If you wanna grow up to come a big big man You’ve gotta ‘Get a little dirt on your hands’.
For many of us, our work is our life. Most people spend more waking hours at work than with their families.
Now, everyone has to work, or had to work. You don’t work, you don’t eat. But it’s also true that we get a great sense of achievement from our work. Especially us men. We can say: ‘I’ve achieved this, I did this, I built this.’ We feel independent, capable. We can say to our dads: ‘I’ve made something of my life.'
I understand Australian’s have some of the longest working hours in the Developed World (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1247577.htm; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-10-29/australians-still-working-longer-hours-many/186024; http://www.smh.com.au/travel/aussies-working-worlds-longest-hours-20090109-7da3.html). In many companies, unions have been effectively sidelined. We are no longer the land of the long weekend. ‘Bludgers No More’, was a newspaper headline I saw a number of years ago. And many in our community try and get financial security, and even self-esteem from career, work and achievements. The pin their hope on significance and security from work. Now, even Solomon tried this and failed (Ecclesiastes 2:4-11; 18-23). And many are repeating Solomon’s failed experiment, and are equally disappointed.
But there is a flip-side. Because while there are those who work to feel significant and secure, those who don’t or can’t often feel useless and insignificant. Unemployment can be soul destroying. Now I’m not talking about holidays or weekends. They are good. But it is only work that makes holidays and weekends fun. They are only weekends and holidays because of work.
Now I’m talking about people who want work but can’t get it or do it. There are long term unemployed people who cannot work because there aren’t jobs. There are men who are injured and cannot work for extended periods. Or I’m talking about what I hear some men experience when they retire. Sometimes, retired men feel useless, of having nothing to do, of moping around the house, getting under his wife’s feet, and waiting to die. That can be soul destroying.
But there is another approach to unemployment, isn’t there? This approach is the one that turns up every month or so on A Current Affair and Today Tonight. It’s the ‘Dole Bludger’. The bludger is the one who sponges off others for their living. They know the system and milk it, never having done an honest days work in their lives. But because they rort the system, they receive more than a day’s pay.
We hear about these people. The media do stories on them. The politicians promise to find them. The taxpayer resents them. They are a group perenially despised.
I would guess that most people here today are decent self-respecting people. Most people here have worked hard all their lives and provided for their families. I bet you’ve earned your bread by the sweat of your brow and toilsome labour. You’ve not bludged on anybody. You aren’t ‘bludgers’, as far as our society is concerned. And my guess is that this might make understanding what Paul has to say in our passage today very difficult. What Paul says might be hard for you to hear and understand and agree with, because Paul’s words are radical, scandalous, and even offensive. Because when it comes to justification, when it comes to being acquitted and being credited as righteous by God, only bludgers get to heaven. That’s right, bludgers! Not the hard working high flyers, but people who don’t work to get to heaven. As far as their justification before God is concerned, these people haven’t done a decent day’s work in their lives. They are wicked, or more literally, ungodly. They are sinners who without their own works to justify them before God, sponge off the good work of another. They are passengers, those who merit nothing except by the merit of another, riding on the fare of another, holding on to the coat tails of someone else to get them into heaven.
That is what every justified sinner is: a bludger, someone resting and relying on Jesus Christ, and not on themselves, someone who bludges off God and sponges upon his kindness and can only say: ‘You know, I live off the hard work of another. I have nothing of my own that really cuts it’. You’ve heard of ‘kept women’. Well, that’s all of us. Kept women, as far as justification before God is concerned.
Last week, we looked together at Romans 3:27-31, where Paul articulates the principle that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28). And he argued that the principle of faith excluded boasting. Chapter 3 verse 27:
Where then is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. (NIV)
The principle of faith excludes boasting. Why? Because faith is an empty hand or a hungry mouth. By faith, we receive Jesus and take hold of him. Faith is the sole instrument of our justification. Faith is the great double pipeline that connects us to the Warragamba Dam that is Jesus Christ and all his benefits. Faith is powerful, not because faith is special in itself, but because faith connects us to Jesus. So faith excludes boasting. At least, we cannot boast about ourselves, because our justification is all of God, and comes from his Son, Jesus Christ. So we now boast about Jesus Christ and his works, and not about ourselves, and our works.
But how could someone prove that justification by faith alone, apart from works, is true for a Jew? How could Paul show that this method, ‘justification by faith apart from works’, has always been the way God saves people? How do you convince the descendants of Abraham, and the remnant of the tribe of Judah, about free justification by faith, and not by the good works of the law of Moses?
Well, you would need to get Abraham on your side? You need to show what you’re saying is true of Abraham. And you need to get David on your side, David, the greatest King of the Tribe of Judah. You need powerful precedent to prove free justification by faith alone, apart from works.
And so Paul turns to two indisputable Jewish figures, the two foundational characters who define what it is to be a Jew: Abraham, the father of the Nation, and David, the King of the nation; Abraham, a man called by God, and David, a man after God’s own heart. What did Abraham and David find in this matter of justification before God? Was it by their works? Or was it apart from their works, and by faith alone.
Paul’s first example, his first precedent, is Abraham. And Paul shows that Abraham was justified by faith and not by his works. Look with me at Romans chapter 4 verses 1 to 3:
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about – but not before God. What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ (NIV)
Paul says, ‘Lets go back and read about Abraham. He is the great great great great, however-many-great grandfather of every Jew. How was Abraham justified?’
Now, a Jewish tradition had grown up around Abraham that assumed him justified by his works. One Jewish writer said, ‘Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord’ (Jubilees 23:10). Another said, ‘we find that Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given’ (Kidd 4:14). Still another said that Abraham didn’t need repentance (Prayer of Manasses, 8)[1].
Well, that’s what humans have said. What does the Scripture say? ‘Back to the bible!’, says Paul. Lets read the last part of verse 3:
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. (NIV)
Here, Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6. In Genesis 15, God made promises to Abraham. God promised to give Abraham a son from his own body. Abraham’s descendants would outnumber the stars of the sky. Unbelievable? Yes, unbelievable, given the state of Abraham’s body. Unbelievable, given Sarah’s barren womb. Unbelievable, given their great age. Yet, Abraham believed God. Abraham believed God and his promise. Abraham took God at his word.
In fact, this is what Abraham had always done. Ever since God called Abraham to leave his Father’s house, in Genesis 12:1-3, Abraham trusted God, in spite of circumstances, in spite of his own deadness, in the midst of his own doubts, and notwithstanding his own failures and sins, of which the bible speaks. Despite what his eyes said to him, Abraham believed God’s word. He would be the father of multitudes.
What did Abraham discover in this matter? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Genesis 15:6 says that Abraham believed God. Genesis 15:6 doesn’t say Abraham obeyed God, or worked for God, but believed God.
