Romans 4

CHAPTER IV

Abraham, the Great Illustration of Righteousness Through Faith, chapter 4

In chapter 3, verse 21 Paul says that the righteousness of God is “witnessed by the Law and the Prophets” (the Old Testament Scriptures). That Old Testament witness Paul now adduces and devotes an entire chapter to it. Already in 1:17, when he introduced his great theme, he cited Hab. 2:4 as also voicing that theme. Instead of now adding a selected and coordinated series of passages in order to present the Old Testament teaching, Paul does something that is far more important. He considers the case of Abraham with whom the old covenant was first made, to whom the new covenant was promised. Abraham dominates the whole Old Testament so that God even names himself “the God of Abraham,” etc. It is he who stands out as “the father of believers”; he is not a but the Old Testament example of justification by faith alone.

But he is also far more. He was justified while he was as yet uncircumcised and thus became the father of all Gentile believers; then he received circumcision as the seal of justification and thereby became the father of all Jewish believers. In both capacities he stands for all time as the father of many (spiritual) nations through the Seed, the Savior Jesus. Abraham puts the whole Old Testament and every utterance in regard to justification by faith in it into the right light. Put this chapter on Abraham alongside of John 8:33–59, the controversy of Jesus with the Jews regarding Abraham, and you will see still better why Paul presents Abraham as the supreme Old Testament witness to justification.

But at first glance and in view of James 2:17–26 Abraham does not at all seem to serve. The Romans had the Epistle of James which was written earlier than any other New Testament epistle. There they read that Abraham was justified not by faith alone but by (ἐκ) works. This is another reason that Paul deals with Abraham. Paul and James agree and do not disagree in regard to Abraham. Paul begins his great chapter with this very point.

Here “the objector” is again introduced by some interpreters. He is sometimes regarded as a Jew, sometimes as a Judaizer, sometimes only as a Christian Jew who was not as yet emancipated from Jewish ideas. But he is an imaginary character. The difficulty regarding James and Paul is one that may disturb any sincere Christian mind. In 3:3–8 we have a similar case, where Paul answers questions that may disturb sincere Christians. There, too, as also in chapter 2, we did not consider an objector; now for the third time we deny his existence although he is mentioned by L. 51 (v. 9, Gegner); Zahn 212 (Gegner von juedischer oder judaeistischer Seite); Sandy and Headlam, International Critical Commentary, Romans 11th ed. 97, “objector,” with a regular dialog between him and Paul.

1. What, then, shall we say? That we have found Abraham (to be) our forefather (only) according to flesh? for if (indeed) Abraham was declared righteous as result of works he has reason for glorying. But (now) he has none in relation to God; for what does the Scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.

Οὖν is resumptive, “therefore.” When God declares righteous by faith alone and not on account of works, what shall we say in regard to Abraham, namely in regard to our relation to him? Shall we say that we have found him to be nothing more in relation to us than “our forefather according to flesh,” not at all spiritually but only our forefather in an outward way? The point of the question lies in the phrase κατὰσάρκα. The form of the question does not indicate whether the answer to be expected is “yes” or “no”; the substance of the question, of course, is such as to make every Christian deny that his relation to Abraham is only outward.

In order not to go astray we must note that this is a question about us believers who are declared righteous by faith alone with works excluded (3:28 and the preceding), both us Jewish and us Gentile believing Christians (3:29, 30), a question about our relation to Abraham; what Abraham is in his own person is, of course, involved but involved only in so far as it would affect our relation to him.

The γάρ in v. 2 brings the explanation of this question about Abraham and our relation to him. This explanation takes for granted that our relation to him ought not to be “according to flesh,” not outward. The assumption is, yea must be, that Abraham’s standing with God is the right one, that ours ought to be the same, that thus we ought to be true spiritual children of Abraham, and that something is radically wrong with us if we cannot rightfully claim this spiritual relation to Abraham.

What precipitates this whole question regarding our real relation to Abraham, whether it is actually spiritual as it should be or not spiritual at all, is this consideration that, while, in agreement with Paul, we reckon that we are declared righteous by faith apart from works of law (3:28), it can be said and is most emphatically said by James that Abraham was declared righteous by God ἐξἔργων, “from works” (note, not “from works of law”!). So also, while, with Paul, we agree that all glorying is positively excluded by faith’s law (3:27), even Paul now admits that Abraham has reason for glorying (καύχημα, cause for καύχησις, v. 27). This has the appearance that a radical difference exists between Abraham and us, as though by having only faith we are left far behind him and hence cannot claim him as our spiritual father. He ἐξἔργων, out of works; we, χωρὶςἔργωννόμου, without works; he with καύχημα, we with not even καύχησις. Is there not something wrong with this our Pauline doctrine that is otherwise so perfect? Are we after all justified through faith alone?

Or—although this is remote—is James wrong? What is really the situation with regard to Abraham and the relation between him and us? “What shall we say?”

Now the details. We translate this first sentence as though it were a double question. The main point, however, is that the subject “we” in ἐροῦμεν furnishes the subject for the infinitive εὑρηκέναι: “What, then, shall we say? that we have found Abraham,” etc. It is the commonest of rules in the Greek that infinitives take their subjects from what precedes, and that, if a different subject is to be introduced, it must be written. “Abraham” is the object (not the subject of the infinitive) and “our forefather according to flesh” is the predicate object with “Abraham.”

Equally important it is to note the term προπάτωρ. Abraham is never called thus elsewhere in the Scriptures. The Jews always called him their πατήρ (for instance, John 8:39); James 2:21 calls him “our father,” namely the father of all Christians exactly as God changed his name from “Abram” to “Abraham”: “for a father of many nations have I made thee” (Gen. 17:5), meaning not a physical ancestor but a spiritual father. Paul purposely uses this term προπάτωρ in distinction from πατήρ because it means only “forefather” in the sense of “ancestor”; he intends to employ a term which had never been used with reference to Abraham and could thus not mean what the regularly used term “father” so constantly meant, namely spiritual fatherhood. He even added “according to flesh”’ to put beyond all question the fact that he has in mind a non-spiritual ancestorship.

But what is the force of this question as to whether Paul and the Christians have perhaps found only a physical ancestor in Abraham instead of a true spiritual father? In particular, how could Abraham be even a physical ancestor of Gentile Christians? Here we must remember that Abraham was an ancestor of the descendants of Ishmael and of Esau, and that the Jews violently claimed that he was that and no more to these people and not also their spiritual “father” as he was this for the Jews. Of course, they admitted that the proselytes were on the same level with Jews as children of “father Abraham.” Now these Jews did not deny that Christianity had a connection with Judaism, namely to their minds a debased connection, and that the Gentile Christians were thus in this debased connection, were joined to the Jewish Christians. That they deemed was the only connection which both Jewish and Gentile Christians had with Abraham, a mere outward matter that had no more meaning than the connection of the descendants of Ishmael and of Esau with Abraham, who was a real “father” only to those of the Jewish fold. For this idea Paul invents the expression “finding Abraham only our forefather (ancestor) according to flesh” and so asks whether he and the Christians have really found Abraham no more than this for themselves.

Our versions translate as though Paul asks what Abraham has found (not what we have found Abraham to be). But the infinitive should then be the aorist and certainly not the perfect which has so strong a present bearing. The infinitive is used in indirect discourse and takes the place of the finite form used in the direct discourse. When Abraham is regarded as the subject, this would needs be: “What did Abraham find?” and not: “What has he found (still having it)?” This extension to the present befits only the question: “What have we found Abraham to be?” If the question concerns what Abraham himself found, προπάτωρ must be in apposition with Abraham; but it would be an unusual apposition, so that the A. V. finds it necessary to translate it “father,” a substitution that was thought necessary by a few ancients who even changed the text to πατήρ. The apposition becomes farfetched when the R.

V. translates it: “our forefather according to the flesh.” This is done because the thought is regarded to be that Abraham is the physical father of us (of Paul and the Jews). But “our forefather” after “what shall we say?” = Paul and the Christians.

Another effort in this wrestling with Paul’s question transposes εὑρηκέναι and places it before κατά (the reading of a few texts). This is done in order to have the question refer to what Abraham “found according to flesh,” in a fleshly way. By placing the phrase between commas the A. V. leaves it in a strange ambiguity. But what can Christians say that Abraham has found or that he found in accord with flesh only? Some answer to the first, “Not justification by the works of the law,” and to the second, “Not justification.” But, supposing the question to be one regarding what Abraham found one way or another, no negative answers are implied.

The first answer is also ruled out because it brings in the works of “the law,” the very thing Paul leaves out in v. 2, and Abraham never had “the law” of Moses. In addition to this and eliminating every negative answer comes v. 2 with Paul’s admission that Abraham has “cause for glorying.” He must, then, have found something if this question asks what he found. Codex B omits εὑρηκέναι altogether, which our R. V. margin passes on: “What, then, shall we say of Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?” There are still other alterations of the text that extend even to v. 2, which, however, are not worthy of our notice.

Romans 4:2

2 What shall we Christians say? Shall we say that we Christians have found Abraham (to be nothing more in relation to us than) our forefather according to flesh (our physical ancestor)? “for (explaining this question) if Abraham was declared righteous as result of works, he (indeed) has reason for glorying.” Here Paul properly has the aorist “was declared righteous,” (see 3:28 on this verb); and the condition is one of reality: Paul takes it for granted that Abraham was declared righteous ἐξἔργων, as result of works.

That is exactly what James (2:21) has in mind with his question: “Was not Abraham, our father, declared righteous ἐξἔργων, as result of works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar?” It is for the very reason that James says so that Paul, in fullest agreement with James, uses even the identical words: ἐξἔργωνἐδικαιώθη. The question of James and the assumption in Paul’s condition of reality rest on the undoubted fact that Abraham “was declared righteous as result of works,” James even naming the great work of having offered Isaac. And Paul even sets his seal on it by saying: if Abraham was justified in this way (as assuredly he was) “he has reason for glory.” Indeed he has! Paul is the last man in the world to deny Abraham’s works, his having been justified by them, and his consequent cause for glorying because God himself had accepted them.

