Romans 4:1-8

 

Paul was a Jew. And at least some of those to whom he was were Jews. The distinctive mark of the Jews was that they were people of the book. They had preserved the Law—that is, the Old Testament. That was one of the things which made the Jews the people they were. And as Paul said earlier in Romans, that was the main advantage the Jews had—a possession and knowledge of God's law. And since, during the New Testament church, the New Testament was still being written, even Gentile Christians were very familiar with the Old Testament. They didn't have the New Testament to read in church necessarily, but they did have the Old Testament. That is why it was so important for Paul, in writing Romans, to show that what he was saying wasn't something strange; he had to show that was he was saying wasn't contrary to the Old Testament but was rather the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Remember, we are still talking about Paul's main proposition in Romans—the idea that righteousness comes through faith. That is the way things work under the New Testament. But is that somehow contradictory or different from the Old Testament? That brings us to this passage.

Romans 4 begins with one abrupt, rhetorical question. “But what about Abraham?” Abraham was the most important figure in the Jewish mind. And it wasn't just because as a matter of historical fact they were descended from him. He was a religious figure. He was the one who had received the promises of God. He was the one who had journeyed into the land of Canaan. He was the founder and the hero of the whole Israelite race. The Jews commonly referred to Abraham as their father or called him Father Abraham. The same terminology was sometimes used for Isaac and Jacob as well, but much less often—in the Bible, anyway. He was a man respected by men and a man who was called a friend of God. God was willing to identify himself as the God of Abraham.

A few verses may give us an idea of how the Jews felt about Abraham. We read this in the speech of John the Baptist when he was calling the Jews to repent of their sins. “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9) The important point here is this. John expected these Jews to respond to his call to repentance with the defense: “We have Abraham as our father” and therefore, seemingly, they did not need repentance. The mere fact of having been descended from Abraham was imputed by themselves for righteousness. Obviously, not all Jews felt this way. John didn't. But it was a common enough feeling within the Jewish cultural consciousness that John felt it necessary to contradict it.

Look at John 8:33 where Jesus promises his followers freedom. And this is what at least some of the Jewish people said in response: “We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” Here the Jews were claiming to possess freedom and liberty because they were descended from Abraham, who was a free man. Many commentators have pointed out the irony of this statement that they “were never in bondage to any man” since the entire history of the Jews people was one of bondage and oppression and they were, at that very point in history, in bondage to the Romans. But Abraham was free and they were the descendants of Abraham and so they were free. I will not ask now how much of this was a religious feeling and how much a patriotic one and how much a Jew would have been able to separate those two things. The point is simply to understand how important Abraham was to the Jewish mind of the first century. 

That is why the question which opens this chapter is so important. What about Abraham? Was Paul going to class Abraham with the universal wickedness he had described in the first three chapters of Romans? Was he going to deny that Abraham was a righteous man and was accepted by God? In the middle of verse 1, we have that phrase “as pertaining to the flesh.” That phrase is a modifying phrase and there is some question regarding what it modifies. It could modify “father”: “Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh” In other words, Abraham who was literally and biologically the father of the Jewish people. But it can also modify “hath found.” In other words: What did Abraham find as pertaining to the flesh? Was did Abraham accomplish according to human effort and human accomplishment? In short, did Abraham find justification and acceptance with God through his own efforts and moral character? And if Abraham could, couldn't anyone else? That is the pivotal point of the discussion. How was Abraham justified; that is, how did he find a right relationship with God?

In verse 2, Paul proposes a possible answer to that question and immediately refutes it. Some see Romans as a dialog and would put most of verse 2 as being the words of a Jewish objector. “If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.” This is a principle that Paul repeats a few verses later. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” That is a somewhat archaic way of expressing the point, but the point is simple enough. If you work and earn something then that thing is not a gift. If you work at a job and do good work then you deserve a paycheck. If payday comes around and your employer does not give you your wages, then that is not stingy or ungenerous—it is plain and simple robbery. That is what it means to earn something; it means that it is yours by right.

Therefore if Abraham, by his own efforts and good deeds and moral volition had been justified, then that means he deserved it. It was something he had achieved, something earned, something which became his by right. And if so, then it was something he could boast about; it was his glory, his prestige. 