And as a result, it was credited to him as righteousness[2]. Although there is plenty of bible that says Abraham did obey God and do good works, but the bible doesn’t say Abraham did a righteous deed, and God credited it to him as righteousness. It could have said this[3], but it doesn’t. Abraham did many good works, but none of them counted for his justification before God, according to Paul, and according to Genesis 15:6.
Genesis 15:6 says Abraham believed God, Abraham trusted God’s promise, and relied on God himself, and that faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness. And for Paul, to be ‘credited as righteous’ means to be justified.
In other words, Paul understands Genesis 15:6 to teach concerning Abraham exactly what Paul himself has already maintained applies to every person. Paul has maintained in Chapter 3 verse 28, that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (NIV). And Paul is saying that Genesis 15:6 teaches that very thing. Abraham was justified by faith apart from works of the law.
And so could Abraham boast about his justification? Did Abraham have a ground to boast before God? Look with me at verse 2 again:
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about… (NIV)
Paul suggests the possibility that Abraham might boast. Suppose, for the sake of argument, Abraham was justified by works. In that case, Abraham had something to boast about. Something Abraham did led to his justification before God. Then Abraham could boast.
But as soon as the suggestion leaves Paul’s mouth, Paul exclaims ‘NO!’ The last part of verse 2:
But not before God... (NIV)
No way, not as far as God is concerned.
Why couldn’t Abraham boast before God? Because, as a matter of fact, Abraham was not justified by works before God, but by faith. That is the importance of the Genesis 15:6 quote. Genesis 15:6 says Abraham was justified by faith. So Paul immediately and emphatically denies Abraham’s right to boast.
But not before God... (NIV)
This is Paul’s logic. Justification by works gives a ground for boasting before God. But the bible says Abraham was not justified by works but by faith. Therefore, Abraham’s works do not give him a ground for boasting before God.
Now at this point some might say. It is true Abraham could not boast before God. But perhaps Paul allows Abraham to boast of his works before men. Abraham had no boast before God. However, he does have a boast before men.
Now, I think this is to misunderstand Paul’s phrase ‘before God’ The phrase ‘but not before God’ does not mean Abraham could boast before men. Rather, it highlights two things for us.
First, the phrase makes clear we are dealing with justification before God. We are dealing with God’s tribunal, God’s courtroom. Paul indicated we were dealing with God’s verdict in chapter 3 verse 20:
No-one will be justified before God, in his sight, by works of the law (NIV).
So it's God's standard that matters. Now again, Paul reminds us that we are speaking of God’s verdict at the great day of judgment. And as far as God is concerned, and as far as God’s standards go, ‘No flesh living is righteous before him’. There is no-one righteous, not even one. There is no one good, only God alone. There is not one man who does what is righteous and never sins.
Secondly, Paul by the phrase ‘but not before God’ implicitly criticises men’s opinions about Abraham. Abraham certainly was an upright and obedient man. We can understand why men might think that Abraham was justified before God by his works. But as far as God is concerned, and as Genesis 15:6 teaches, Abraham was not credited righteousness that way. So Paul exclaims, But not before God For Scripture says ‘Abraham believed God’. And what Scripture says, God says[4]. Man might say: ‘Abraham was perfect, Abraham performed the whole Law, Abraham didn’t need repentance’ [5] But not before God... Whatever man’s judgment is about Abraham, God’s judgment was that Abraham was not justified by his good works, and therefore, Abraham had no ground for boasting.
To explain what he means, Paul sets up two scenarios to compare and contrast. They are two scenarios from every day life, simple scenarios that everyone can understand. The first is an employment relationship. Verse 4:
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. (NIV)
There is nothing new here. A person goes off to work, and at the end of the week, they expect to be paid. Their bank account is credited with wages at the agreed rate. The cheque comes in, and no-one is surprised to have been paid. But no wage earner ever says: ‘Oh my, what’s this, my pay packet! I never would have known. And you kept it so secret! No, I cannot accept this. It’s too much. You keep it!’
The very reason the labourer goes to work is to be paid the agreed money.
We know the difference between a wage and a free gift. So does the Australian Taxation Office. As far as I am aware, you don’t have to declare gifts as income on your tax return. You don’t have to declare the $20 that Grandma still sends in the post, or the $50 you receive from mum for your birthday, because we all know that a gift is different from a wage. The person receiving a gift hasn’t earned it. A gift is not earnings with an obligation.
Now, unfortunately, gifts can become a bit like an obligation. We’ve got Christmas coming up. And our culture sets up huge expectations and obligations for Christmas. And as a result, Christmas presents can easily be taken for granted, expected every year without fail. Easter is a time for chocolate, Christmas a time for asset acquisition. My presents are my right. Imagine for a moment what would happen if you didn’t buy presents on Christmas, and you realize sometimes a gift can become an obligation.
But that is not what Paul means by ‘a gift’. The word translated gift in the original conveys the idea of ‘according to grace’. A gift is something graciously given, not according to rights, expectations, and obligations. It’s actually a surprise. It is not expected. And it is not earned. More than that, we will discover that not only is this gift not deserved, but it is contrary to desert. This gift is given according to the generosity, grace and kindness of the giver only.
That is what Paul is saying. Justification is not earned. To be declared righteous is not the reward for doing works that please God. No. It is apart from works. It is a gracious gift. It’s free. It’s better than a bargain. It’s better than a 99.9% off sale. It is absolutely without our meriting or earning it.
Verse 4 tells us how justification doesn’t work. It is not the wage, the reward, for works. Verse 5 tells us how justification does work. It tells us how Abraham and we are justified. It tells us who Abraham and we are. It tells us what we’ve done, and what we haven’t done. Read verse 5 with me:
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (NIV)
There are many passages in the bible that speak on the same topic – free justification. But this sentence says it in the most confrontational and controversial and scandalous way. Paul is explaining how Abraham was justified.
Abraham had many good works. Twenty-five years before Genesis 15:6, Abraham obeyed God. Genesis 12:1-3 says Abraham left his father’s house at God’s command. Abraham didn’t even know where he was going (Hebrews 11:8-10; Genesis 12:1-3). Before God declared Abraham righteous, Abraham was generous with his nephew Lot and gave him first pick of the land (Genesis 13:8-12). Then, when Lot was carried away, Abraham risked his life to save him (Genesis 14:14-16). And when Abraham rescued the women and children of Sodom, he returned them all without payment (Genesis 14:22-24). In our society, he would be a hero, at the level of Simpson and his Donkey as an ANZAC legend at Galipolli, or of the caliber of a Victoria Cross winner. Abraham had many good works, because he was a man of faith, and faith works.
Yet Paul says Abraham is an example of one who does not work. Look with me at verse 5 again:
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (NIV)
For Paul, Abraham is the example of the one who does not work.
How can this be? How can Abraham, the man full of good works, be the prime example of the man who does not work?
Well, because Abraham and his works were tainted with sin. For there is another way that God considers Abraham, and it is not good. For there is no one good, only God alone. Read with me verse 5 again:
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (NIV)
God is described as the one who justifies the wicked. Who is Paul saying God regards as wicked, literally, ungodly? Who is it?