So far is this from clashing with Paul’s teaching on justification “without works of law” which deprives us of all glorying, that it is only another form of that very teaching. So far are we Christians from believing the teaching which leaves us only with Abraham as our mere physical ancestor, in a fleshly non-spiritual manner, that we have him as our true spiritual father, we being, according to Paul’s teaching, Abraham’s true spiritual children.

What James says about Abraham and what Paul has said in 3:21–31 appear to be a contradiction, and Paul himself makes it appear so by here practically quoting James 2:21. But it only appears so. James says: Abraham was justified ἐξἔργων, and it is this that Paul seconds and endorses. James did not say or dream of saying that Abraham was justified ἐξἔργωννόμου. A difference of only one little word and yet a world of difference.

Ἐξἔργων refers to works of faith and upholds faith as being decisive for justification; ἐξἔργωννόμου refers to works of law and rules out faith from justification. To rely on “works of law” is never to have justification, for the whole Old Testament witness shows that it ever was and is obtained χωρὶςνόμου, altogether apart from anything like law. To produce “works” is to have justification, for their absence shows that a faith which we claim to have is dead and barren (James 2:17, 20), their presence that faith is faith indeed, alive, embracing Christ, and thus full of good works. The devils believe, are they justified (James 2:19)?

Paul says plainly that Abraham “has reason for glorying,” and that this reason lies in his “works.” Paul has in mind a genuine reason for glorying and not some false reason like that of the Pharisees whom Jesus himself showed that they never did “the works of Abraham,” and to whom he said that, if they would do these works, then and then alone would they be Abraham’s children (justified as he was justified). Now they were only “Abraham’s seed,” no more than the descendants of Ishmael and of Esau. Abraham was not their father but, as Paul has here recorded it, their προπάτωρ, mere ancestor.

The fact that all good works are, indeed, cause for glorying on our part we see from John 15:1–8, especially the last verse: God is glorified by our bearing much fruit, i.e., we have reason to glory and feel elated when we accomplish this highest purpose of our being. And just listen to Paul himself as he glories and states the full reason for doing so (2 Cor. 11:21–12:12; also 1 Cor. 15:10)! We at once see that, when Paul speaks of Abraham’s works as his cause for glorying, he has in mind the works that resulted from Abraham’s faith, that followed his faith, evidenced and proved its genuineness; and not in the least anything like “works of law” which make all real faith impossible and are clear evidence of its total absence (Matt. 7:22, 23; 25:44, 45, “ye did it not unto me,” gave me no meat, etc., did mere “works of law” in what ye did). James names Abraham’s greatest work of faith, his having sacrificed Isaac.

The misunderstanding of our versions regarding v. 1 probably influenced their punctuation of v. 2, 3. For clearness’ sake place a period after καύχημα and a semicolon or only a comma after Θεόν and thus read together: “But not (has he reason for glorying) in relation to God, for what does the Scripture say? (Something that shuts out completely every reason for glorying in relation to God, namely:) ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,’” i.e., Abraham was justified by faith. Paul again practically quotes James (2:23) who wrote: “And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith: ‘Abraham believed God, and it was imputed (reckoned) unto him for righteousness’; and he was called the Friend of God.” Paul borrows the quotation of Gen. 15:6 from the very pen of James. Here James states how Abraham did his “works,” for instance sacrificing Isaac: he did them as “the Friend of God” (2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8), for love of the God in whom he trusted for his justification (“ye have done it unto me,” Matt. 25:40). Paul merely expounds this when he says: Abraham has no reason for glorying in relation to God. In all that he does for love of his friend a real friend has and sees no reason for glorying about it as regards his friend.

ΠρὸςτὸνΘεόν means “in relation to God.” When Abraham thought or spoke of his good works he had every reason for being elated in regard to himself, because by the grace of God it had been granted to him to do such works; at this point, however, his elation had to stop, for in regard to God he had no cause for being elated but cause only for being most humble and thankful since only by God’s grace had he been able to do these works. Why, it was God who in the very first place kindled faith in his heart, the faith that by God’s further grace moved him to do these works. When Paul speaks of his own good works he exclaims: “Not I, but the grace of God” (1 Cor. 15:10). Again: “Of myself I will not glory”; and when he does glory, he calls himself a fool for doing so and complains that the Corinthians forced him to do it (2 Cor. 12:5, 11). “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth’s sake,” Ps. 115:1.

This takes care of the contrast that, while Abraham had no cause for glorying in regard to God, he did have such cause in regard to men. It is stated in this way: “with reference to men, to whom he proved himself righteous by his works.” But believers never use their own good works with reference to men in order to claim anything for themselves. They are to let their light shine so that men may see their good works only for one reason, that men “may glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16); “that you may show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). No glory, no praises for us even on the part of men. And we may add that men as a whole, even most of our own brethren, only reluctantly accord us any credit. How sincere are their eulogies after we are dead?

Our cause for glorying lies wholly in God; to him and to him alone we give all glory, both when we ourselves are elated over our good works and when we show them to men. Paul speaks only of the former, namely that Abraham had a right to feel elated over the good works that God had enabled him to do.

Romans 4:3

3 Of course, Abraham has no cause for glorying in relation to God, “for what does the Scripture say (about him in Gen. 15:6)?” Just what James (2:23) says: “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.” But how can James then say in the very next verse: “You see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone”; while on the strength of this same verse from Genesis Paul says: “We reckon that a man is justified by faith (alone) without works of law”? In the Epistle of James “faith alone” refers to a dead faith, one which even the devils have; in this same epistle “works” implies the presence of a faith that is indeed a faith. In Paul’s letters “faith (alone)” is this living faith mentioned by James; and in Paul’s letters it is “works of law” that are excluded, this spurious substitute for faith. James and Paul express the same truth: faith, faith, faith! James: not a dead faith which is no faith; Paul: no substitute for faith, there is none. How may we know when we have this real faith? James says: Investigate whether it has the real works.

Still another point must be guarded: James does not have in mind faith plus good works. Justification is not a fifty-fifty proposition as to faith and good works. How could it be when faith itself produces these works? How could it be when in the first instant of faith, before it even has time to produce a single work, God already declares it righteous?

“Abraham believed God,” the dative means: God with reference to what he promised Abraham (see Gen. 15:4, 5). He believed the promise regarding the Heir (Christ) who was to come out of his bowels via Isaac who was as yet unborn; he believed that through this Heir his (spiritual) seed would be in number like the stars of heaven. Abraham believed in Christ (John 8:56), in the gospel. The genuineness of his faith became evident when he held to this promise despite God’s command to offer Isaac as a burnt offering because by means of his faith he accounted that God was able to raise Isaac (from whom the Heir was to descend) even from the dead, Heb. 11:19. Behold the faith for which Abraham was pronounced righteous! Moses writes concerning it, “And it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” which is only another way of saying, “Through or as a result of (διά or ἐκ) it he was declared righteous.” When did God so reckon or declare?

Did he wait until Abraham had proved his faith by proceeding to sacrifice Isaac? Abraham’s justification is recorded in Genesis 15 and not only in Genesis 22. The moment he believed it was reckoned to him for righteousness.

Was his believing a good work that was of such a value to God as to make Abraham righteous, so that God’s reckoning was merely a computing of this value? Moses says the very opposite. Λογίζομαίτιεἴςτι = “to reckon something for something”: “Something is transferred to the subject (person) in question and reckoned as his, which he in his own person does not have … it is accounted to the person per substitutionem; the object present (faith) takes the place of what it counts for (righteousness), it is substituted for it.” C.-K. 681.

This expression is the technical one for God’s declaring a person righteous. The A. V. has, “it was counted for,” the R. V., “it was reckoned for,” both are good. When Abraham believed he was in his own person no more righteous than he was before he believed, but God counted his faith as righteousness for him. God’s accounting did not make him righteous, it did not change Abraham, it changed his status with God.

Although he was not righteous, God counted him as righteous nevertheless. We have noted this accounting already in 2:26: foreskin was reckoned for certain Gentiles as circumcision by God. In 2:25 we have the reverse; circumcision has become foreskin, as being equal to nothing more, i.e., as reckoned by God. Although it remains what it is, the particular Gentile’s foreskin is reckoned as circumcision per substitutionem. Although it remains what it is, the particular Jew’s circumcision is in the same way reckoned as the opposite, it “has become” this in God’s reckoning.

Do you ask how God can reckon in this way? The answer is found in 3:24: “gratuitously, by his grace, through the ransoming, that in connection with Christ Jesus.” This is not an arbitrary, not an unjust reckoning. “Perish the thought!” Only our crooked minds could harbor such an evil thought. Faith is not righteousness, it is counted or reckoned as being righteousness. The believer really and in himself is never righteous, he is righteous only in God’s accounting. What is there in his faith that God can account for righteousness to the believer? No virtue or merit of either the believer or of his faith, nothing of this sort to the end of his life; something else entirely, the contents of his faith, Christ, his ransom, his merit.

The faith that holds these God counts for righteousness and no other faith (James 2:19). The substitution takes place right here. Christ’s merit and righteousness is his own, God counts it as though it were the believer’s. Faith only lays its hand upon it, God himself moves it to do so. Then by grace and altogether gratuitously God reckons faith with its content as righteousness for him who believes.

Abraham’s faith was so reckoned. His faith reached out to the Heir, to Christ. The moment it did this it became in God’s accounting perfect righteousness for him. He is our spiritual father, and all of us, like him, are accounted righteous by God in the same blessed way. He is never our ancestor due only to an outward religious connection of Christianity with Judaism.

