilo) but ‘life from the dead’. It is not a calling into being, but a calling ὡς being (Moo 1996a: 281-2; Murray 1959: 1:146-7; contra Visscher 2009: 206-7). Something that does exist is called something else. That is not to say that resurrection is unrelated to creation; but it is to say that resurrection is the dominant theme, and justification as a counter-factual synthetic synthetic declaration (the ‘ungodly’ are declared ‘righteous’) is being further enriched and explicated. Another indicator that τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα (v. 17e) does not allude to creation ex nihilo is Paul’s parallel use in 1 Corinthians 1:28 (Hultgren 2011: 189). The Corinthian Christians are described as “the things not being” (τὰ μὴ ὄντα), so that their calling might nullify “the things being” (τὰ ὄντα), referring to the wise, powerful, or wellborn people who have rejected Christ and the cross. Though many of the Corinthian Christians were not wise, powerful, or wellborn, God called (1 Cor 1:26) the so-called ‘nothings’, so that ‘no-one might boast before him’ (1 Cor 1:29; cf. Rom 3:27; 4:2). Again, this is not directly creation ex nihilo, but the divine calling of the despised, powerless, and lowborn, all of whom have no boast before God. By faith in the gospel the Corinthians have not themselves, but Christ, as their righteousness (1 Cor 1:30).

Thus, in Romans 4:13-25, God is summoning and naming nations and descendants from Abraham where deadness suggests that fulfilling the divine promise is impossible (Schreiner 1998: 237). God has power to do what he promised (Rom 4:21), and Abraham believes both God’s promise and power, so is a paradigm for Christian faith (Bird 2007: 50). While Abraham’s belief in the face of deadness was directed towards God’s promise of seed (Rom 4:18; Gen 15:5), the believer’s object of faith is He who accomplished the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 4:24; cf. 10:6-9; Moo 1996a: 287-8; Hooker 2002: 331). ‘The conception and birth of Isaac is therefore an anticipation of Jesus’ resurrection’ (Wright 2003: 247).

In verses 23-24, because believers live out the same faith as Abraham, what was written for Abraham was also written for us (Barclay 2015: 490). In verse 25, Preposition διὰ with the accusative is clearly retrospective or causal in verse 25a. Some argue that διὰ with the accusative should have the same meaning in both clauses (e.g Murray 1959: 1:154), but others that they need not (Wright 2003: 247-8; Bird 2007: 51; Moo 1996a: 289; Cranfield 2001: 1:251; Hultgren 2011: 191; Marshall 2008: 255). The issue is whether διὰ with accusative (v. 25b) is retrospective and causal (‘because of our justification’: e.g. Schreiner 1998: 244; Jewett 2007: 343) or prospective and final (‘for our justification’: e.g. Moo 1996a: 289; Cranfield 2001: 1:251). However, making a decision is assisted by observing a parallel structure in verses 23-24. In verse 23, δι’ αὐτὸν means ‘for’ the benefit of Abraham, and is retrospective. Therefore, verse 23 teaches that Genesis 15:6 was not (οὐκ) only written ‘for’ (διὰ) Abraham in the past. In verse 24, δι’ ἡμᾶς is prospective. Genesis 15:6 was written also ‘for us’ about to be (μέλλει) reckoned (implicitly, ‘for righteousness’ from v. 22, εἰς δικαιοσύνην—which would bring v. 24 as a supportive text for vv. 6, 11, where Paul asserts that ‘righteousness’ is ‘imputed’). This pattern within verses 23-24 suggests that (1) διὰ with the accusative need not have the same meaning in each clause of verse 25 (Hendriksen 1981: 161; Bird 2007: 51), and (2) a pattern is established by verses 23-24 in that that the first instance of διὰ is retrospective, and second causal, and that this also carries over into verse 25. Because of the close context and probability of a pattern established by verses 23-24, the prospective meaning for verse 25b is the most likely. Jesus was delivered over for our sins and was raised for our justification. The resurrection of Christ brings about our justification, and does not merely show that the death of Christ obtained our justification.

Regarding verse 25, that Isaiah 53:12 LXX underlies the verse is suggested by passive παρεδόθη twice in Isaiah 53:12 LXX, and preposition διά with the accusative. Hooker argues Romans 4:25 is “the one clear echo of Isaiah 53” (Hooker 1998: 101). Hofius says, Romans 4:25 “is a summary of the fourth Servant Song distilled to essentials” (Hofius 2004: 180). Sapp argues, “Romans 4:25a already alludes the Greek text of Isaiah 53:12” (Sapp 1998: 187).