It’s Abraham! Abraham is the ungodly one. God regards Abraham as wicked[6]. And, at one level, fortunately for us, he is just like us: wicked, ungodly, stained by sin and iniquity. For it is the wicked person that God justifies by faith.
Now if Abraham, the Victoria Cross winner, who has walked with God for 25 years, is wicked, what do you think God thinks of you and me? Abraham’s life was near angelic, yet God found fault with it. How much more us?
Do you see why we need to be justified by faith only, without works? Because our works, even our best works, cannot stand God’s searing holy gaze. God sees our impure motives. God sees our unspoken thoughts. God sees the lusts and desires no-one else does, as well as our rank doubt and willful disobedience.
God justifies the wicked. Did you know that this was the very thing God commanded human judges never to do?
Justifying the guilty and condemning the innocent – the Lord detests them both (Proverbs 17:15 NIV).
Indeed, God even declared, in the context of human courts, that he would never do it.
Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or righteous person to death, for I will not justify the wicked (Exodus 23:7 NIV).
And yet here is Paul, by the Spirit of God, calling Abraham ‘wicked’, ‘ungodly’, and showing that God justified him, declaring him innocent, and crediting righteousness to him, by faith, based on the righteousness of another, that of God, and of his Son, Jesus Christ, who is our righteousness, so that we are righteous before God in Jesus, and we have his righteousness as a gift.
Justifying the ungodly looks like a divine miscarriage of justice. It would be shameful and sinful anywhere else. But here, with God, justifying the ungodly is glorious and blessed, adding to his holiness and moral perfection, because God did so justly. God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25-26).
So Paul has shown that he has Abraham the forefather on his side. Now he turns to David, the King.
In comes King David to the witness box. For David has expert evidence to give. David was Israel’s Messiah, the Christ, and like Abraham, another Victoria Cross winner, saving his nation numerous times, felling Goliath and other lesser threats. David loved the law, David had many good works. David, humanly speaking and at different times, could testify to his own clean hands in good conscience. When David was unjustly hunted down by jealous Saul, he refused to kill him, though having two opportunities. David was a man full of good works.
Yet, we know too that David was a messiah with blood on his hands. And unlike his greater Son, Jesus, that blood was not his own. For David notoriously took his trusted bodyguard’s wife, made her pregnant, and then killed Uriah to cover it up. And the bible records several other lesser known blemishes and sins, that brought suffering upon David and David’s people.
Here is David, the greatest King of Israel, a man famous for his good works, a man notorious for his sins: What does David say about how a man is credited righteousness? Is it by works of the law? Is it apart from works of the law? Verses 6 to 8:
David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works. ‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.’ (NIV)
Paul quotes from Psalm 32, one of David’s seven penitential psalms. And Paul understands David’s words, which he quotes, to encapsulate the meaning of justification by faith. David’s words describe the blessing of God by which God credits or reckons righteousness to sinners who trust in Jesus.
And to reckon us to be righteous, God has to ignore our sins. Verse 7:
‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Verse 8:
‘Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.’
Here is the wonder of justification by faith, here is the grace and mercy of God, that the holy God forgives transgressions and covers over our sins.
We hate ‘cover ups’. We despise the scandals, rightly uncovered by our media, and royal commissions, and police. We hate situations where the truth had been hidden from view and those with something to hide remain in polite society. We love it when evil doers are exposed, and rank criminals stop masquarading in decent society, and wicked people are called to account for their wicked deeds.
Well, look at this scandal, this divine cover up, the scandal of God. For what would be shameful for humans to do, cover their own offences, is the glory and grace of God, to forgive our sins. For we all have something to hide, as far as God’s concerned. And it is the glory of God to cover offences.
If you trust in Jesus, know this! God covers over your wretchedness, your sins, your many transgressions. That is God’s prerogative and glory. We do not cover them but confess them. And God covers them, not us.
In his mind, God makes a decision about you, when you trust in Jesus Christ. Despite your evil, despite your wicked thoughts, words and deeds, all of which he knows better than you do, God says this: ‘No! I refuse to see them. I can’t count them. I won’t speak of them. They are not there. I blot them out. I erase them. I throw them behind me. I plunge them away from me. I shred them. I burn them. And I consider you righteous You are reckoned righteous. Because I only see Jesus. I can’t see you and your sin. I see Jesus, my beloved Son, and his righteousness. And your life is hidden with Christ in God. And you are clothed in his righteousness, and he, Jesus Christ, is your righteousness, and you are His.’
And God the Father can do this, can think of us in this way, with all integrity, because of the obedient life of his dear Son Jesus, which pleased God the Father, and the obedient death of his dear Son, which dealt with our sins once and for all.
Have you been scandalised at the cover up of God? Do you bay for justice? How can God cover over sin and let the guilty go unpunished? How is that the glory of God and not his shame?
Or do you recognise that you too have something to hide, that you stand with Abraham and David as ‘wicked’?
Because it is only when you see yourself as wicked, the way God sees you, that you see the wonder of God justifying the wicked.
We are not just those who have made mistakes (what a euphemism!), but wicked, and continually wicked. At once wicked, and, miraculously, righteous. Always and at the same time, wicked, because of our inhering sinful thoughts, words and deeds, and righteous, because of the blood and righteousness of Christ.
Do you too see this divine cover-up, this miscarriage of justice, as blessedness? Abraham did. David did. Paul did. They knew their own sinfulness intimately. And yet they were blessed with the blessing of free justification. Verses 7 and 8:
‘Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.’ (NIV)
Why not you, too? Perhaps you have come to church a long time. Perhaps you have been a hard working person. Perhaps you’ve worked hard for your family, your country, even your church. But in all that you have never recognised yourself as ‘wicked’. You haven’t stood with Abraham and David and Paul. You have never seen your need for a righteousness apart from your good works, given to you by someone else.
Well, let me say this to you. ‘Relax. Stop working for your justification. You are wicked. Good thing too, paradoxically! For they are the only ones in this fallen world that the God who justifies the wicked justifies. So why not start trusting Jesus Christ, and live a life of trust in Jesus Christ, not yourself, despite your wickedness.
Or maybe you’ve trusted God and his Son for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, maybe more. You do well. You may be different to what you were in many areas. God may have sanctified you through and through. You may indeed be a new creature, born again, and walking in the Spirit, not gratifying the flesh. It is all true. It is all wonderful.
But always remember. You are still wicked. Twenty-five years after Abraham first exercised faith, the apostle Paul says that God saw him as wicked. For it is the wicked whom God justifies.
So none of us have anything to boast about. We always need to be justified by faith, today just as much as the first time we believed. We always need to be justified by faith apart from works. Our works will never stand before the judgment seat. They too need to be justified by faith alone. So we have no boast. Rather, let's remember that Jesus died for us, and be thankful.