We all recognize what it means to boast about something—there are certain people who have attained some human accomplishment—in sports, in art, in society or business—who are proud of their accomplishment and boast about and to whom others give acknowledgment of their accomplishment. We can call this relationship that of the fan and the celebrity—the celebrity is one who has done something of note and so boasts of it and the fan is the one who acknowledges and glorifies the celebrity. We are not going to discuss here whether this relationship is a good thing for the individuals involved or society. Because the point is this--if Abraham had found justification through his own efforts then he could boast about it. He would be the champ of righteousness; a celebrity of moral character. And if Abraham was the celebrity who deserved glory for his righteousness, then that means that God was in the position of the fan. God is the one who recognized the superiority of Abraham's conduct and so paid him out in justification. Abraham could boast and God would listen and applaud. That is the picture that follows if you believe that Abraham was justified by works. And it is such a ludicrously and blasphemously impossible picture that Paul explodes at the end of verse 2: “But not before God.” It is inconceivable that Abraham, or anybody else, could have something to boast about before God. It is ridiculous to picture Abraham, or anybody else, swaggering into the courts of heaven and offering to give God his autograph. But that is what logically and necessarily follows if Abraham were justified by works and if anybody else could be justified by their works. 

So what is the alternative? And what, more to the point, does the Bible actually say about Abraham? “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6) For Paul, as for the author of Genesis, the important point is this. That the thing which changed Abraham, the thing which set Abraham apart, the thing which made Abraham the person that he was his faith in God. We will come back to this verse in a minute.

First, we have to look at the other figure Paul uses here; another figure that towers over Jewish history almost (though not as) much as Abraham—David. And David is important for this reason. Because David was a sinner—and a sinner whose sins we know much more about than we do about Abraham's. Because while Abraham did make some admittedly poor choices in the course of his story, he never did some of the things David did. And when Paul appeals to David, he appeals to Psalm 32, which is a Psalm specifically about sin. Clarke and Spurgeon believe this to have been written following the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah and that certainly fits. “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah. I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.” (Psalm 32:1-5)

We tried to picture earlier this idea of a man boasting before God—the ludicrous picture of a man being a celebrity and God being his fan. Here we have the opposite. So far from David boasting of his righteousness, he is clearly admitting his guilt. David is coming into God's court, not offering autographs but asking for forgiveness. David speaks of how his sin had laid heavy on him; on how he had kept silence but felt the secret of his guilt eating away at him until finally he acknowledged his sin and gave up trying to hide.

The point is that if anyone could find acceptance with God through their own character; if anyone could earn or merit God's approval; if anybody could have something to boast of before God, then it most certainly would NOT have been David; not at this point in his life. He came not with boasts but with repentance.

Keep that in your mind because now we have to go back to Abraham and specifically to Romans 4:3 and even more specifically to the word logizomai. This word is actually found several times in these verses. It is translated in verses 3 and 5 as “counted”, in verse 4 as “reckoned”, and in verses 6 and 8 as “impute.” Strong defines the word as “to take an inventory, i. e. estimate.” (#3049) Elsewhere in the New Testament, it is translated with words like “reason, number, think, conclude, and account.” 

So what does it mean when it says that Abraham's faith was “counted” for righteousness? It could mean that his faith was an EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE for righteousness.

Let's imagine a Millionaire's Club; an exclusive club for the richest men of a city and their primary rule is that anybody who wishes to join their club must be able to present at least a million dollars as proof of his wealth. Suppose there was one man in the city who was very rich but out of paranoia or some private hobby he converted all his cash to valuable jewels. And so he came to join the club and brought a diamond which was worth a million dollars rather than bringing that much cash.

He would be allowed into the club even though he didn't have the necessary money because his diamond was an equivalent substitute for money; it was counted as being the same or of equal value for money; in that case, his jewel was counted unto him for riches.

So is that what happened with Abraham? Was his faith an equivalent substitute for righteousness? In other words, is having faith as good as having righteousness? Is faith such a great and valuable quality that it was accepted by God as being AS GOOD as if Abraham had been completely righteous?

No. Because if that were the case, then we would back to verse 2. If Abraham's faith were an equivalent substitute for righteousness, then Abraham would have been justified by works. Faith is, after all, something we do, and so if having faith were as good as good works, then Abraham would have had something of which to glorify. Just as the man with the million-dollar diamond could still boast about how rich he was, even though he didn't have that much cash. If Abraham's faith were such a great quality that God Himself was forced to justify Abraham because of it, then we are back to the picture of Abraham as a celebrity and God as a fan—a picture which we agreed was ridiculous. 

It is also possible to interpret this verse as meaning that Abraham's faith was taken for righteousness by a CONSCIOUS FICTION. A conscious fiction is something that is false and that everyone knows is false but is treated as true for some unrelated reason. So, for instance, in a court case, it may be 100% certain going into the case that the defendant is guilty and there may not be the least doubt in anybody's mind about that fact, but still he has to be treated as if he is innocent until the verdict is reached because that's how a court case works. Or, again, if someone asks you how you are and you say you're fine—you may not be fine and but you say it because you know the person asking doesn't actually want to know whether you're fine or not. Or, again, if a child wants to do something nice to surprise their parent, the parent may not be surprised or even pleased but they still pretend to be for the sake of the child. That is what we call a conscious fiction.