Characterizations of the Role that Abraham plays for Paul in Romans 4

The Old Protestant Perspective (OPP) on Justification in Paul typically characterized the role that Abraham plays in Romans 4 as a scriptural ‘model’, ‘example’ or ‘exemplary’, ‘paradigm’ or ‘paradigmatic’, ‘precedent’, ‘illustration’, ‘analogous’, ‘proof’, ‘witness’, or ‘demonstration’ of justification by faith apart from works. The conception of ‘proto-type’ also fits here. Jipp rightly sees that this is typical of protestant exegesis: Protestants have historically thought that Paul invokes Abraham as an ‘example’, an ‘illustration’ from the law of a sinner justified by faith, a ‘demonstration’ from the pre-Christian era of the structure of Christian salvation, and that Abraham was a ‘proto-Christian’ (Jipp: 2009, 2017). This proposition is unassailable in the light of Paul’s statement that the righteousness of God “is testified to by the law and the prophets” (μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν: Rom 3:21). Here ‘the law’ (ὁ νόμος) and ‘the prophets’ (οἱ προφῆται) clearly refer to the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures, in which Abraham is a key figure in the book of Genesis, the first book of the law, and David is a prophet whose Psalms speak prophecy. It is difficult to argue against the ‘exemplary’ role of both Abraham and David being true and necessary for understanding Paul, but is it sufficient? Can any more be said?

It is clear from the text of Romans 4 that Abraham is indeed the ‘forefather’ of both Jews according to the flesh (προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα: v. 1). But Paul’s point is that this biological relationship with ethnic Jews is insufficient. He is the also in a spiritual, that is, in a ‘faith-sense’, the ‘father’ of all who believe during their uncircumcision (πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας: v. 11), that is, gentiles who have faith in Jesus Christ; and he bears the same relationship to Jews likewise who believe in Jesus: (καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ” || “and the father of the circumcision, to those not of the circumcision only, but also those who walk in the footsteps of the faith in his uncircumcision of our Father Abraham”: v. 12).

The question, is how does this spiritual fatherhood work? What is the inner logic of Paul’s claim that Abraham is the father of those he is not biologically related to? He is not in any sense the forefather of gentile believers ‘according to the flesh’ (v. 1).

Abraham is not the physical and biological ancestor of gentile believers. His fatherhood to gentile believers is of a different order. He must be at least an ‘example’ or ‘precedent’ or ‘model’, according to Paul. Abraham cannot be anything less, though he might be more. This on its own justifies the Old Perspective or traditional model of Abraham being an example of justification by faith for Paul.

Shaw advances the view that Abraham should not be taken “as a random proof-text or arbitrary example but rather as ‘our forefather’ he is the example” (Shaw: 2015, 59). I am not sure what informed traditional Protestant would apply the adjectives ‘random’ or ‘arbitrary’ to the example that Abraham provides, or even that Genesis 15:6 is a ‘proof-text’. The whole idea of a ‘proof-text’ carries with it a negative connotation of twisting the Bible to fit a person’s theology—it is a mild form of theological name-calling. Nevertheless, what Shaw says is true as far as it goes. Every reader of the New Testament must regard Abraham as ‘father’ of all believers, including gentiles, even though Abraham is not their father according to the flesh. Shaw’s position could be summarized by saying “Abraham is not an example; because he is father he is the example”. Shaw’s position is not really a great advance on what he regards as the unsatisfactory proof text or example view (cf. Shaw: 2015, 61), though it does point out something true. Abraham for Paul never ceases to be at least a model believer. That he is also a father who believers are to imitate and in whose footsteps they are to follow simply intensifies the type of example that he is. He is their father (v. 11), which is the same relation that believing Jews have to him (v. 12). Moreover, because he is an ancient ancestor, he is also the gentile Christian’s ‘forefather’, in a spiritual sense, by virtue of their faith, though Abraham is not their forefather according to the flesh. Paul affirms this in verses 16-17, where he states that Christian believers, including gentile believers, are guaranteed the promise made to Abraham because the gentile believers too, are Abraham’s seed. The promise is guaranteed to all Abraham’s seed (παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι: v. 16), not only to those who belong to the law only (οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον)—that is, Jewish Christians, here ‘the law’ referring to the ethnic-religious group of the Jews—but also to the ones belonging to the faith of Abraham (ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ)—that is, gentile and Jewish Christians together. It is this group with which Abraham has the relationship of ‘father’. That is the ‘all’ to whom Paul refers when he says that Abraham “is the father of us all” (ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν: v. 16; cf. v. 18).