Let’s pray
[1] Cited in Cranfield (ICC), 227
[2] ‘The best explanation of Paul’s exposition of Gen 15:6 in these two verses would seem to be that which understands it to turn upon the fact that the Genesis verse makes no mention of any work of Abraham but simply refers to his faith’ (Cranfield, 231).
[3] Compare Psalm 106:30-31
[4] Contra Barth
[5] Cited in Cranfield (ICC), 227
[6] Contra Sungenis, Fitzmyer, Brendan Byrne, and various new perspective types. To be asebes is not an ethnic but ethical category, not a social but a moral category.
In Romans 3:27-31, Paul articulates the principle that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28). The principle of faith excluded boasting (3:27). It does so because faith is the sole instrument of our justification, connecting the believer to Christ and his benefits. Now believers boast about Jesus Christ and his works, and not about themselves and their works. Justification by faith apart from works has always been the way God saves people, which Paul shows from the examples of Abraham and David.
Romans 4 uses Abraham as precedent that boasting is excluded because the believer is justified by faith apart from works (3:27-28). Romans 4 expounds Genesis 15:6[1]; however, it must be viewed against the whole Abraham narrative (Gen 12:1ff)[2]. Abraham is introduced (4:1), and shown to have been justified by faith (4:2-8; cf. Gen 15:6) before his circumcision (4:9-12) and not through law (4:13-17). Faith is attached to God’s promise (4:17-22), and Abraham portrayed a paradigm for all believers (4:23-25)[3].
Romans 4:1 NA28 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;
In Romans 4:1, Abraham is described as the forefather and progenitor of the Jewish people (Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα). The prepositional phrase κατὰ σάρκα probably attaches to τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν rather than εὑρηκέναι. This description implies that though Paul addresses predominantly Jews, Abraham has children other than those who are “according to the flesh”.
Romans 4:2 NA28 εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα, ἀλλ’ οὐ πρὸς θεόν.
In Romans 4:2, Paul introduces a simple condition (nb. εἰ). If Abraham was justified from and because of his works (ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη: v. 2a; cf. Jas 2:21), he has a grounds for boasting (καύχημα: v. 2b). Paul’s strong negation (ἀλλ’ οὐ :v. 2c) denies that Abraham has a boast coram deo (πρὸς θεόν), a basis for self-boasting with God. However, this negation (ἀλλ’ οὐ : v. 2c) does not merely limit the scope of acceptable boasting to being before other humans[4] (as if Abraham could not boast before God, but he could before men), but rather it renders both protasis (that Abraham was justified by works) and apodosis (that Abraham had a ground for boasting) unreal[5]. That is, Abraham had no ground for boasting before God or before humans, because Abraham was in fact not justified by works but by faith.
Some Jewish tradition about Abraham asserted or implied that he was justified by his works. “Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord” (Jubilees 23:10); “we find that Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given” (Kidd 4:14). Some said that Abraham didn’t need repentance (Prayer of Manasses, 8)[6]. Indeed, the Genesis account provides many examples of Abraham’s good works. Twenty-five years before Genesis 15:6, Abraham left his father’s house at God’s command and went to the land God would show him (Genesis 12:1-3). Abraham didn’t even know where he was going (Hebrews 11:8-10). Before God declared Abraham righteous, Abraham was generous with his nephew Lot and gave him first pick of the land (Genesis 13:8-12). Then, when Lot was carried away, Abraham risked his life to save him (Genesis 14:14-16). And when Abraham rescued the women and children of Sodom, he returned them all without payment (Genesis 14:22-24).
Romans 4:3 NA28 τί γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει; ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.
But in Romans 4:3, Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham was in fact not justified by works: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Paul elicits Genesis 15:6, in a form almost identical to the LXX, to deny the proposition in the protasis of verse 2a (that is, Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη). Abraham was not justified from works, because Genesis 15:6 simply says he believed[7]. Some commentators view the Genesis 12 promises and the Genesis 15:6 declaration as related, probably correctly. Moo argues that “the promise with reference to which Abraham believes in Yahweh includes the worldwide blessing promised in Genesis 12:1-3”[8]. Schreiner argues “Genesis 15 simply ratifies Genesis 12, showing that Abraham’s willingness to leave his homeland stemmed from his faith”[9].
The meaning of the construction in Genesis 15:6 is that Abraham’s faith (πίστις, nominalisation of the verbal idea core to πιστεύω), which constitutes his trust in God’s promise, is also the reason why God imputes, credits, reckons, or considers (λογίζομαι) something else to Abraham, that is, δικαιοσύνη. A quality, attribute, or characteristic (δικαιοσύνη) that would not normally or otherwise be attributed to Abraham (because Abraham is ἀσεβῆ: Romans 4:5, which would normally be a barrier for the reckoning of righteousness), is indeed attributed to Abraham, but there are appropriate reasons for the attribution (Abraham’s πίστις). The method of the attribution or characterization is the process denoted by λογίζομαι (cf. Romans 2:26).
The concepts of πίστις (faith) and δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) are two different and discrete ideas, and should not be considered as synonymous. Rather, the construction is an example of ‘X is considered as if it is Y, though it is not really Y, but for good reasons it is considered as Y’. The noun πίστις denotes ‘belief’, ‘trust’, and contextually, ‘trusting God’s promise’. The noun δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, denotes the moral quality which attaches to the person who is a dikaios, a righteous person, and this just disposition leads to just behaviour.
It is appropriate that God treat the ‘ungodly non-working believer’ as if he or she is ‘righteous’ (Romans 4:3, 5, 6, 11), because the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ has been manifested διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Romans 3:21-22). The genitive phrase πίστεως Χριστοῦ (Romans 3:22, 26) could denote the whole course of Christ’s faithfulness[10], grounding imputed righteousness,[11] but the objective genitive is preferable[12], which thus describes the instrument through which justification is received. Free justification (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι: Romans 3:24) has come to sinners (Romans 3:9-12, 19-20, 23) believing in Christ (δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ: Romans 3:26, cf. vv. 22, 25) without compromising divine justice (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον: Romans 3:26) on the ground of the ransom (ἀπολύτρωσις) in Christ (Romans 3:24) and God publicly displaying Christ as an ἱλαστήριον (Romans 3:26).[13] Christ’s death as redemption and propitiation is sin’s penalty, inflicted by and satisfying God’s justice.[14] Later in Romans, Paul will also assert that the obedience of Jesus Christ will bring justification to many (Rom 5:16-19).
In Genesis 15, God promised to give Abraham a son from his own body and that his descendants would outnumber the stars of the sky. He would be father of a multitude. Abraham overcome the difficulties in believing this promise—the state of his own body, Sarah’s barren womb, and their great ages—and believed God. This is what Abraham had always done, ever since God called Abraham to leave his Father’s house (Genesis 12:1-3). In spite of circumstances, his own deadness, in the midst of his own doubts, notwithstanding his own failures and sins, and regardless of what his eyes said to him, Abraham believed God’s word.
