Romans 4

I'm writing a series of articles on the book of Romans, which, as you know, is one of the more difficult and controversial books of the New Testament. This is not going to be a verse-by-verse analysis by any means, but I will write a lengthy article on each chapter of this sixteen-chapter book. I hope that you find this helpful...

In the previous three chapters, Paul pointed out that "all have sinned," both Jew and Gentile alike. The Gentiles, who had been granted salvation, had no right to boast, but neither did the Jews, who had always been the chosen people of God, have a right to boast. All are equally guilty of sin and all equally need the salvation that is offered through Christ.

As the third chapter comes to a close, Paul turns his attention back to the Jews. He wants to get to the heart of the matter here at the end of chapter three and in chapter four. Using the example of Abraham, the apostle aims to disrupt the Jews' continued confidence in the law of Moses. After all, the Christians' confidence should not be founded in a legalistic view of a law that is no longer in effect!

Romans 4 is a largely misunderstood chapter. Many denominational people use this chapter to teach that we are saved by faith alone; that obedience has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation. It is argued that Paul is contrasting works (of obedience) and faith, but this is not correct. Instead, the apostle is rebuffing the idea that we can be saved by a system of meritorious works, and he specifically has in mind the Jewish-Christian's view of the Law of Moses.

Let's begin our discourse in the closing verses of chapter three.

In Romans 3:27, Paul says, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith?" This is really the beginning of the discussion that carries on into the fourth chapter. By what law can a Christian boast? Again, is Paul contrasting works of obedience and personal faith? No. Let's continue. Romans 3:28 says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." What is THE law that Paul speaks of here? He explains this in verses 29-30: "Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith?" It is clear that Paul is rebuffing the Jews' concept of the Law of Moses. God never intended the Law of Moses to be a system of meritorious works, but that is what the Jews turned it into, and that, I believe, is what Paul is addressing here in Romans 3-4.

Setting that aside, I'd like for us to simply understand that Paul is NOT speaking against works of obedience. Instead, he is speaking against meritorious works and the Pharisaical view of the Law of Moses. That cannot be denied, for he speaks of Jews and Gentiles, of circumcision and uncircumcision. These terms specifically relate to the Mosaical Law, not to obedience in general.

Okay, let's get to chapter four now.

Paul uses the example of Abraham to rebuff (word of the day, can you tell?) the Jews' unwavering dependance on the Mosaical law. He says in verses 1-2, "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God." In other words, did Abraham (a man whom the Jews revered) have the same view that the 1st century Jews did? Did he boast as the Jews did? The answer is 'no.' Instead, Abraham was a man of faith. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (vv. 3).

In verses 4-5, Paul makes a general point about law and faith. Again, let us be reminded that the word law here is not in reference to all law, but to meritorious law. A person who believes he can earn his way to heaven does not wholly depend on the grace of the Lord. He is self-righteous and proud. But the person who is motivated by faith and conviction will recognize the grace and mercy of God.

This is also Paul's point in verse six: "David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works," and then in verses 7-8 he quotes Psalm 32:1-2. The point here is NOT that God overlooks sin, but that a persons sins are wiped out (not imputed) when He is forgiven by God. Again, Paul is emphasizing the grace and mercy of God, that ultimately we are cleansed, not by any works of merit, but by the grace of the Lord.

Beginning in verse 10, Paul makes a very interesting point: "How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he re ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also." Let's spend some time on this thought.

The Jews viewed Abraham as their father, their hero, and more than that, they so revered the command of circumcision that they continued to demand it even after the Mosaical law was nailed to the cross. These Jews were arrogant and self-righteous. But Paul cuts down all of their logic in these few verses.

Abraham was "right with God" before he was ever circumcised. How so? How can any Hebrew be justified without circumcision? The answer is that he was justified by faith! Do you realize that the covenant of circumcision wasn't instituted until Abraham was 99 years old? Does this mean that he was without hope up to that point? Of course not! He was a man of faith who obeyed God's every command. Interestingly enough, when God commanded circumcision in Genesis 17, Abraham didn't hesitate. He obeyed the command as soon as it was issued. Furthermore, there were severe consequences when a Jewish male disobeyed this command. Genesis 17:14 says, "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." Question: what if Abraham had refused to be circumcised? Would he have been justified or condemned in the sight of God? Obviously, he would have ceased to be a man of faith. Circumcision was required after it was instituted. It was a covenant God made with Abraham and his descendents, and it was a requirement, no doubt.

Some try to connect this passage to Colossians 2:11-12 where baptism is compared to circumcision. The argument goes like this: if Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision, then we are justified by faith prior to baptism. But in order for the analogy to be perfect, we need to apply it to those people who lived when water baptism was instituted. The obedient Jews who lived when water baptism was commanded for the remission of sins would be comparable to faithful Abraham who was 99 years old when circumcision was institututed. Romans 4 does not disprove the necessity of baptism. Instead, when you consider all of the information in context, it actually points to its necessity. But enough of that.

The overarching point in Romans 4 is this. The arrogant Jews who had a meritorious view of circumcision and the Mosaical law were not imitating their hero, Abraham. Abraham was a man of faith who trusted God's mercy. That was the example they needed to imitate.

Even though there is much more to the chapter, this is sufficient for today.

I hope it helps.