In Romans 4:17, Genesis 17:5 is cited in support of the proposition of verse 16, “who is the father of us all”. “I have made you father of many gentiles” (ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε). While it is not at first apparent in the LXX that πολλῶν ἐθνῶν should be rendered ‘many gentiles’, such a translation does illuminate how the gospel’s spread to the gentiles fulfills the promise to Abraham: it is in the elect gentiles coming to Christian faith.

In sum, what I think is eminently defensible, is that for Paul, Abraham is a model or precedent of faith in God’s power and promise which justifies (the exemplary view), and that because of the promises made to Abraham, Abraham is the forefather or father in a spiritual sense of believers, and thus the pre-eminent model of faith for believers.

Positions that claim more than this for Paul’s use of the case of Abraham include adopting the concepts of Abraham being a ‘type’ or Paul’s use of Abraham being ‘typological’, or the more developed idea of Abraham being the ‘representative forefather’. All this can be quite consistent with the earlier ‘exemplary’ approach above, if it is seen that it is Abraham’s faith that makes him the ‘forefather’ or ‘type’. The question is, what exactly is Abraham, for Paul, a type of? Is Abraham a type of the Christian? If so, this really does not take us much further than the ‘exemplary’ approach above. There is also a difference between a ‘prototype’ (the first or original model or paradigm which sets the pattern for the others) and ‘representative forefather’ (the progenitor who in some way represents his descendants as a class), but it is also true that Abraham could be both, and one need not derogate from the other. Further, Abraham could be a ‘father’ or ‘forefather’ without being a representative forefather, in that those who follow him might follow in imitating him, or a quality he has, but Abraham’s acts do not immediately effect them, in the way, for example, that traditional theology holds of Adam’s representation and headship.

Some might see Abraham as a type of Christ in Romans 4, in the same way that David is a type of Christ in Romans 1:3 (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα). This is the position of Douglas Campbell. Campbell holds that Abraham is not an example of justification—this is part of his critique of what he calls ‘Justification Theory’—but a type of Christ. Abraham’s faith is not belief or even trust, but fidelity, that is, faithfulness (Campbell 2009: 387, 715). This fits neatly with his understanding of pistis Christou as a subjective gentive—the faithfulness of Christ, which carries over to the instance of ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ in Romans 4:16—the phrase then is a reference to the “the faithfulness of Abraham”. Campbell understands Abraham’s faith as ‘typological’, that is, it anticipates the faithfulness of Jesus, and foreshadows the participation of the Christian in that faith (Campbell 2009: 752–54). Justification for Campbell is not a forensic declaration but a liberating, apocalyptic act of deliverance.

The position Campbell adopts on ‘the faith of Christ’ however has been challenged particularly effectively by Francis Watson, whose cogent support of the traditional ‘objective genitive’ understanding has removed the premise of Campbell’s bold argument (Watson 2009, 147-164). In addition, in so far as Campbell excludes Christian fiduciary faith from justification, then his thesis is not at all persuasive. It is clear that the faith of which Abraham is a model, and in who footsteps Christians walk, is a fiduciary faith in the promise and power of God. Consider verse 18, Ὃς παρ’ ἐλπίδα ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν || “who with hope against hope believed.” Or in verse 24: τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν || “to those who believe upon the one raising Jesus our Lord from the dead”. This is not fidelity but better characterized as fiduciary faith, ‘trust’.

The NPP generally speaking sees Abraham not as a theological ‘proof’ for justification by faith apart from works, but the founding ‘progenitor’ of a historical multi-ethnic family in fulfillment of God’s promise (Barclay, 2015: 480). But it seems to me here the NPP is correct in what they affirm but wrong in what they deny (if they are denying it!). They are not mutually exclusives conceptions of Abraham. Yes, Abraham is the foundational scriptural and therefore theological proof for justification by faith precisely because he is the founding progenitor (though not biologically, but in a spiritual sense).