Paul’s argument appears to be that Genesis 15:6 makes no mention of any work that Abraham did, but simply refers to his faith (Cranfield, 231). Although Abraham did obey God at different times and did good works, the Genesis text doesn’t say that Abraham did a righteous deed, and God credited it to him as righteousness. It could have said this, but it doesn’t (Psalm 106:30-31). Abraham did many good works, but none of them counted for his justification before God.
Paul understands that Genesis 15:6 teaches concerning Abraham exactly what Paul himself has already maintained applies to every person, whether Jew or Greek, if they are to be justified before God (Rom 3:28), that is, a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Abraham had no ground to boast before God (Rom 4:2) because as a matter of fact, Abraham was not justified by works before God, but by faith (Rom 4:3). Paul’s logic is that justification by works gives a ground for boasting before God. But Genesis 15:6 says that Abraham was not justified by works but by faith. Therefore, Abraham’s works do not give him a ground for boasting before God.
Someone might say that Abraham could not boast before God, but perhaps Paul allows that Abraham could boast of his works before men. This misunderstands Paul’s phrase ‘before God’. Rather, the phrase makes clear we are dealing with justification before God, his tribunal or courtroom on the great Day of Judgement, the verdict of God that “No-one will be justified before God, in his sight, by works of the law” (Rom 3:20). And Paul implicitly criticises men’s opinions about Abraham. Abraham certainly was an upright and obedient man, but as far as God and the great Day of judgement is concerned, Abraham was not credited righteousness that way.
In explanation of the contrast between justification by faith and justification by works, Romans 4:4-5 establishes two alternatives, δὲ having adversative force[15]. Contra Dunn, it is impossible to “focus too heavily” on these verses[16]. Paul here sets up two scenarios to compare and contrast. Verse 4 tells us how justification doesn’t work. It is not a wage for works but a gift. Verse 5 tells us how justification does work. It comes to a person not by working but by trusting.
Romans 4:4 NA28 τῷ δὲ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα,
In verse 4, the first alternative scenario is that there be the one working (τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ) who would be reckoned his pay or wage (ὁ μισθὸς) not according to grace (κατὰ χάριν) but as a matter of obligation (κατὰ ὀφείλημα). The reason a labourer works is to be paid the agreed wage. While this might be true in economies ancient and modern, in the sphere of justification, this ‘never became a reality’[17] in terms of the justification of Abraham or anyone else. The phrase ‘κατὰ χάριν’, ‘according to grace’, conveys the idea of a free gift, something freely, generously, kindly, and graciously given, not according to right, expectation, obligation, or debt, without earning, deserving, or meriting it, as the reward for works. This gift is in fact contrary to desert.
Romans 4:5a NA28 τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι δὲ
The second scenario, which is described in Romans 4:5, is the one which accords to reality in relation to justification by faith, and already took place in the account of the life of Abraham. Abraham exemplifies “the one not working but trusting” (τῷ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι δὲ: v. 5a). The present participles in verse 5 are gnomic. The Genesis narrative demonstrated that Abraham had many good works, because he was a man of faith, and faith works. But for Paul, Abraham had no good works that constituted a claim on God.[18]
Romans 4:5b NA28 ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ
The object of Abraham’s faith is a substantive describing God[19], who is the one who justifies the ungodly (τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ: v. 5b). This bold paradox stands in contrast to various OT statements (Ex 23:7; Is 5:23, Pr 17:15)[20]. Thus, God does the very thing he commanded human judges never to do: “Justifying the guilty and condemning the innocent; the Lord detests them both” (Proverbs 17:15 NIV); “Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or righteous person to death, for I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7 NIV). However, for God, justifying the ungodly is transformed into a glorious and blessed action, adding to his holiness and moral perfection, because God did so justly through presenting Jesus as a propitiation (Romans 3:25-26).
The ungodly one (ἀσεβής) is, in the first instance, Abraham. To be an ἀσεβής is not an ethnic but ethical category, not a social but a moral category. Secondly, it is David, who confesses his sin. Third, it includes all, Jews or Gentiles, because all have sinned (Romans 3:10-20).
In implicitly describing Abraham as an ἀσεβής, it is unlikely 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 the phrase τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ (the one justifying the ungodly) is instead a generic description of God himself[21]. While it is true that Abraham at the time of Genesis 15:6 was in a sense ‘godly’[22], and that the substantive participial phrase is indeed a description of God himself, this position fails to appreciate the antithesis of verses 4-5[23] and the logic of Paul choosing to use ἀσεβής in the phrases’ necessary relation to Abraham.
Byrne rightly regards ἀσεβής as having specific relation to Abraham at the time of Genesis 15:6; however, Abraham is only ἀσεβής in an ‘ethnic/social’ sense, ‘a conventional sinner’, excluded from the covenant simply by being a Gentile[24]. While Paul elsewhere recognises for the sake of argument an ‘ethnic sense’ of the description ‘sinner’ (e.g., ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί: Gal 2:15), he immediately includes himself and Jews seeking justification in Christ as also sinners (εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί: Gal 2:17), and does not permit any ethnic or social sense to stand. Byrne adopts an easier (“less shocking”) reading for a phrase which to Paul’s hearers remained “highly provocative” (cf. Rom 3:8; 6:1,15)[25]. The same can be said of Dunn’s warning against the phrase being adopted as “a free-standing principle” because the “normal” interpretation viewed Abraham as a model of covenant righteousness[26]. In view of the Abraham narrative, the phrase τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ should be seen as “tantamount to saying that [Abraham] was ungodly” (ἀσεβής: also Rom 5:6; cf. Rom 1:18)[27]. This is confirmed by the citation of Genesis 15:6b again in verse 5c, and explains justification according to grace (κατὰ χάριν: v. 4).
Romans 4:5c NA28 λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην·
The subject of the present passive verb λογίζεται is the noun phrase ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ. The verb is a divine passive, its reference inferred from the substantive description of God in verse 5a, and explicity mentioned (ὁ θεός) in verses 2-3: “his faith is reckoned [by God] for righteousness”. Verse 5 is an application of Genesis 15:6 to Paul’s question, “What did Abraham find?” (v. 1). The verbal idea (ἐπίστευσεν: v. 3) is nominalized (ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ: v. 5c) and the prepositional phrase of the LXX εἰς δικαιοσύνην (v. 3; Genesis 15:6) is used.
In Romans 4:6-8, Paul uses his second example, that of David, to confirm the Scriptural finding about Abraham, and which applies to both Jews and Gentiles, that a person is justified by faith and not works. His Old Testament witness is Psalm 32:1-2. David was the great monarch of Israel, the founding king of his dynasty, a man famous for his good works but also notorious for his sins. For Paul, David’s words in Psalm 32:1-2 support and encapsulate the meaning of justification by faith apart from works. David spoke of the divine covering of sin, in that God hides the blessed man’s sins from himself. Theologically and exegetically, God can do this because he sees the believer in Jesus Christ, who fulfilled both the precept and the penalty of the law in the believers stead.