Romans 4:4

4 There are two kinds of reckoning. Paul carefully distinguished between them, for only the one kind applies here. Now to the one working the pay is not reckoned according to grace but according to obligation; but to one not working (at all) but (only) believing on him who declares the ungodly one righteous his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Verse 4 is a general proposition and nothing more: the man who works gets his pay (the article designates the pay due him, R. 757), and that pay is not reckoned according to grace but according to obligation (κατά to indicate the rule of measurement, R. 608, bottom), That kind of reckoning is excluded here. It is mentioned here only for that reason. With God no such reckoning is made as regards men.

Paul does not have in mind the work-righteous. Thus, even Luther translates: der mit Werken umgeht; and others think that we have a zeugma here, that “is reckoned” fits only “according to grace,” and a verb such as “is duly given” is to be supplied with “according to obligation.” This is unnecessary; “is reckoned” fits both phrases. Even Matt. 20:14 cannot be interpreted to mean that God pays for the work of the work-righteous; he never buys their work, he abominates it.

Romans 4:5

5 There is no inconcinnity between verses 4 and 5. God has no workers to whom he owes pay, he has no reckoning of that sort to make, only men who hire other men make such a reckoning. But God does make the other kind of reckoning, and Paul describes it, not again as to the principle involved, but as it actually takes place in the case of every believer, Abraham, of course, included. The wording alone is patterned after v. 4, the substance is the blessed reality itself.

The believer, Paul says, receives this kind of reckoning: God reckons or counts his faith for righteousness. Let it be seen that God alone reckons in this way, and that when men deal with other men they never have a case in which they could reckon in such a way. O yes, men, too, may exercise grace instead of just desert, but where is there a case in which they can make faith answer for righteousness? As God’s love for the world is incomparable, as giving his Son for our ransoming is minus a human parallel (a case such as that mentioned in Matt. 21:37 never happened among men!), so also his declaring the believer righteous is without a human counterpart. That is the very reason that skeptics balk at these divine acts, they seem incredible. They constitute the gospel mystery which had to be revealed and can be received only as it is supernaturally revealed.

Here is an individual who does not work at all but does something totally different, namely believes on him who declares the ungodly one righteous. This is Paul’s most striking photograph of the believer. The substantivized participles designate the persons according to their characteristic actions: “one not working but believing,” “one declaring righteous.” The present tenses are timeless. The believer has given up working because he knows that all hope by way of works is vacuous, that all claims which men may make upon God for pay in accord with obligation are deadly fiction; he simply believes and trusts (3:28).

The striking thing is that Paul says of the believer that he believes “on him who declares the ungodly one righteous.” In verses 22 and 26 the object of faith is Jesus, here the basis (ἐπί) of faith is God including his entire act of justifying, which, of course, includes Jesus, grace, faith, etc. Paul says more than that faith believes that God justifies the ungodly, he says that faith rests on God who does that, does it for many others who are ungodly, and, most important of all, does it for me who has this faith in God.

It is the height of paradox when God “declares the ungodly righteous.” One might expect to read τὸνδικαιοῦντατὸνἄδικον, “him declaring righteous the unrighteous,” the very sound of the words clashing. Paul prefers τὸνἀσεβῆ (a later form was ἀσεβήν): for the root of all ἀδικία is the ἀσέβεια. Paul has not forgotten 1:18 and the fact that ungodliness is the root and source of all unrighteous conduct. In Paul’s estimation “the ungodly one” is stronger than “the unrighteous one.” The article is generic, yet not as indicating every ungodly one in the world but every ungodly one whom God declares righteous by reckoning his faith for righteousness. The ungodly one who prevents God from bringing him to faith by the power of grace in the gospel is not declared righteous. Since he has no faith, how can his faith be reckoned for righteousness?

Note well the present participle τὸνδικαιοῦντα. It is iterative: every time an ungodly one is brought to faith, that faith is reckoned for righteousness. The tense of the participle is most important. It is not an aorist and does not say that the ungodly one was declared righteous vor dem Glauben und unabhaengig vom Glauben, “before faith and independent of faith.” It is his faith that is reckoned unto him for righteousness. So also our Confessions and all our fathers unanimously teach that Paul here sets forth the sinner’s personal justification by faith alone.

Λογίζεταιἡπίστιςαὐτοῦεἰςδικαιοσύνην, Verb and Subject are reversed in order to place emphasis on both: “Reckoned is his faith for righteousness—yes, his faith.” If it were not for his faith, there would be no such reckoning, no justification; there would be only the ungodliness and its consequent damnation. But when faith is wrought in him, from the first moment of that faith and ever and always as long as that faith continues God’s reckoning, God’s verdict of acquittal stands and will finally be announced by Christ publicly before the whole world at the last day just as it is now announced in the entire Scripture. Ever and ever God’s verdict is only a reckoning, a setting down to the man’s credit what he has not earned by working, what another has earned for him, and what this man has been moved to receive by faith. This answers the question as to how God can reckon his faith for righteousness. We must note the Biblical conception of faith: it is the hand and the heart filled with Christ. It is not mere believing but the possession of Christ.

State it thus: God reckons the possession of Christ by faith for righteousness. This helps to show why the Scriptures rate faith so highly: it is not because of faith as an act but because of the contents of God-wrought faith. Thus and thus only does God reckon it for righteousness; thus and thus only is the believer declared righteous.

In regard to the meaning of τῷμὴἐργαζομένῳ it should be noted that μή is not subjective nor has the force of a condition: “if one does not work.” Μή is the regular negative used with participles (R. 1137, 1172); οὐ used with participles is exceptional.

Our certainty of justification is sometimes discussed at this point. It cannot rest on the fact of my being an ἀσεβῆ, an ungodly one. I cannot say: “I am ungodly, but God justifies the ungodly; therefore I am certain he justifies also me.” God reckons no man’s ungodliness for righteousness. Those who have only ungodliness are not justified, they are damned: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” My certainty of salvation rests on the Christ whom I possess by faith. I must ever say: “I believe, therefore am I justified.” Christ is my righteousness. Although I on my part have only ungodliness, yet by faith Christ is my own; and God justifies me, the ungodly one, God reckons my faith, my possession of Christ, for righteousness to me.

The strength of my faith is the degree of my certainty. Since the ground of my certainty is absolute, being God who justifies as stated, there is no limit to the degree of certainty which my faith may attain and enjoy. I am justified despite my ungodliness. It contributes nothing to my justification; it tends only to make me doubt it. Paul destroys any doubt that I may have by declaring that God reckons my faith for righteousness. With all my soul I believe in him who asks no works from me but declares righteous the ungodly one by counting his faith for righteousness.

Romans 4:6

6 What Paul says regarding Abraham and the passage quoted from Genesis and thus regarding all believers accords with David’s statement. In accord with what also David says on the blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

Blessed whose iniquities are dismissed,

And whose sins were covered up!

Blessed a man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin!

Καθάπερ = καθʼ ἅπερ, “according to the very things” David also says (not merely καθώς, “according to the manner”). “The blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works” sums up what David says in Ps. 32:1, 2, but sums up what David says as stating what Paul has just said on two great points: God’s reckoning righteousness, and reckoning it apart from works. Paul points out in advance that he uses the passage from the psalms because of the third line which contains the word “will reckon,” and because in all three of the lines “works” are most significantly left out. The whole blessedness is this: God’s reckoning righteousness “apart from works” (see 3:21, 28, in conjunction with 3:20).

7, 8) “Blessed” (Hebrew ʾashre) is exclamatory: “Oh, the blessedness of!” Our versions convert it into an assertion. “Blessed” exclaims because of the fact and does not voice a mere wish. This is spiritual well-being: “Oh, how in every way things are spiritually well with” the man here described. Recall the Beatitudes of Jesus recorded in Matt. 5. Twice David cries: “Blessed!” The repetition drives home its great meaning. This wondrous blessedness is due to being freed from sin in God’s way, the only way in which sinners can be freed, namely by faith.

David employs three terms for sin and, correspondingly, three terms for its removal. These terms for sin deserve attention. The cure for all Pelagianism and for all semi-Pelagianism is the correct view of sin. When we note that the modernism of today is rationalistic Pelagianism gone to seed we shall see that its prevention, refutation, and cure lie in correcting its false assumptions regarding sin.

First, then, ἀνομία, “iniquity” (literally, “lawlessness”) is a translation of the Hebrew pheshaʾ which is derived from the verb phashaʾ, “to rebel,” “to revolt” against a government. Apply this meaning to the psalm: “Blessed whose rebellions were dismissed!” This tells us what “godlessness” as defined in 1:21 really means: men knew God but refused to bow before him. “We will not have this man to reign over us!” voices this lawlessness, and the Lord answers it: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,” Luke 19:14, 27. Every self-respecting government shoots its inveterate rebels or hangs them. Rebellion against God is a thousandfold more criminal than rebellion against the best government on earth.

The Greek ἁμαρτία has the same sense as David’s chatʾah. Both are derived from verbs that mean “to miss the mark,” both are commonly translated “sin.” “Sin” has, however, become a worn coin because of indiscriminate use. This “missing the mark” does not have a connotation of one earnestly trying to hit the mark and missing it only because of weakness and ignorance. The contrary is true, for these two, ἀνομία and ἁμαρτία, are constantly put side by side, the one defining the other. This is criminal refusal to come up to the divinely set mark, the mark set by God’s law. It is the godless, rebellious action of abolishing such a mark, of setting up one that pleases the sinner better, setting it up, not merely by word of mouth, but by deed.

The Greek has ἁμαρτἰα also in the third line, but now it is the collective singular whereas in the second line it was the plural of the mass. But David uses a third term, ʿavon, from ʿavah, “to turn aside,” to do it deliberately. The road of godly right, of willing obedience to God’s law is despised; “we have turned every one to his own way” (Isa. 53:6). Each would be his own god (in godlessness), make his own law (in lawlessness), and thus turns away. This godless, lawless turning away goes in all directions. Right is ever one, only one; wrong is ever multiple, its very multiplicity showing what it is. So truth is one, error is millions.