Again, claims which see the center of gravity in Romans 4:9-17 (Barclay, 2015: 480) and thus Rom 4:1-8 is somehow “less important”, are much more subjective—they are like arguments about the center of Paul’s theology, which in the end can only be determined inductively on the basis of textual clues, and probably really don’t matter that much. Paul obviously thought both were important enough to use up papyrus or parchment and ink to write them.

The role of Abraham in Paul for NT Wright is that Abraham demonstrates that God has been faithful to the covenant. The language of ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) for Wright is covenant language, so that the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεου for Wright means the covenant faithfulness of God. It does not denote a righteousness received from God as a gift (Wright 2013: 218).

Perhaps another way to conceive this issue is whether we read the theme of God establishing Abraham's world wide family through the lens of the justification of individual sinners before the throne of God by faith, or whether we such read justification by faith through the realm of Abraham's worldwide family. Both are true, both obviously have a place in Romans obviously, but can one be seen as the foundation of the other? The topical order of Romans 3 and 4 suggests that justification by faith (Rom 3:21-28, 4:1-8) is prior and foundational at least in Paul’s presentation and rhetoric in Romans to the issue of Abraham’s worldwide family (Rom 3:29-30, 4:9-21). Moreover, covenant is not explicitly used as an integrating theme, whereas justification by faith, promise, reckoning righteousness, and not boasting, is clearly that.

Moo correctly notes that Paul has both a “insistence that justification is by faith alone” and “his concern for the full inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God” and that both commitments “make it necessary for [Paul] to integrate Abraham theologically into his scheme” (Moo 1996a: 257). Barclay recently consciously provides a theologically robust integration of the two motifs concerning Abraham. Eschewing the false dichotomizing of the ‘either/or’ approach, he follows the order of Paul’s treatment. Abraham is a believer, justified by faith, and thereby he is the father of all from all nations who believe and are justified (Barclay, 2015: 481). Faith is the means by which Abraham’s seed come into being. He is father of both an historical family (v. 1), and father of the family of faith (vv. 11-12, 16-17). “He is both founding father and model”, and he has originating and exemplary functions (Barclay, 2015: 482). In this Barclay is correct to say that Abraham is not merely an illustration, a scriptural proof of a theological concept or polemical addition. However, Abraham is certainly not less than a proto-type or example or scriptural proof, and the denial of Abraham and David as ‘scriptural evidence of a freestanding principle’ is an example of false dichotomizing and, in the manner that it is often expressed, ‘strawmaning’. Abraham’s place in salvation history requires his illustration to be more than one among many (Barclay 2015: 481-490), but he is still an illustration. Abrahamic faith is the characteristic trait of all in his family, whether Jew or gentile.

Is the example of Abraham’s divine reckoning of righteousness different in kind from the example of David? While David is not said to have a worldwide family, David too is specifically named, in a situation where Paul could have said simply that ‘the scripture says’. This suggests it is more than simply the scriptural principle, but also that the identity of the human author is significant. King David is arguably just as important salvation-historically as Abraham, being Christ’s forefather ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, and Christ’s ante-type as ‘Son of God’ (Rom 1:3-4). While it is what David says that is important (v. 6), but it is explicitly said to be David who says it (when other alternatives were open to Paul—‘God’, ‘the Spirit’, ‘the Scriptures’, ‘the prophet’, ‘the book of Psalms’). This fact makes the mention of David likewise important. In this regard, it is worth remembering, at least on the non-Hays/Wright traditional view of Rom 4:1, that likewise, it is what Abraham ‘found’ concerning justification by faith and boasting before God, that Paul originally asks, and not in the first instance who Abraham was and is in salvation history.

Conclusion and Issues Arising From This Question, Including Individual Salvation

Romans 4:1-25 presents Abraham as an example, type, or proof of both justification by faith apart from works and this blessing being communicated to both Jewish and gentile believers, propositions Paul has articulated in 3:21-31. In Romans 4:1-8, the concept and means of justification of sinners is explained, and in 4:9-24, the consequences of this justification, and thus the breadth or scope of Abraham’s justified family is delinateated. In 4:25, the grounds of justification is re-asserted (cf. 3:24-26). Abraham is thus more than ‘an’ example: as the forefather of all believers, he is ‘the’ example. However, David’s identity is also significant for what he says, and more to the point, it is what Abraham ‘found’ about justification (4:1) and what David ‘says’ (4:6) that Paul emphasizes. Thus, the significance of the identity of the two salvation-historical figures (Abraham and David) should not be used to undermine what they find and say for us, those who need justification (cf. 4:23-24; cf. 3:21-2). Their words are part of the witness of the Old Testament scriptures to justification by faith.