Romans 4:6a NA28 καθάπερ καὶ Δαυὶδ λέγει τὸν μακαρισμὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
The relationship of the proposition that “the Lord will certainly not reckon sin” (οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν: Rom 4:8) with the proposition that “God reckons righteousness apart from works” (ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων: Rom 4:6) is in part expressed by the conjunctive adverbial phrase, καθάπερ καὶ Δαυὶδ λέγει (‘just as also David speaks of/says about’: Rom 4:6). This phrase serves two purposes. Firstly, it introduces the second witness for Paul’s proposition. Second, it draws a comparison between that which God said about Abraham with what David declares, speaking by the Spirit of God.
The link between Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1-2 is found in the word λογίζομαι, following the pattern of the principle of gezerah shawah.[28] This label refers to ‘equal’ or ‘identical’ category. It is a principle of interpretation based on verbal analogy, that an identical word or phrase is found in different passages, which then illuminate one another.
Paul explicates the meaning of the verb δικαιόω through phrases using the verb λογίζομαι taking the object δικαιοσύνην. This in itself is significant, because it shows that the key element binding the two passages together, and which grounds the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith apart from works of the law, is λογίζομαι, that is, the divine crediting, reckoning, considering, or imputing, of righteousness, to the non- and bad-worker. Any exposition, therefore, of the Pauline doctrine of justification must reckon with the constitutive place of the imputation or divine counter-factual attribution of righteousness apart from works to that doctrine.
So far the description of free justification by grace, that is, gracious reckoning of righteousness apart from works. It has been expressed so far by the following phrases.
δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·(3:24)
λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (3:28)
λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν (4:4)
τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ (4:5b)
λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (4:5c)
ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων·(4:6b)
The new supporting evidence is the content of Psalm 32[31]:1-2a LXX (|| Rom 4;:7-8a), in particular the final phrase:
ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι
ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι·
μακάριος ἀνὴροὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν.
Paul is educing the example of David because it can support his argument. His basic thesis is that justification is by faith and is apart from works. In Psalm 32, David is confessing his sinfulness. This situation in which David finds himself is prima facie more serious than that of Abraham, which Paul cited earlier (Rom 4:3). It is not just that David does not have good works. It is not merely that David is an example of someone who is not working but believing. The example that Abraham has so far provided in Paul’s argument serves that purpose. But David’s situation is that he actually has bad works and sins. (So does Abraham, but Paul hasn’t educed them here in his argument.) God hates sin. It angers him. If David is to be justified, he must be justified apart from the bad works, the transgressions and sins, that he is confessing in Psalm 32. Thus, David then provides an a fortiori argument for Paul’s proposition, in that Paul gives and explicit elucidation of his sinful condition and plight, as opposed to Abraham’s comparatively simple ‘non-working but believing’ situation.
The introductory formula which follows, ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην (4:6b), serves two purposes. Firstly, it explains or rephrases Genesis 15:6 || Rom 4:3. Secondly, it explains and constitutes Paul’s introductory summary of Psalm 32:1-2b. Taken by itself, the phrase implies that justification requires more than forgiveness.[29] This is a function of the meaning δικαιοσύνη as merit or the quality of the disposition of one who has conformed to a norm. It allows for a reading that includes the reward gained through Christ’s active obedience in the fully-orbed Pauline doctrine of justification. The question here is whether Paul’s usage circumscribes the phrase so that it is effectively and strictly synonymous with οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν, in that it excludes the imputation of positive righteousness or merit from the phrase. That is, does the phrase ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην (4:6b) for Paul mean lack of de-merit only?
The majority position argues that καθάπερ καὶ equates ‘righteousness’ with ‘not counting unrighteousness’. It implies that “justification is forgiveness, nothing but forgiveness”.[30] Consequently, justification is only the non-imputation of sin and does not include the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It assumes a strict equation of the two elements that are being compared. Each of the phrases is given the force of equivalence or synonymity.
Vickers’ takes a mediating position. He regards forgiveness as positive standing before God, and that imputation of righteousness ‘has primarily to do with’ the forgiveness of sins, introduces terminological confusion and equivocation.[31]
The minority position, to which I adhere, is to leave the denotation of each phrase unchanged and posit a different relationship between the two. The majority view treats one side of Paul’s similitude or comparison (non-imputation of sin) as limiting or trumping the other side of the comparison (reckoning of righteousness). However, this ignores the order of Paul’s argument, and the place that the example of David plays in it. The example of David is the supporting argument, and the example of Abraham is the primary argument. Paul opens his argument and closes his argument with Abraham, and gives only three verses to the example of David. It would be strange then, if the example of David would be given to cut back or trim the normal meaning of the words in the phrases for which Abraham is brought forward. This suggests that in some way, the reckoning of righteousness is the more basic or overarching category, in which the non-imputation of sin is an indispensible component. Certainly, the forgiveness of sin is essential and explanatory of the reckoning of righteousness. Paul’s usage need not imply equivalence in some sort of mathematical sense.[32] It might indicate a basis, where one element grounds the other.[33] It might indicate that the two things are related and together constitute a larger picture, each contributing its own distinctive elements. The categories of metonomy (substituting a name, attribute, or adjunct of a thing for the thing meant), synechdoche (a part of something is used to refer to the whole), the two serve then, as a kind of merismus, that when taken together, the two components refer to the whole. In this case, the counter-factual non-reckoning of demerit stands for, supports, and implies the counter-factual reckoning of merit.
Romans 4:6b NA28 ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων·
Paul explicitly says that ‘God reckons righteousness’ to a person in Rom 4:6a. This serves as both an exposition of Genesis 15:6 (as it adopts the particular terminology that verse), and also an exposition of Psalm 32:1-2, since it is specifically brought into relation with it (καθάπερ καὶ Δαυὶδ λέγει τὸν μακαρισμὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: v. 6a). The noun δικαιοσύνη is the object of the finite verb λογίζομαι, and the recipient of the blessing is ᾧ.
Paul clearly relates the forgiving of sins with the reckoning of righteousness[34]. Forgiveness of sins, therefore, is a “basic component” of justification apart from works[35] and the imputation of righteousness. Schreiner argues ‘righteousness is defined here in terms of forgiveness of sins’[36] (cf Acts 13:38-39), but see above on synechdoche and metynomy. To say that ‘Paul interprets the (negative) blessing in a positive way’ is to beg the question[37], just as it is to say that Paul defines the positive status in a negative way. Further, nothing limits forgiveness to David’s initial experience; rather, Ps 32 describes David’s ongoing relationship with God and refers to his personal (notorious) sins[38].