Now add these three terms together and draw their equation of guilt. Then you will approach what David meant by using them and what Paul likewise means.

The same is true with regard to the three terms for the removal of this guilt. We must by all means understand them for our own sakes as well as for the sake of properly conveying them to others. They constitute the heart of the gospel by revealing what justification in all its blessedness actually means.

“Were dismissed” or sent away by God himself is a translation of the Hebrew participle construct from nasaʾ: “they who have been presented with forgiveness as regards their sins,” E. Koenig in his Hebrew dictionary. Nasaʾ means “to take or carry away,” exactly what the Greek ἀφίημι means: to take all of a man’s sin and guilt, the whole frightful, stinking, deadly, damnable mess, to remove it from him and to carry it away so that it will never be found, “as far as the east is from the west” (Ps. 103:12), “into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19). This is the ἄφεσις of Scriptures. “Forgive” and “forgiveness,” the English renderings, are too pale, for they are used also in the lower sense of men forgiving men. We must define terms for forgiveness according to their original Greek and Hebrew force, then people will know what they really mean.

“Were dismissed” is the aorist to indicate the past definite fact, “dismissed once for all”; we should use the perfect, “have been dismissed.” No sinner, and try he ever so hard, can possibly carry his own sins away and come back cleansed of guilt. No amount of money, no science, no inventive skill, no armies of millions, nor any other earthly power can carry away from the sinner even one little sin and its guilt. Once it is committed, every sin and its guilt cling to the sinner as close as does his own shadow, cling to all eternity unless God carries them away. Blessed they for whom God has done this! He does it in justification.

So great is this blessed act that David adds another term: “were covered up,” a translation of the Hebrew passive participle construct from kasah: “the ones covered up in regard to their sins.” The idea is not that of hiding under some cover that may be pulled off and the sins exposed after all but of covering out of God’s sight forever. What sort of a cover can possibly do this? The blood of Christ, our mercy seat (see 3:25).

Let no man say that David did and could not as yet have known about this cover. What other cover could he have in mind when there never was another and when this only cover was prefigured, pictured, and promised by all the blood sacrifices of the original covenant and by these as made effective for every penitent Old Testament believer? Men are constantly seeking some other cover, persuading themselves that they have found another, but God sees right through all their covers. The more presumptuous men imagine that they can fool God without having a cover, by simply giving their sins a mild name.

Now the third term, the one Paul himself used in v. 4, 5, following Moses who was quoted in v. 3: λογίζομαι. It is used in the negative by David: loʾ chashab, in the Greek it is the aorist subjunctive with οὐμή and is futuristic in an independent sentence (R. 929, etc.): “The Lord will in no wise reckon.” Now Yahweh is named as the agent, who was not as yet named in the two previous statements. We have already explained this verb in v. 3. The only additional feature that we need to note here is the idea that non-reckoning of sin to a man is the negative of reckoning righteousness to him (v. 6) or of reckoning his faith for righteousness (v. 5, like v. 3). Every positive involves its corresponding negative and vice versa. Whither the sin and the guilt go we have seen, and likewise whence the righteousness of faith comes. God’s reckoning, negative and positive, has its solid basis which has been provided by himself (3:24).

In the first two lines of the psalm David uses plurals, for the justified are many; in the last line he uses ἀνήρ, “a man,” the representative singular (R. 408), any man to whom the relative clause applies. Paul makes specific use of this singular, ʾadam in the Hebrew. The masculine idea of the Greek word is not stressed; B.-P. defines it as = τὶς with the relative: is qui, “any person who (here: to whom).”

So Paul and Moses (v. 3) and David say the same thing regarding justification; the apostolic witness agrees with that of the law and the Prophets (3:21).

Romans 4:9

9 Now we learn in particular why Paul began the Old Testament testimony regarding justification with Abraham. This blessedness, now, (is it) on the circumcision (alone)? or also on the foreskin? for we are saying, Reckoned to Abraham was the faith for righteousness. How, then, was it reckoned? to him being in circumcision? or in foreskin? Not in circumcision; on the contrary, in foreskin, and a circumcision-sign he received as seal of the righteousness of the faith, the one (he already had) in the foreskin; so that he is father of all those believing despite foreskin, so that there is reckoned to them this righteousness; and circumcision-father for those (who are) not of circumcision only but also (are) those remaining in the tracks of the faith of our father Abraham (which he had already) in foreskin.

Paul’s vividness of style, his use of terse questions and a terse answer to impress his thought, leads some to think of their “objector,” of whom we have already made mention. On whom does this blessedness (justification) rest, merely on the circumcision (Jews) or also on the foreskin (Gentiles)? The two abstracts are used for the concretes. How far do David’s ἀνήρ in v. 8 and his plurals in v. 7 in actuality extend? An explanatory γάρ (like the one used in v. 2) brings out just why the question is asked, namely because we (Paul and the Christians) are saying (in the words of Moses, v. 3, making their thought our own) that “the faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” just the faith and not works of any kind. How many people may be included under this reckoning and this faith? Verb and subject are reversed, and both become emphatic.

Romans 4:10

10 Most illuminating are the questions which now consider Abraham himself and let his history lead us to the answer regarding how many are covered by his case and whether they are only Jews or also Gentiles. We must note that the question is “how” was it reckoned to him and not “when?” The point is the manner of God’s act and not merely the time; for Abraham’s circumcision is not ruled out but has a significant place in the divine reckoning. The answer to this “how,” therefore, is not merely that the faith was reckoned to him as being, not in circumcision, but in foreskin (ἐν in connection with); the answer includes: “and a circumcision-sign he received as seal of the righteousness of the faith, the faith he already had in the foreskin.”

Romans 4:11

11 Anyone who is at all acquainted with the history of Abraham knows about the interval that occurred between his justification and his circumcision. But this does not signify that when his circumcision took place, it had no connection with his justification, for it had a most important connection for both Abraham himself and his descendants, the Jews. It is this double feature in the case of Abraham with its far-reaching significance for both Gentiles and Jews that Paul brings out. The Jews saw only the half of it and did not see even this aright; for they imagined that Abraham’s circumcision excluded from the claims upon the fatherhood of Abraham all who were not circumcised and laid the entire emphasis on this rite instead of on Abraham’s faith and on the value which this faith and it alone gave to the rite. This Jewish mistake tended to confuse even Christians, and not only Jewish but also Gentile Christians.

This error still obsesses the Jews after all these centuries. And while the Christians of today do, indeed, consider Abraham their spiritual father as he indeed is, most of them do not do so with full intelligence. Most of us are of Gentile origin, and we of this day ought to know that Abraham, the circumcised progenitor of the circumcised Jews, is, nevertheless, our spiritual father although we are not circumcised, and that he is not at all the spiritual father but only the fleshly “forefather” (see v. 1) of the Jews, although, like Abraham, they are circumcised.

The great fact stands: Abraham was justified by God long before he was circumcised. His faith alone justified him. This towers above all else. And this is vital for us Gentile believers today. We are true children of the father of believers although we are not of his physical blood and are without the rite which he and those of his blood received during the time of the old covenant.

What, then, about that rite? Paul calls it σημεῖοιπεριτομῆς, the genitive being appositional: “a circumcision-sign.” There are no articles, the nouns have their qualitative force, the two (like a number we have already noted) being practically a compound and meaning: “a sign consisting of circumcision.” Predicative to “sign” and expounding what “sign” means, Paul adds: “as seal,” etc. This sign (circumcision) was of the highest import, being not a mere indication as many signs are but an actual seal: what the sign signified it attested.

Seals are used for making something safe; so the tomb of Jesus was sealed: “Make it as sure as you can,” Matt. 27:65; seal in this sense = inviolability. Seals are placed on documents as an attestation of their genuineness; the Holy Spirit is the seal with which we are sealed in attestation that we are saved, Eph. 1:13; 4:30. Abraham’s seal was such an attestation. We see no point in reducing “seal” to less than this. Whether the ancient Jews called circumcision a “seal” or not (see L.) makes no difference whatever here where Paul expounds what Abraham’s circumcision really was, something the Jews had failed to understand.

It was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith, the one (he already had) in the foreskin.” The Jews never regarded it as such a seal. They regarded it only as a mark of obedience to God and not as something of great value that was given to Abraham by God and was only “received” by him as a gift, but as something rendered to God by Abraham, offered as a service to God. The Jews thought that they were offering a like service to God.

This same view is held by many today with regard to baptism. Christ commands it, we obey his “ordinance,” and he receives our obedience. They fail to note that we receive baptism, that we by it are sealed as God’s children with a seal that endures. The genitive is objective: “a seal of the righteousness.” Circumcision sealed Abraham’s righteousness to him. He had not only this righteousness but also this seal stamped upon it, this attestation to its genuineness, this attestation from God to him, for he “received” it from God.

Now note the articles, all are demonstrative: “of that righteousness of that faith, of that (very one he already had) in that foreskin of his.” “Seal (circumcision), righteousness (by God’s reckoning and judicial declaration), faith, and foreskin,” are tied together in Paul’s compact expression, and the Greek is more compact than the English, τῆςἐνκτλ. needing no elucidation such as we need in English. When circumcision was finally given to Abraham, it sealed nothing new to him, it sealed only the righteousness of the faith which was reckoned for righteousness to him (v. 3, 9) long before this, when he still had his foreskin. Abraham’s foreskin is just as valuable, just as important as his later circumcision in this matter of righteousness due to faith.

The genitive “of the faith” expresses what lies in both ἐκπίστεως and διὰπίστως as these are repeatedly used by Paul whether we call it a genitive of origin or of possession (R. 495, etc.). The essential thing for Abraham was to have “this righteousness of this faith of his.” His foreskin in no way disturbed his having it. His subsequent circumcision derived its value only from that righteousness. It made him no more righteous than he was before, it only assured him the more in his own heart. Righteousness is invisible, for God’s verdict is pronounced in the secret chamber of heaven; hence we have the seals, circumcision in the old, baptism in the new covenant, to which were added the Passover in the old and the Lord’s Supper in the new, both of these to be repeated.