In Romans 4:5, ἀσεβῆς should not be limited to an ethnic description, but it is ethical and moral—it is a statement of the objects of justification meritoriousness—they have none—rather than their gentile ethnicity. The inclusion of gentiles into God's ‘covenant’ people (I use the term as a concession to mean the chosen group God has bound himself to) is the result of justification by faith, not to be equated with it, and this allows us to account fully for both individual salvation and justification, and some of the valid sociological concerns that have been raised by the NPP, that Paul does indeed want to bring Jew and gentile together in Christ. Justification is the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the non-imputation of sins, with καθάπερ καὶ (v. 6) not equating ‘counting righteousness’ with ‘not counting unrighteousness’, but indicating a relationship between the two, that each are constituent elements of a bigger whole.

Creation ex nihilo should not be seen as the controlling motif for understanding Romans 4:17. The one other example of the terminology in Paul (1 Cor 1:28) does not evidence a creation from nothing background, but the terminology expressing that God regards as significant on account of Christ those who are ignoble, weak, and despised. It is an example of a divine reversal—blessing the despised, and passing over the wise, great, wellborn, and well regarded—in Christ.

We must more confidently assert the individualistic aspects of salvation which Paul's presentation of justification requires. There is clearly a place for individual salvation given the basic premises that faith can only be exercised by individual humans and eteranly judgement in Romans chapters 2 (in a way no-one guilty of sin can savingly endure: 2:12-13) and 14 (following the modification of final judgement provided by the gospel which allows God to have mercy on all bound over to disobedience) is of each human according to works—this requires individual response, which is the way of taking hold of justification by faith. The NPP criticizes the OPP for its so-called Western individualistic emphasis on personal salvation. But Western Individualism grows out of the biblical commitment to each human being an image bearer, judgement of each human according to works, the reality of hell and eternal retribution to individuals on the basis of what they have done, and the need for personal faith such as Abraham showed. Thus, to compromise personal salvation and to concede ground to the NPP here is to compromise the gospel. We should not give any ground whatsoever to countenance the NPP’s prejudice against individual salvation and justification: there is no corporate church without individual saving faith: We believe so that we may belong. To belong alone simply promotes nominalism—its affinities to the Roman Catholic soteriology are clear and it turns soteriology into ecclesiology. Rather, the sociological serves the individual soteriological, so that the saved individuals can serve the society of salvation, and take that salvation into human society. Indeed, Romans 4 itself points this way, with Romans 4:1-8 addressing the necessity of individual justification, and Romans 4:9-18 having Abraham as father of an international family.

Adherents of the NPP might rail that the gospel is not about personal, individual salvation, that the gospel isn’t about “how to be saved,” and of course it is true that the gospel is a message about Christ first and foremost, but Paul directly links the gospel to our salvation:

¹Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν), which you received, in which you stand, ²and by which you are being saved (δι’ οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε), if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. ³For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν) in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 ESV)

Are the adherents of the NPP serious in saying that the gospel is not about ‘how to be saved’? Romans is incomprehensible without understanding that the salvation of which Paul speaks is from experiencing the wrath of God as the penalty for sin committed. Certainly, there is more to be saved from, such as our own flesh (Rom 7:14-25), and being handed over to our own sinfulness (Rom 1:18-32). The gospel must be personally received to save a person, because of the human response required of ‘faith’. Given that Paul believes that there is future divine wrath awaiting each human who has done evil, first for the Jew then the Greek, how can anything that is called ‘gospel’ not be related to human eternal destiny? I cannot think that Paul’s grief over Israel is merely ‘national’—the destruction of the nation—but it is individual—that his own countrymen have rejected their Messiah and therefore the way of salvation, and it is horrible for him to contemplate being eternally shut out from the kingdom of the Messiah. The knee jerk opposition to any presentation that speaks of individual salvation flies in the face of some pretty key texts in Romans:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) for it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe (δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι), both to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

The issue of personal salvation is key to Romans and the ‘salvation’ about which speaks is salvation from eternal punishment and constitutes eternal resurrection life.