There is a clear conceptual distinction between imputing a positive thing (ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην: v. 6b), and not imputing a negative thing (οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν: v. 8a). Neither concept should be compromised or modified so that it the words are attributed meanings that do not accord with their normal denotations. The grammatical structure implies that there is also a clear similarity between the two concepts which makes the comparison meaningful. This Paul finds in the verbal analogy of the verb λογίζεται, which is used in both passages. But the similarities do not stop there. At a deeper level, what the two examples share is that there is an element of counter-factuality in the descriptions of the situations of each of Abraham and David. Abraham and those justified with him are ἀσεβῆ , ungodly, and non-working, at least from the perspective that Paul is adopting. This is counter to the normal meaning of those who are considered righteous. It is extraordinary and noteworthy, not normal. Again, God covering or forgetting sin is something unusual and extraordinary for an omniscient and just deity. Of itself, it needs exposition how this is possible.
It seems to me that the best approach to Paul’s argument is that, in using the example of David, Paul cites one essential component of justification to build up the whole concept. Helpful categories here are those of merismus, metonymy, and synecdoche. It is well known that one discrete idea might stand as the basis or ground metonymically for the whole. A part might invoke or evoke the whole. The part might ground the whole. It is certainly necessary to establish a component of the whole so that the whole is established.
Paul is citing David as an example of the blessedness of forgiveness of sin (justification apart from bad works, in spite of having bad works). Paul is citing Abraham as an example of the gracious imputation or reckoning of righteousness (justification apart from good works, justifying someone having no works). To say these two things is simply describing Paul’s argument. The fact that he cites the example of Abraham and David together points to the fact that together they give Paul’s understanding of justification by faith apart from works. Each passage of the Old Testament, Genesis 15:6, and Psalm 32:1-2, are foundational for supporting justification by faith apart from works. It is unsurprising that Calvin viewed justification as the remission of sins plus the imputation of righteousness, because this was simply the two propositions that the examples of Abraham and David each elucidate.[39] This is the sound exegetical approach to Paul’s teaching in this passage. Each component implies the other. Each component requires the other.
Paul’s quotation of the LXX Psalm 31:1-2a is verbatim in Romans 4:7-8. The three clauses are used in synonymous parallelism, each clause expounding and strengthening the other and building up the whole.
Romans 4:7a NA28/Psalm 31[32]:1b LXX μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι
The LXX 31:1b translates MT אַשְׁרֵ֥י נְֽשׂוּי־פֶּ֗שַׁע, a simple noun clause. The Hebrew verb נָשָׂא is a common verb for ‘forgive’, though its primary meaning is to ‘lift, carry’. The Hebrew word for ‘blessing’ in 32:1b, אַשְׁרֵי, is only found in the plural construct, so the number is determined by the complement in the simple noun clause, that is, by the masculine singular participle נְֽשׂוּי, ‘has been forgiven’ [Qal Pass Ptcp ms of נְשָׂא]. The noun pesha‘ is singular and generally and properly rendered ‘transgression’. The LXX takes the clause as plural, supplying a plural finite verb. Thus, while the MT is probably most accurately translated, “blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven”, the LXX takes it “blessed are they whose lawless acts are forgiven”. The LXX understandably uses the aorist of ἀφίημι, to let go, give up, permit, forgive. The aorist passive is probably gnomic, and it is a divine passive: forgiven by God. The LXX uses the plural articular noun αἱ ἀνομίαι (lawlessness, without law, nomos + alpha privative) to translate singular Hebrew pesha‘.
Romans 4:7b NA28/Psalm 31[32]:1c LXX καὶ ὧν ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι·
Again, Paul quotes verbatim from LXX, which translates simple noun clause כְּס֣וּי חֲטָאָֽה׃. In the MT, the word translated ‘covered’ is the Qal passive participle masculine singular of כָּסָה. The noun for sin is the singular feminine חֲטָאָֽה. Again it is a divine passive, and a gnomic aorist. The LXX translates using the plural number. The idea of ‘covering’ sin is something sinful humans do in their shame. In Psalm 32:5b, David uses the Piel Perfect of כָּסָה, this time using the word for guilt, עָוֺ֑ן, often translated ‘iniquity’. David did not cover his guilt, which means that God can do the covering. Psalm 31[32]:5b LXX again uses the aorist of καλύπτω, being ἐκάλυψα. Again in Psalm 85:2 [LXX 84:3], נָ֭שָׂאתָ עֲוֹ֣ן עַמֶּ֑ךָ כִּסִּ֖יתָ כָל־חַטָּאתָ֣ם סֶֽלָה׃, || you forgave the guilt of your people and you covered all their sin. Selah || ἀφῆκας τὰς ἀνομίας τῷ λαῷ σου, ἐκάλυψας πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. διάψαλμα. Cf. Job 31:33, Proverbs 17:9, 28:3.
Romans 4:8a NA28/Psalm 31[32]:2a LXX μακάριος ἀνὴρ οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν. Again, the MT has a simple noun clause: אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי אָדָ֗ם לֹ֤א יַחְשֹׁ֬ב יְהוָ֣ה לֹ֣ו עָוֹ֑ן. The LXX renders the MT’s negatived Qal Imperfect of חָשַׁב with an emphatic future negative οὐ μὴ+aorist subjunctive, λογίσηται. This negatives a potential or possibility, the strongest negation possible in the Greek language. The MT’s guilt, עָוֺ֑ן, is rendered ‘sin’ , ἁμαρτίαν, by the LXX. This suggests that there is a fair amount of flexibility in the use of the synonyms for ‘sin’.
Romans 4:9a NA28: Ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν;
Paul’s specific question is whether the blessedness of forgiveness of sins extolled in Psalm 32:1-2 is only for those within the covenant, or whether it is for the nations as well.
Romans 4:9b NA28: λέγομεν γάρ· ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην.
Paul returns to the example and witness of Abraham. Paul quotes the substance of Genesis 15:6 to interpret the scope of Psalm 32:1-2[40]. Notice that Paul is happy to paraphrase Genesis 15:6 by using the noun ἡ πίστις instead of the verb ἐπίστευσεν.
Romans 4:10a NA28: πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη;
Paul’s question, ‘how’, that is, “how was it reckoned” (πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη;: v. 10a) asks whether Abraham was in the state of justification before, during, or after him being in the state of circumcision. That is, it is a question about the time righteousness was reckoned to Abraham, and thus implies ‘when’.