What we have said regarding εἰςτό with the infinitive in 3:26 applies also to both of these clauses, the second being appositional to the first: both state actual result and not mere purpose or only contemplated result. God pronounced Abraham righteous while he still had foreskin: “so that he is, actually is (present infinitive, durative: always) father of all those believing despite foreskin,” in other words, “so that there is reckoned (aorist, once for all) to them this righteousness” (this same one that Abraham had by faith alone). Διʼ ἀκροβυστίας, “despite,” exactly as in 2:27.

Here was a fact to confound the bigoted Jews: Abraham was the spiritual father of all Gentile, of all uncircumcised believers! Once pointed out with due clearness as it is by Paul, this fact is incontrovertible. The appositional result clause even seals it: this very righteousness that Abraham has while in uncircumcision is equally reckoned by God to all uncircumcised Gentile believers. Here is our charter of full spiritual relationship with Abraham; all of us Gentile believers today are his children in the fullest sense of the word, the same righteousness being reckoned to us as to him, foreskin notwithstanding.

Romans 4:12

12 Forthwith and in the same breath Paul adds: “and (so that he is) circumcision-father (qualitative genitive) for those (who are) not of circumcision only (not mere outward Jews, 2:28) but also (are) those walking in the tracks of the faith of our father Abraham (which he had already) in foreskin.” For all true, believing Jews of both covenants Abraham is a spiritual father exactly as he is this for all believing Gentiles, on the identical basis, that of faith and faith alone, the faith Abraham had already in foreskin. “Circumcision-father” (no articles, the nouns are qualitative) is only a little stronger than “circumcised father.”

The abstract “of circumcision” cannot here equal the concrete: father “of men circumcised,” because the datives τοῖς … τοῖς designate these men, and these datives cannot be in apposition with the genitive “of circumcision”; this genitive is qualitative. Its addition to “father” does not make Abraham father to Jewish believers in a superior sense as though he is more of a father to them than he is to Gentile believers; for it is faith alone that makes him father to either and to both. The qualification “of circumcision” is added only because Jewish believers were also circumcised. Circumcision is only a group distinction among believers, one, however, that goes back only to a time when Abraham had already believed, had already been justified in foreskin. Hence this distinction was not vital in Abraham’s fatherhood. Paul says and intimates nothing regarding the point that circumcision is abrogated in the new covenant, that its old value as sign and seal has now disappeared. Why should he branch out into side issues?

In v. 11 Paul has the genitive and in v. 12 the dative; εἶναι is construed with either: “to be of,” “to be for”; both are like the English: is mine, is for me. There is a good deal of discussion in regard to the second τοῖς. It is called a solecism, a grammatical mistake, one that Paul made or one that is to be blamed onto Paul’s scribe; some soften their language and say that the construction is due to carelessness, inconcinnity, incongruity; the grammars avoid it, R. 423 refers only to οὐμόνον. All interpret as though the second τοῖς were not there although it is well attested by the manuscripts; we are told: “Strict grammar may sometimes have to give way!” but grammar dare never give way. Paul needs the second τοῖς as much as he needs the first. Both refer to the same persons; our versions translate correctly. The view that the first τοῖς refers to Jews, the second to Gentiles, and the other view that Paul does not mean this, but that the second τοῖς is a mistake unless he does mean it, are alike untenable.

Only in the event that both τοῖς were construed with or that both were followed by phrases, would the second τοῖς be wrong. That is the whole story. If he had used only one τοῖς Paul would have had to write: “for those not of circumcision only but also of faith,” etc.; or: “for those not having circumcision only but also standing,” etc.: either two mated phrases with the force of “not only but also” or two mated participles. The moment Paul mated a phrase (“of circumcision”) with a participle (“standing”), Greek usage required that he employ a second τοῖς.

The other point to notice is that in the Greek “of circumcision” is inserted into “not only”: “not of circumcision only” (the rite as such), and this makes “but also” state the other qualification of these same persons, which compels the second τοῖς to refer to the same persons as the first. Finally, the change from a phrase to a participle with “not only but also,” places the emphasis on the persons: “those—those,” the very emphasis Paul wanted.

Abraham is circumcision-father, not to all Jews but only to the real ones, to those who are not only circumcised but at the same time are holding to the faith which Abraham had even before he was circumcised. “Not only of circumcision” implies that these persons must have something far greater. Instead of employing another phrase such as “but also of faith” Paul uses a participle (thus necessitating the second τοῖς) and adds a good deal to the term “faith” in the compact Greek way. That is linguistic skill combined with grasp of thought. Those of circumcision (ἐκ to indicate the characteristic mark as so often, R. 599) must at the same time be those (τοῖς) “taking their stand” in Abraham’s faith. Στοιχέω does not mean “to walk” but “to stand in line, in position” (like soldiers in rank and file, like plants in a bed), hence the dative ἴχνεσι which indicates where they stand. C.-K. 1025 should be consulted. Abraham is dead but has left his “tracks” in Sacred Writ; hence Paul does not say: “standing in the faith of Abraham” but “in the tracks” of his faith. These “tracks” are not his works of faith but the accounts of his faith recorded in the Scriptures.

Nor does Paul say only “tracks of faith,” he says, “of the faith in foreskin” (the phrase being in the attributive position), the faith Abraham had before his circumcision. In a masterly way Paul thus makes the faith of Gentile and of Jew one, and that the very one which Abraham had from the start. Note the correspondence of “in foreskin” with “despite foreskin” used in v. 11: Gentiles believe despite foreskin as Abraham believed in foreskin (i.e., while in connection with it). This model faith Gentiles have, and in this faith Jews must stand in a line in order to have Abraham as their father. Finally, Paul does not say only “of Abraham” but “of our father Abraham,” and “our” includes himself and all Jewish and all Gentile Christians, and “our father” makes all of them equally children of Abraham. Let us confess that this is mastery of thought and of word. The man who wrote thus was beyond misplacing a τοῖς.

Romans 4:13

13 But all of this goes far deeper; it is only the result. It was Abraham with whom God chose to make the old covenant, it was not someone who lived earlier, not, for instance, Adam. And it was this covenant that God made with Abraham. This covenant meant that Abraham was to be the father of all believers of all future time. That he could be such a father only through faith, at first while he was in foreskin and then after he had received the gift of circumcision, has already been said. But this subjective means of faith has its corresponding objective basis.

Faith would be nothing without this its true basis which alone makes faith what it is. Now this basis could not be anything that resembled law, it had to be and it was promise, the promise which could and did produce and enable that faith first in Abraham and thus in all of whom he was to be the spiritual father.

The story is that those who lived from Adam to Abraham had the preliminary promise for their faith and that with Abraham God advanced this earlier promise to an actual covenant, one that centered in the one person Abraham, who was chosen by pure grace to be the heir of the world, i.e., the father of all future believers. Thus after telling that it was faith alone by which Abraham was made such a father it remained for Paul to tell about the basis of this faith, the promise, without which this faith cannot be understood. Hence γάρ which explains all that has been said in v. 1–12 regarding faith, Abraham’s and his seed’s faith.

For not through law (as a means) the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he is the heir of the world but through faith’s righteousness. For if those of law are heirs, empty has been made the faith, and abolished has been the promise; for the law keeps working wrath, for (only) where law is not neither is there transgression.

This is the negative part of the explanation (γάρ) which, to begin with, states the fact that God did not use the medium of (διά) anything in the nature of “law” (no article) but a medium (διά again) that was the very opposite of law, namely “faith’s righteousness.” The reason Paul did not write: “not through law-righteousness” as the opposite of: “through faith-righteousness” is due to the fact that no such thing as “law-righteousness” exists; the only thing law produces is “wrath” (v. 15) and not righteousness. God did not and, in fact, could not make “the promise” (article), this great promise to Abraham or to his seed (namely that he is the heir of the world), by means of law. He did not attach this promise to law; law would have been the wrong vehicle. Law could never have made either Abraham or his seed righteous, and they had to be so in order to have this promise and to have it fulfilled in them, for if they had been left in an unrighteous state they would have been no better than all the rest of mankind. Abraham and his seed had to be made righteous. They were and are made so “by means of faith’s righteousness.” This is not the subjective (R. 499) but the possessive genitive; faith has righteousness, it is reckoned to faith, yea, faith itself is reckoned as righteousness (v. 3, 5, 9).

Now the promise was: “that Abraham is heir of the world.” Some think that this is not a promise, but the very word “heir” shows that it is. The infinitive clause is an apposition to “the promise” (R. 1078) and states its contents; in direct discourse it would read: “Thou art the heir of the world”; “should be” in our version is inadequate. Not at some future time but then and there, when God first made his covenant with Abraham, he was made heir of the world, he and not he and his seed. The future course of the world would show him to be the heir; thus his heirship was a promise. Since he was the heir, the promise of his being the heir was made also “to his seed,” to all the Jewish and the Gentile believers to whom he is father. Being his seed (children), this promise concerns them mightily.

Since their father is the heir of the world, they share in this his heirship as all children share in what their father has. “Or,” again conjunctive (1:21; 2:4), induces us to consider “his seed” separately. While the promise might not be to Abraham through law, it might still be so to his seed; this latter is also denied.

Paul uses his own language for stating the contents of the promise as he does for stating the double fatherhood of Abraham in v. 11, 12, and this as a unit in v. 12 and 16: “our father,” “the father of us all.” In v. 17 the promise is stated in the words of Gen. 17:5. Κόσμος needs no article, it is like other terms that denote objects only one of which exists, R. 794, etc. The argumentation that the heavenly world is referred to, the proof that we are promised the heritage of the heavenly world and that, therefore, this is here referred to is answered by the fact that the unmodified κόσμος never refers to the heavenly world, and even Jesus says in Matt. 5:5: “The meek shall inherit the earth.” “Heir” of the world does not mean “ruler” of the world but future possessor of it by means of inheritance. It is at present not a fit possession, being filthy with sin; it will be fit when God makes it “a new earth” as John saw it in Rev. 21:1. After it has been cleansed, Abraham will enter upon his inheritance, as will all his seed through him as their father.