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God (πολλῷ […] μᾶλλον […] σωθησόμεθα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς.). For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life (πολλῷ μᾶλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ). (Romans 5:9-10 ESV)

The wrath of God here is clearly future, as Paul presents an a fortiori argument based on our present status (justified, reconciled) in contrast to our past status (enemies) that gives us assurance about our future salvation from wrath. Since we have current justification through faith because of Jesus’ death, we will be saved in the future from God’s eschatological wrath. Christ’s past death in bearing our sin and present life as risen Lord—that is, his bearing the penalty for our sin required by the law and his justification from the human judgement of the death of a sinner by resurrection and his ongoing risen life at the right hand of God enabling his continuing intercession on our behalf, gives us the status now of ‘reconciled’ and justified, the ‘us’ being those who have faith in Christ.

²⁴Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου;) ²⁵Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 25But thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 7:24-25)

Paul in the present, when he writes the letter, is wretched, and needs to be delivered from the body of death, because of the sin living in his flesh. However, he longs for delivery from the body of this death. The future is probably pointing to the time when he no longer is encumbered by the flesh and indwelling sin which torments him—either when he departs to be with the Lord Jesus in the intermediate state, which is better by far, or ultimately, the final state of having a resurrected body without the encumbrance of either the flesh or sin. This will be brought about through his savior Christ.

[…] we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit (αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες), groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (στενάζομεν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν.). For in this hope we were saved (τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν). Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? (Romans 8:23-24 ESV)

Again, there are past, present, and future aspects of the Spirit. The aorist ἐσώθημεν is probably a summary aorist. Those who have that hope are saved. But as both Paul and those to whom he writes who have this hope have also had this hope for some time, it is appropriate that the ESV translates it as past. Presently, they also have the first fruits of the Spirit. Moreover, in the future they look forward to their adoption, the redemption of their bodies. This is the resurrection being referred to as an adoption in se, in itself. But the hope of the resurrection of the dead in and through Christ saves us.

In Romans 9, Paul expresses his concern for his fellow Jews. He has great sorrow and anguish and wishes himself accursed and cut off from Christ for their sake (vv. 2-3) Yet he finds that “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v. 6). Yet, this has salvific consequence for those who do not belong to Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved (τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται)” (Rom 9:27). The reason why the rest are not saved is indicated in verse 32: “Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works”. Faith is what saves. So in Romans 10, Paul reiterates his heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved (ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν εἰς σωτηρίαν: v. 1). And Paul makes it clear how they can be saved in verses 9-13:

⁹because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (σωθήσῃ). ¹⁰For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved (στόματι δὲ ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν.). […] ¹³—For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (σωθήσεται).” (ESV)

The issue of salvation is appropriated by an individual act of faith. The human response of faith can be broader than an individual and more than the act of the individuals, but it can never be anything less, given the nature of faith in verse—involving the ‘heart’. Thus, the adjectival participle as a substantive, ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται || ‘the one believing upon him will not be put to shame’. The future is a divine passive and refers to the eschatological disgrace of the final judgement, from which the one who trusts in Christ is preserved and shielded.

The same issue, unsurprisingly, continues through Romans 11. Thus, verse 11, “So I ask, did they [Israel] stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Yes, this is clearly speaking nationally, because it is not all gentiles who have been saved. But this is true of the Jews also, for salvation has come to the Jews, in verse 14, “in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.” (ESV)

In Romans 11:26, “all Israel will be saved” I take it means that both Jews and gentiles who trust in Christ as the Messiah will be eschatologically saved from wrath and given the gift of eternal life. “The Deliverer (ὁ ῥυόμενος) will come from Zion” (v. 26), is a reference to Jesus Christ, the one who Paul looks to for rescue (Rom 7:25). In Romans 13:11, ‘salvation’ is future, as it is “nearer to us now than when we first believed. The NPP seems to seriously underplay the place of eternal individual salvation for the Apostle Paul.

The human response of faith can be broader than an individual and more than the act of the individuals, but it can never be anything less, given the nature of faith in verse—involving the ‘heart’ (cf. also Rom 11:11, 14, 26; 13:11). The NPP seems to seriously underplay the place of eternal individual salvation for the apostle Paul.