Romans 4:10b-c NA28: ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ; οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ·
Paul’s answer, that Abraham was justified, in the state of his uncircumcision (ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ: v. 10b-c), that is, when he was uncircumcised. This relies and depends on the chronology of the Abraham narrative. Genesis 15:6 antedates Genesis 17:1ff, in the Rabbinic reckoning, by 29 years[41]. Consequently, on the basis of this precedent, Paul asserts that this blessedness of forgiveness applies also (ἢ καὶ: v. 9a) to τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν, the uncircumcision, and in so doing Paul rejects any rabbinic interpretation which limited Psalm 32:1-2 as applying exclusively to the Jews[42]. 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.”[43] “This status is unmerited and independent of deeds (even of circumcision), depending only on faith.”[44]
Romans 4:11a NA28: καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς
Abraham’s circumcision is firstly described as a ‘sign’, σημεῖον, (v. 11a; cf. Gen 17:11)[45]. The genitive περιτομῆς is a genitive of apposition. The type of sign we are talking about is that of circumcision.
Romans 4:11b NA28: σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ,
Abraham’s circumcision is secondly described as an outward seal (σφραγῖδα) that confirms the faith-righteousness that Abraham already possessed when he was in the state of uncircumcision (ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ)[46]. Paul characterises this righteousness as “the righteousness of faith”, τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως (v. 11; cf. 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”[47] (my italics). This fact God has purposed so that Abraham might become the father of both the circumcised and uncircumcised who believe[48]. Indeed, Schreiner sees an allusion to the Genesis 12:3 promise of the blessing of Abraham to all nations (cf. Gal 3:6-14)[49]. Both groups who believe are reckoned righteous, as Abraham was.
Romans 4:11c NA28: εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας,
Romans 4:11d NA28: εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην,
The noun δικαιοσύνη is the accusative of respect of the divine passive infinitive λογισθῆναι, and the recipient αὐτοῖς[50]. As Dunn says: “That Paul puts δικαιοσύνη 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 [...]”[51].
Romans 4:12a NA28: καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς
Romans 4:12b NA28: τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον
Romans 4:12c NA28: ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν
Romans 4:12d NA28: τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ.
[1] D J Moo, The Epistle to the Romans: NICNT (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 255.
[2] P Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, (ET S J Hafemann: Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 69, 71 (‘…the apostle takes as his starting point Gen 12:1ff (cf. Gal 3:8) and sees in Abraham the ancestor of faith, who was chosen by God without any merit and experienced justification by grace alone’).
[3] C E B Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 224-5; Moo, Romans, 255-6.
[4] Implied by Dunn, Romans 1-8, 201; G N Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1-4: JSNT Supp Series 39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 149-54.
[5] Cranfield, 1:228; J Lambrecht, ‘Why is Boasting Excluded? A Note on Rom 3,27 and 4,2’, Ephemirides Theologicae Lovanienses 61 No 4 365-369 at 366-7; Moo, Romans, 260-1; Schreiner, Romans, 214; Stuhlmacher, 72.
[6] All cited in Cranfield, Romans, 1:227.
[7] Cranfield, 231.
[8] Moo, Romans, 261-2.
[9] Schreiner, Romans, 217 fn 13.
[10] Campbell, ‘The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22’ (2009), 57-71.
[11] O’Brien, Philippians (1991), 398-400.
[12] Moo, Romans (1996), 224-5; Schreiner, Romans (1998), 181-6; Carson, ‘Atonement in Romans 3:21-26’ (2004), 125-127; Silva, ‘Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians’ (2004), 227-234; Matlock, ‘The Rhetoric of πίστις in Paul’ (2007), 173-203; Matlock, ‘Saving Faith: πίστις in Paul’ (2009), 73-89; Watson, ‘The Faith (of Christ)’ (2009),147-164.
[13] Carson, ‘Atonement in Romans 3:21-26’ (2004), 127-136, 137-8; Morris, Apostolic Preaching (1965), 40-51 at 45, 184-202 at 198-201; Contra Colijn, Images of Salvation (2010), 206-7.
[14] Carson, ‘Atonement in Romans 3:21-26’ (2004), 128-9, 133.
[15] Lambrecht, 368; Schreiner, Romans, 214-15; Stuhlmacher, 71.
[16] Dunn, Romans 1-8, 204.
[17] Lambrecht, 368.
[18] Cranfield, Romans (2001), 1:232; Moo, Romans, 264; Davies, 155, citing Chrysostom.
[19] J Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary: AB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 375.
[20] Moo, Romans, 264; Stuhlmacher, 72; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 204
[21] Fitzmyer, Romans (1993), 375.
[22] Compare Calvin, Institutes, III, XIV, 11, pp. 778-9.
[23] Fitzmyer, Romans (1993), 375.
[24] Byrne, 149; followed by Dunn, Romans 1-8, 205.
[25] Byrne, 149; cf. 145-6.
[26] Dunn, Romans 1-8, 205.
[27] Cranfield, Romans (2001), 1:232; Stuhlmacher, 73; Davies, 160.
[28] Moo, Romans (1996), 266; Cranfield, Romans (2001), 1:233; Hultgren, Romans (2011), 182; Matera, Romans (2010), 111.
[29] Lloyd Jones, Romans: 3:20-4:25 (1970), 175; Jewett, Romans (2007), 315-6; Gathercole, Where is Boasting (2002), 248; Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans (1990), 122.
[30] Jeremias, Central Message of the NT (1965), 66. Compare Calvin, Comm Romans 4:6 in CC, 19:169; Alford, Greek NT (1877), 2:348; Nygren, Romans (1952), 171; Dunn, Romans (1988), 1:206-7; Cranfield, Romans (2001), 1:233; Wright, ‘Romans’ (2002), 493; Bruce, Romans (1985), 107; Kruse, Romans (2012), 208 and fn 109.
[31] Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness (2006), 108.
[32] Heidland, λογίζομαι, TDNT, 4:292; Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans (1990), 122.
[33] Käsemann, Romans (1980), 113.
[34] Cranfield, 233
[35] Moo, Romans, 266
[36] Schreiner, Romans, 219; cf Dunn, Romans 1-8, 206-7; Contrast Davies, 161, who argues that the non-reckoning of sins is not an amplification of the reckoning of faith as righteousness.
[37] Hoekema, 175, 178
[38] Schreiner, Romans, 219
[39] Calvin, Institutes III.11.2,cf 5,16; Owen, Works (1850-3), 5:321; Shedd, Romans (1879), 98; Murray, Romans (1959), 1:135; Moo, Romans (1996), 266; Piper, Counted Righteous (2002), 117, 119.
[40] Cranfield, 235; Schreiner, Romans, 224.
[41] Cranfield, 235; Moo, Romans, 268; Schreiner, Romans, 224; Stuhlmacher, 73; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 208.
[42] Cranfield, 234-5.
[43] Fitzmyer, 380.
[44] Fitzmyer, 381.
[45] Cranfield, 235.
[46] Cranfield, 236
[47] Stuhlmacher, 74
[48] Moo, Romans, 269; Stuhlmacher, 73
[49] Schreiner, Romans, 225
[50] Cf. Romans 4:24; Carson, ‘Vindication of Imputation’ (2004), 65
[51] Dunn, 274