The world does not belong to the wicked although they act as though it did. They are constantly being thrown out of it into hell; it is Abraham’s, his alone, and through him ours. Paul sees and proclaims this astounding reality. We now have so little of the world, being strangers and pilgrims in it, having even what we have only as if we had it not; but it is entirely ours, at last to be turned over to us in Abraham.

Romans 4:14

14 Another “for” explains farther. There are “those of law” (those only “of circumcision,” v. 12), the unbelieving Jews who reject the gospel and seek righteousness by means of law. These claim to be the heirs of the world with Abraham as their father (John 8:39), whom they make an heir through law and thus their model. What about their claim? Paul considers it with a condition of reality: “If those of law (ἐκ to denote the class, R. 599) are heirs” (as they claim), what then? We need then but to consider what follows: then “made empty has been the faith,” all of this faith of which Paul has been speaking, Abraham’s and what Moses said of it in v. 3 and 9 and his seed’s, his children’s faith; then “abolished has been the promise” which produced this faith in Abraham as well as in his seed.

Law rules out both this faith and the promise on which it rests, yea which first kindled it. Then law takes their place. But this shows how utterly false is the claim that those of law are heirs. Theirs is a fictitious heirship; the only real heirship is that of Abraham and of his seed, that of promise and of the faith resting on that promise.

The two perfect tenses extend from the past to the present; the verbs and the subjects are reversed in order to make both emphatic. A faith that has been made empty or hollow is a soap bubble. It is hollow when its contents, the promise, is abolished. Trusting something that does not exist or is wholly ineffective is empty faith. We see it when men put their faith and their money into fake financial stock companies.

Romans 4:15

15 “For” explains what “law” really does for “those of law” who think they shall inherit by “law-works” (3:20). Instead of getting them declared righteous and thus made heirs law works only the realization of sin (3:20), the conviction that we are not heirs at all, and that law can never make us heirs. Paul puts this into still stronger language: “Law keeps working, producing (κατά with the perfective force) wrath.” Instead of being the means of winning God’s favor so that he makes us heirs law outrages God, kindles his wrath (see 1:18) so that he casts us away forever. The article used with “law” is generic, this law of which Paul speaks in v. 13, 14, every bit of it. The idea that either here or already also in v. 13, 14 the Mosaic law alone is referred to restricts what Paul does not restrict. It is true, the false claimants of heirship mentioned in v. 14 are Jews, but by showing the falseness of their claim, a claim that rests on their use of the Mosaic law, Paul shows his readers how all law produces nothing but wrath. So also in the next clause Paul again has simply written “law.”

We prefer the reading that has γάρ instead of δέ, although its textual attestation is not as good. The turn from the negative elucidation, started in v. 13, to the positive is not made until v. 16 is reached. It cannot be made with δέ because then διὰτοῦτο would refer to the fact that where law is not neither is there transgression. “For this reason” (v. 16) refers to all that Paul says regarding law in v. 13–15. Law always produces wrath, for only where law is wholly absent transgression is absent. Now all people of law are such only by having law and by using it to get righteousness. These are the moralists (all of them in 2:1–16; the Jewish in particular in 2:17–29), all of whom together with their great following Paul convicts in chapter 2 by the very law they use (see how the word “law” runs through 2:12–27) by showing that the law which they would make their gospel does not save but only convicts and condemns them.

Law does nothing but work wrath. Instead of clinging to law one would have to be free of it in order to be free of transgression and thus to be free of wrath.

But is there any place in all the sinful world where there is no law, where there is no transgression, and where no wrath follows? Has Paul not shown that even the pagans who have no special legal code are “law to themselves” and have the works of God’s own law written in their very hearts to their own condemnation (2:14–16)? Law—there is no place where it is not found, no place where it does not constantly reveal sin as transgression! Oh, the folly of these people of law grasping all the law they can, calling it their gospel, never seeing what it really does to them! As in 2:23, παράβασις is sin as violation of law, the Greek “walking beside” the path prescribed by the law, repudiating that path, in hostility walking on some other path. The thought that Paul means that where there is no law, there may be sin but no transgression, is practically the reverse of what he says, namely that there is no place here on earth where law is not present and does not reveal sin as what it really is, transgression of law.

The negative form is in the nature of a litotes: law is everywhere, thus sin is everywhere exposed as transgression. This is the final blow which annihilates all hope by way of law.

Romans 4:16

16 Not law (v. 13–15), negative; but faith (v. 16, etc.), positive. For this reason it is out of faith in order to be according to grace so that the promise is sure for all the seed, not for that from the law only but also for that from Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all even as it has been written: For father of many nations have I established thee! before whom he believed as God who makes alive the dead and calls the things not existing as existing.

“For this reason” = because law is and produces effects as just described. As the copula is absent in the negative statement found in v. 13: “not through law,” etc., so it is absent here in the positive: “out of faith”; this absence shows that the two statements are counterparts. As so often in Holy Writ when the positive is set beside its negative, the positive reaches farther and says more than the mere opposite of its negative. This is also the case here with regard to “not through law,” and its opposite “out of faith.” “Law” is the objective, outward means; “faith” is already the subjective, inward source. In v. 13 we have διά with both, here we have ἐκ with “faith,” which is an advance on διά, for faith is also source. See 1:17 on this ἐκ. It cannot be toned down to mean no more than διά.

Paul has no subject, and hence the commentators supply one. But this is not necessary. Paul says: “OF FAITH”—that is the whole of it. Everything is contained in this phrase. Faith—faith—faith! trace the word from 3:22 onward and note that here its use with reference to Abraham starts with 4:3, “he believed.” “Of faith”—we are to think of that alone and not to dim our thinking by a grammatical subject or even by as much as a copula. One does not comprehand Paul’s doctrine fully until he sees that ἐκπίστεως is the whole of it. In v. 13 it is “through faith’s righteousness” (v. 3, 6, 9, “righteousness”). Faith is never without righteousness as it is never without the promised Christ, and so the climax of expression is “out of faith,” and the place for it in reference to Abraham is right here.

“Out of faith” as opposed to “through law” contains two points of this opposition, both of them are vital, one is regarding God, one regarding us believers. That regarding God is “grace,” and that regarding us is certainty. The former is worded as God’s purpose, the latter a result attained by that purpose (εἰςτὸεἶναι to denote result as in 3:26, and twice in 4:11). The full exposition of this “grace” is set down in 3:24. Since law was an impossible means and faith the only means and source, the norm had to be grace (κατά), and God intended it to be so (ἵνα). Grace was his part of it (see its exposition in 3:24), a part that was glorious for him and blessed for us beyond anything that language is able to express. No wonder God intended it so; in fact, as we read elsewhere, intends that no man shall ever doubt that pure grace is the norm of his entire saving work.

Since everything is “out of faith” and thereby intended to be normated by grace, the great result attained for us is certainty: “so that the promise is sure for all the seed” (the dative is dependent on the adjective). Let us not become confused regarding εἰςτὸ as though it does not denote actual result but only further purpose like ἵνα. Read R. 1003, 1071, etc. So little does ἵνα compel εἰςτό to mean purpose that the reverse is true; ἵνα itself may here denote result (read R. 997, etc.) and thus places beyond question that εἰςτό certainly does so. We may read: “so that it is, actually is, according to grace,” and then: “so that the promise is, actually is, sure.” The divine promise is sure for all the seed, “sure” and certain for their conviction and not merely on God’s part. All that the promise needs is faith, and even the tiniest faith avails fully.

That settles the question of certainty for our hearts. Dost thou believe the promise? Then thou art certain. And the measure of thy certainty is the degree of strength in thy faith.

The connection is not: “the promise for all the seed,” intended for the seed and “sure” on God’s part. This does not mean “sure of realization.” Did God ever make a promise that failed of realization? His promises are not realized only in the case of those who reject them, who place themselves outside of these promises by their unbelief and their rejection. The connection is: “sure for all the seed,” not merely objectively with God but also subjectively for the seed, for the faith in their hearts. Law is devoid of this blessed certainty. The one real certainty it produces is that we are lost sinners (“sin’s realization,” 3:20).

So often, however, men misuse law and base an utterly false feeling of certainty on it and on their works of law. See what the moralist reckons in 2:3, namely that by his moralism he and his following will escape the judgment of God. See again what the Jewish moralist esteems himself to be (2:17–20), and how he fails to apply the divine law to himself, and thus for himself and for his following clings to a certainty that is utterly false. With its work-righteousness Romanism even teaches that there is no certainty, that no matter how many works one does one cannot be entirely sure that they are really sufficient. Law—no certainty; faith—full of certainty. Law and works never justify and hence cannot produce the certainty that we are justified; faith does justify and hence has this certainty.

“Sure for all the seed” of Abraham, for both groups of believers for whom he is father and who thus are his “seed” (v. 13). Paul again names both groups. Note well that οὐτῷἐκ is not the same as τοῖςοὐκἐκ in v. 12. In v. 12 Paul describes the Jewish believers as those who are not only marked by circumcision but as those who stand in Abraham’s faith. Here Paul says that Abraham’s seed includes not only Jewish but also Gentile believers. For the former the brief designation suffices: “that (seed) from the law,” and “from the law” means “from Judaism.” The distinctive mark of this entire portion of the spiritual seed of Abraham throughout the era of the old covenant was “the law,” the divine commandments in their totality (not merely “law” in general).

The possession of this divine law was distinctive, for the Gentiles were without it. L. makes “the law” = circumcision, but this word is never thus restricted. Since we have v. 12, all danger that here in v. 16 it refers either to all physical Jews or to Jews who are marked by their law as seeking salvation by means of it, is forever removed. We may add that the ἐκ used with “circumcision” in v. 12 does not make “the law” construed with ἐκ in v. 16 equal “circumcision.”

The Gentile group of Abraham’s seed is described as “that from Abraham’s faith.” It had this mark and no more, it did not have the mark that was peculiar to the Jewish portion of Abraham’s seed. As the designation for the Jewish seed reverts to v. 12, so the designation for the Gentile portion reverts to v. 11. As at the end of v. 12 “our father Abraham” with its significant “our” makes a unit of the two groups, the same is done here and even more strongly the relative clause: “who (or he who) is father of us all.” All we are equally his seed, his spiritual children.

Romans 4:17

17 Καθώς does not state a proof for this great fact as though proof were still needed after all that Paul has already said; “even as it has been written (and stands thus forever)” means that what Paul has said regarding this grand fatherhood of Abraham which includes all the various Gentile believers together with the Jewish believers is only the same truth that was uttered by God himself to Abraham himself in Gen. 17:5 when he changed his name “Abram, father of height,” to “Abraham, father of a multitude,” and also stated the reason: “for a father of many nations have I made thee.” Ὅτι may be merely recitativum or, like δέ in 1:17 and 4:3, a part of the quotation as we also translate it.

We are not convinced that in Gen. 17:5 “father of many nations” means only a physical father of such nations; means this because of what follows regarding the physical seed of Abraham in v. 7, etc. What about Gen. 12:3: “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed,” and Gen. 15:5: “So shall thy seed be” (in number like the stars)? Abraham was not the physical father of many nations; in fact, aside from the Jews, his other descendants, such as the Ishmaelites, were of so little importance that they would not justify the title “father of many nations.” In Gen. 17:5–8 God promises two things, one pertaining to “many nations,” (the Gentiles) and one pertaining to “thy seed after thee in their generations” (Jews only). Since, however, this proposed original sense of “physical father of many nations” in no way fits Paul’s use of the quotation, we are asked to believe that the spiritual fatherhood of all Christendom in its way “answers to” (entspricht) the promise of a physical posterity (Zahn, 233). Such a view is scarcely tenable.

Note the perfect tense, “I have established thee,” which goes back to Gen. 12:3; 15:5, and to the counsel of God which lies back of these passages. In God’s eyes Abraham had long ago been “father of many nations” although Isaac had not been born at this time, and Abraham and Sarah had lost all procreative power. Strange, indeed, this “promise” (v. 13, 16), for to Abraham’s ears it was pure promise. Seemingly incredible, it yet asked for nothing but faith, for a promise can be received in no other way (law is different); and it prompted faith, for it is the very nature of promise to produce faith. And lo, Abraham did believe!

The contention that κατέναντιοὖ should be construed with “father of us all,” and the quotation made a parenthesis is answered by the relative οὖ which refers to God. This antecedent appears in the verb τέθεικα of the quotation, and this verb immediately precedes the clause “before whom,” etc.: “I have established thee,” I, God, before whom he (Abraham) believed. This is the grammar. The fact that the antecedent is “I,” the first person, and the relative “before whom” is the third person is of little importance as Bengel has already shown, and as many examples also show which have antecedents of different persons from those of their relatives. R. 712 lists a few, even the third person neuter ὅ with the first person, and ὅς with the second, but in 1 Cor. 15:9 ὅς appears with ἐγώ, exactly as οὗ in our passage with “I” in the verb. Even gender and number are often diverse. “Before whom” (this “I” who had established him as father, etc.) Abraham believed, i.e., standing there before God, believing the words he was uttering. Humanly speaking, the promise sounded incredible, but Abraham did not waver because of unbelief (v. 20).

Since “I” is the antecedent: I “before whom,” the antecedent is not incorporated in the relative οὗ. Nor is ᾧ attracted into οὗ. We cannot construe: “before whom to whom he gave faith.” Why should Paul state either what or to whom when it is as plain as day that “he believed” means believed what God said (Gen. 17:5)? “He believed!” that was the great deed. Abraham believed long before this time so that he did not fail when he now heard this word of God—that is the great point here. Failure to believe at this point would have ruined and ended all previous believing.

“Before whom,” however, means much more than coram, merely standing in front of God when he spoke to Abraham; for at once the predicative genitive Θεοῦ and its participial modifiers are added to οὗ. This is not a genitive absolute. “Before whom (God) he believed as (the) God who makes alive the dead and calls the non-existing things as existing”—before God as being such a God Abraham believed; such a God he saw in the “I” who told him he had been made father of many nations, and that therefore his name was to be Abraham instead of Abram. Paul does not say that this was what Abraham believed, namely that God makes alive, etc.; nor is it Paul who calls God the one who makes alive, etc. (as one might understand our versions). Paul tells us that Abraham connected God’s making the dead alive, etc., with God’s promise; for the word that he had been established as father of many nations involved no less regarding God than his making alive the dead, etc.

Some allegorize: “making alive the dead,” the spiritually dead Jews and Gentiles who were to constitute Abraham’s spiritual children. The argument is advanced that Paul’s readers could not already at this point think of God’s making alive Abraham’s and Sarah’s bodies so that they might produce a child. But Paul is stating Abraham’s conviction as he had it when God spoke to him. The fact that this conviction contained that very thought Paul elucidates with all fulness in v. 18, etc. But Abraham’s conviction reached much farther; it had to in order to include the revivifying of his own and of Sarah’s senile bodies. He believed in the resurrection, in the fact that God is able to bring the dead back to life (Heb. 11:19), which statement answers the contention that the resurrection was not known at this time or was known only in the latter days of the Old Testament.

“And calls the things not existing as existing” is a parallel and not a restatement in other words but an addition, and one that is just as vital as the previous statement. For if Abraham was even at this time the father of many nations, this truth involved the making alive of his and of Sarah’s dead bodies so that through Isaac’s line Christ could be born. Christ through whom alone Abraham was the spiritual father of many nations. But it involved more, namely God’s calling all those non-existing many nations, of whom Abraham was already the spiritual father, as now already existing. And in God’s eyes they were existing. God so spoke of them when he said: “I have set thee as a father of many nations.” He did not say: “I will set thee” at some far future time; Abraham did not become a father when the many nations (see a list in Acts 2:9–11) believed after Christ’s day; those nations of believers already existed in God’s sight, he already called them, Abraham had already been constituted their father. In other words, Abraham saw all that was involved in God’s word to him, saw it, and before God as being such a God believed what God said.

In what sense is καλεῖν used? Merely as a synonym for λέγειν and only because God called Abraham father of many nations so that the sense is merely that God mentions the non-existent as existent? “Call” as a ruler calls (Ps. 50:1; Isa. 40:26)? “Call into existence”? as in Isa. 41:4; 48:13? And this not into physical but into spiritual existence? This creative calling attracts many, namely all those who allegorize “making the dead alive,” these extend this allegorizing to this second expression. But ὡςὄντα, “as existing,” debars that view. Paul would then have said: “Calling the non-existing into existing.”

C.-K. 561 has the correct view of it: this is the calling that is so frequently mentioned in Paul’s and in Peter’s writings, “calling unto him for participation in the saving revelation.” In the epistles καλεῖν and its derivatives are always used in the effective sense: those who are called answer that call; in Matt. 22:14 many of the called do not answer. The many nations of whom Abraham is the spiritual father are Abraham’s spiritual children through God’s calling them, the call of grace and the gospel making them such children. This, too, Abraham saw. Some have too low a view of Abraham’s knowledge and of his faith, and they ought to revise it upward, to the level of Jesus’ word in John 8:56, 58. Regarding μή with ὄντα and participles read R. 1136, etc. It is the regular negative with participles and calls for no explanation, οὐ would require an explanation; which disposes of the view that Delitzsch connects with μή in Biblische Psychologie, 37, that “the non-existent things” could not also have been called τὰοὐκὄντα.

Romans 4:18

18 He who beyond hope (yet) upon hope did believe so that he was father of many nations in accord with what had been declared, Thus shall be thy seed! And not having grown weak, with the faith he considered his own body, already having become dead, he being about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; and over against the promise of God he did not waver with the unbelief, on the contrary, he became strong with faith, giving glory to God and being fully persuaded that what he has promised he is able also to perform. Wherefore also it was reckoned to him for righteousness.

Ὅς matches the ὅς of v. 16, and although it is a relative it begins a new sentence and thus has demonstrative force: “he it was who.” Παρά and ἐπί are in contrast, and in the former the idea of the Greek is “beside,” away off from such a thing as hope. He believed “beyond hope,” where all hope had disappeared, yet in spite of that “on hope.” How is such a contradiction possible? All was “beyond hope” as far as Abraham’s and Sarah’s bodies were concerned; but “on hope” rests everything on God’s word and promise. The result was that by this act of believing (ἐπίστευσεν, aorist) he became (γενέσθαι, aorist to match) father of many nations in accord with what had been declared before God added that word about many nations in Gen. 17:5, had been declared already in Gen. 15:5: “Thus shall be thy seed” (in number like the stars).

Here there is another εἰςτό with an infinitive, even an aorist infinitive, and many regard it as denoting purpose: “that (to the end that) he might become.” Zahn notes that the relation to be expressed is not and cannot be that of purpose, that Abraham did not believe with the intention of becoming something many centuries later; God had already established him as father of many nations (τέθεικα, perfect, v. 17), and Abraham believed that God had done so, believed when God told him. So Zahn makes εἰςτό the object of “believed,” but this would be an unusual grammatical construction. Here we have a case of plain result; read what we have said regarding εἰςτό in 3:26, and again in 4:11. What God did in his counsel became historical fact (γενέσθαι) the instant Abraham believed; the result was then and there attained.

Already at the time of the incident recorded in Gen. 15:5 Abraham believed. In accord with the declaration there made (κατά) he was then and there “father of many nations” as God also declared later in Gen. 17:5, compare v. 17, Paul’s quotation. Hence Paul also writes: “according to what has been declared,” and not again as in v. 17: “even as it has been written.”

Romans 4:19

19 Καί is expository and shows us the thoughts of Abraham’s faith, that “with faith” he considered his own and Sarah’s deadness, did not waver “with unbelief” but was mighty “with faith,” persuaded that God was mighty to perform what he had promised. Here we have an explanation of “beyond hope” and “on hope.” The pivoted terms (based on “he did believe” in v. 18) are “with faith” in v. 19, “not with unbelief but with faith” in v. 20, ending with “having been persuaded” in v. 21, which describes faith. Faith—faith—faith. Paul keeps ringing the changes on it (there is not a work in sight) exactly as he did in all that precedes in this chapter, yea from 3:21 onward.

Whoever notes this will not construe: “not having grown weak in the faith”; will not make this dative local and different from the two datives used in v. 20 which are not local but signify means (B.-D. 196 makes them causal). We construe: “with the faith he considered his own dead body,” etc., the article is to indicate the faith referred to in v. 18 in the verb “he did believe.” All was beyond hope when he simply “considered” his and Sarah’s body. There was a double hopelessness but not one that was beyond hope when “with faith he considered” (literally, “put his mind down on”) these bodies. He might have grown weak, would have become so but did not because he thought of the bodies “with this faith” yea, “he became strong (mighty, powerful) with faith,” v. 20.

“Already having become dead,” the perfect tense, = being in that condition. The participle stating the age is nominative and is construed with the subject; the adjective names the age and is nominative; που = “somewhere about.” Gen. 17:1, 24 place the age past 99, thus “somewhere about a 100.” Gen. 17:17, 18, Abraham’s laughter and his saying in his heart (silently thinking), “Shall a child be born unto him that Isaiah 100 years old?” etc., are not unbelief and skeptical laughter but Abraham’s reaction to the promise that seemed too great to be believed. A few texts insert the negative: “considered not his own body,” disregarded it with this faith of his. This is a strange instance where the sense is really unchanged by the insertion of the negative although its insertion is plainly made by a later hand.

Romans 4:20

20 Δέ continues. “Not having grown weak” is explained and amplified: “over against the promise of God he did not waver with the unbelief” which this promise might have called forth because the promise seemed so incredible. While it is not literal, “staggered not” (A. V.) is to the point. This verb means to let the judgment go now this way now that (διά, between), to arrive at no certainty; the deponent is non-passive (R. 334). This is a description of doubt: wavering back and forth with unbelief at (εἰς) God’s promise: Shall I or shall I not believe? and remaining between the two. R. 594 thinks that εἰς conveys a hostile idea; but it is neutral and means: “looking at the promise,” he did not waver. On the contrary, looking at the promise of God and seeing what v. 17 states, “he became strong with faith.” The verb is again a deponent, passive in form but not in sense.

The two aorist participles express actions that are coincident with that of the aorist verb: the act of growing strong involved the act of giving in the specific way mentioned by the second participle.

Romans 4:21

21 “And being fully persuaded that what he has promised he is able also to perform,” no matter what seeming impossibilities that promise may involve (like making alive the dead and like calling the non-existent as existent, v. 17), and what reasons for doubting with unbelief may present themselves to our minds. “To be fully persuaded” = to believe; literally, “to be full of a thing.” But L.’s idea that the ὅτι clause states what Abraham was full of is untenable. M.-M., Deissmann, and L. help us but little in regard to the meaning of the word. C.-K., B.-P., and others offer more. The agent of the passive participle is God and his promise, and the ὅτι clause states, not what produced the persuasion, but the substance of the persuasion that was produced. While it referred to the special promise made to Abraham, Abraham’s persuasion covered far more, namely that God is able to perform anything and everything that he has ever promised at any time.

Romans 4:22

22 “Therefore also” this faith, this believing being what it was, “it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.” This restates v. 3 and 9 and sums up the vital point of the entire discussion regarding Abraham. The interpretation has already been given. We merely repeat the point that not the act as an act was reckoned for righteousness but Christ embraced by that act, Christ, the substance and heart of the promise to Abraham.

Romans 4:23

23 Paul closes the discussion regarding Abraham, the father of all believers, with a statement of what this means for us and for our own justification. Now it was not recorded on his account alone that it was reckoned to him but also on our account, to whom it shall be reckoned, to those believing on him who raised Jesus, our Lord, from the dead—he who was delivered up on account of our transgressions and was raised up on account of our being declared righteous.

All that Paul has been discussing is to be found in the sacred Scripture record. Why was it put there? Certainly not only for Abraham’s sake so that we may read how he was justified. That, too, of course; but equally for our own sakes so that we in his case may see how we are justified exactly as he was. The subject that “was recorded” is “that it was reckoned to him” (see v. 3 on the verb), and with the two words ἐλογίσθηαὐτῷ Paul summarizes the whole divine record regarding Abraham. By a divine reckoning Abraham was justified; by the same, a divine reckoning, all believers are justified and in no other way.

Romans 4:24

24 Thus for our sakes, too, was it written since he is our spiritual father, and we his spiritual children “to whom it shall be reckoned.” Paul retains the summary expression. Our justification is a divine reckoning just as Abraham’s was. see v. 3 and 3:24. Μέλλει with the present infinitive is a periphrastic future: “shall be reckoned,” but a broad, general future that covers the entire time of the new covenant and all believers in it. Zahn calls it a timeless present. The fact that the reckoning had already been made in the case of some when Paul wrote makes no difference, for the number comprised in “us” ever increases, for they are “those believing on him who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead,” who justified the faith of Abraham to the effect that he is able to do what he has promised (v. 21), he who makes alive the dead as Abraham believed regarding him (v. 17). Why the ἐπί used with πιστεύειν should denote emotion (R. 602) is unclear; it denotes the basis on which our confidence rests. That basis is the same that Abraham’s faith had.

But the promise given to Abraham’s faith has now been fulfilled. Paul mentions the crown of that fulfillment, God “having raised Jesus, our Lord (see 1:4), from the dead.” This fulfillment, as was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, is the basis of our faith as it was and as it will be, the basis for all new covenant believers. We fail to understand those who say that the death of Jesus is omitted here and elsewhere in Paul. Does not the resurrection imply the death? Is not the death implied in v. 25 and already in 3:25, “in his blood”? And “blood” (not merely “death”) means sacrificially shed blood just as “delivered up” means as a sacrifice for our transgressions. Then see 2 Cor. 5:14, 15: “died for all,” three times.

Jesus’ resurrection always includes his sacrificial death but it brings out the all-sufficiency of his death. If death had held him, he would have failed; since he was raised from death, his sacrifice sufficed, God set his seal upon it by raising him up. This is how and why Christ’s resurrection stands out so prominently in the apostolic records, and why it ever holds this position in our faith. This is also why Christ’s resurrection is denied and explained away together with anything sacrificial in regard to his death by the opponents of the gospel, by all the modernistic descendants of the moralists who were crushed by Paul in chapter 2. On the sense of ἐκνεκρῶν and the interpretation of the phrase on the part of millennialists those interested may consult our remarks in connection with Matt. 17:10; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:7; John 2:22; Acts 3:16.

Romans 4:25

25 Ὅς has demonstrative force (examples, 1:25; 2:29; 4:18): “He it is who,” etc. God delivered him up on account of our transgressions (this word occurs in 2:23, and 4:15) as Paul has already explained in 3:25. They are not called merely “sins” but, as explained in v. 15, “transgressions,” sins revealed and brought out as what they really are. Here we have the sacrificial blood of Jesus, our Lord, and all the passages of Scripture which speak of it constitute the commentary such as 3:25; 5:6; 8:32; Isa. 53:5, 6; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18.

This atoning death is joined with the resurrection: “was raised up on account of our being declared righteous.” Δικαιοσύνη is the quality, δικαίωσις the act which produces the quality, the latter is like the English “justification,” B.-P. 309, als Handlung wie als Ergebnis, it is always a forensic act with its result. One διά for the deliverance from our sins, another διά with reference to the raising up for our justification. Both, when used with the accusative = “on account of,” “because or for the sake of.” The deliverance and the justification are not two but one thing which has two sides, negative and positive. They are aptly put together, but not as being objective and subjective, for ἡμῶν is subjective in the case of both alike, and “transgressions” and “being declared righteous” are equally objective. Nor are the transgressions made the Realgrund and our justification the Zweckgrund. There was as much purpose in regard to the transgressions as in regard to the justification, and the actuality and reality is the same in both. Why seek to detect a subtile difference?

“Our” transgressions, “our” being declared righteous, as in other similar expressions, speak of the believers alone because in them the purpose of Christ’s death and his resurrection is fully realized. The fact that Christ died also for those who deny him and bring swift destruction on themselves (2 Pet. 2:1) does not need to be introduced here. The two “our” prevent us from making διὰτὴνδικαίωσινἡμῶν signify the justification of the whole world instead of “our justification,” “our” referring to us believers (personal justification). It is this justification with which the entire chapter deals and constantly also emphasizes faith. Δικαίωσις occurs only twice in the New Testament, here and in 5:18; in the LXX only in Lev. 24:22. Its meaning is settled in 4:1, which see.

The fact that personal justification is referred to and not justification of the world is seen also from 5:1: “Having been declared righteous out of faith,” etc. “Our” in 4:25 (our “transgressions—our being declared righteous”) and the “we” in 5:1 cannot refer to different persons; nor can δικαίωσιςἡμῶν (4:25) and δικαιωθέντες (5:1) that follows in the next breath signify two different acts, one that is without faith, the other with faith.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

L. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Dritter Band. Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus. 1. An die Roemer. D. Hans Lietzmann. 2. Auflage.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Aufiage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.