So, to go back to our illustration of the Millionaire's Club. Suppose one man came with his million dollars but it was actually all counterfeit money—everyone in the club knew it was, the man knew it was, but suppose for some reason they decided to pretend not to know it and let him into the club on that basis. That would be a conscious fiction. And in that case, his fake money was counted unto him for riches.

So could that be what happened with Abraham? Did God look at his faith and decide, as a conscious fiction, to pretend that that was the same as righteousness? Did God choose to simply overlook Abraham's shortcoming because of His faith? And, again, the answer has to be no. Because then Abraham would still have had something to boast about—even though the boast was a lie. Just like the man who entered the club on counterfeit money could still boast about his riches even though it wasn't real. And that presents us with an even stranger picture—if it is bizarre to imagine a man boasting of something before God, it must be far more bizarre to imagine him boasting of something before God when both he and God know it's not real. 

And this becomes even more clear if we move from Abraham to David. Remember how David described his experience in the Psalm. He describes trying to keep the secret of his sins but the guilt ate away at him until finally he acknowledged his sin, stopped hiding his iniquity, and confessed his transgressions unto the Lord. So far from either David or God tacitly pretending that David was righteous when he wasn't, David was only counted as right AFTER he confessed his own unrighteousness. And if this is referencing the story of Bathsheba, then we know that God took the initiative in that story, sending the Prophet Nathan to David, in order to lead him to make that confession. What we have here is the exact opposite of a conscious fiction. The basis of David's justification was the fact that he was finally willing to tell the truth. 

And this is important to remember because of verse 8. “Blessed in the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” If you read that verse casually, it might sound as if David is saying that God simply wouldn't hold him guilty for sin; as if he had some kind of blank moral check from God where God simply would never impute sin to David. And there are some Christians who believe that—who believe that faith is a replacement for righteousness as a conscious fiction so that God simply does not charge sin to those who are Christians. But obviously, that can't be what David means because the entire context of Psalm 32 has to do with repentance—with feeling guilt for sin, admitting it, and finding forgiveness. And, again, if this is referencing the story of Bathsheba, God quite clearly DID impute sin to David until David repented.

Therefore, when the Bible says that Abraham's (and David)'s faith was counted unto them for righteousness it must mean something else than either of these ideas. Clearly, faith did not replace righteousness or become a sort of mask which covered unrighteousness; clearly, the moral law and the necessity of obeying it still remained a very persistent reality for these men even though they were men of faith. In other words, we cannot see faith as being, in any sense, EQUAL to righteous, whether that equality is true or merely a convention. To say that Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for righteousness can not mean FAITH = RIGHTEOUSNESS, no matter how you would explain that equality. In fact, based on Romans, we would have to put the equation like this: FAITH ≠ RIGHTEOUSNESS. Paul's whole argument depends on the assumption that faith is something different in nature, in value, and in quality than righteousness. Because if faith did equal righteousness, then you cannot escape this fact that Abraham would have room to boast before God, which is impossible. When we read that Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness we are moving into some other realm of thought; some other system or economy.

So let's go back to the idea of the Millionaire's Club. Suppose the founder and president of the club, its richest and most important member had had a baby and he wanted all his friends to have a chance to see in infant son and so one day he brought the child down to the club. Now, when they arrived at the club, they would both be allowed in, even though the baby, being a baby, possesses no money, because he is coming in with his father, who does have money. He is allowed in, not because of any sort of substitution or equivalence for money, but because and solely because of a relationship. His relationship to his father is counted unto him for wealth; that is, he is given access to something that otherwise could have been accessible only through wealth because of his relationship.

In this case, what we have is not a form of equality. His relationship to his father is not equivalent to wealth. (If he is his father's heir then the baby would in some sense have equivalent wealth but unless that members of the club are almost insanely snobbish, that isn't what they are thinking about.) Rather, what we have is an EFFICIENT CAUSE; the baby's relationship to his father causes or brings about his admittance to the club. 

An efficient cause is what brings something about or causes it to exist. So the work of a carpenter is the efficient cause of a table. A seed is the efficient cause of a plant.  Parents are the efficient cause of their child. It should be noted that a cause and its effect do not have to be similar; in many cases, they are radically different. And it should be noted that the efficient cause is not solely or independently responsible for what it brings about. A seed on its own cannot become a plant. A carpenter can't build anything without wood.

Therefore, an efficient cause does not necessarily involve any credit; sometimes it does, but not always. You do not applaud a seed for germinating into a plant. In my example of the rich man's baby, his relationship to his father was the efficient cause that allowed him access to the millionaire's club, but that doesn't bring any credit to the baby.  If the baby were conscious of his situation, then, he would have no room to boast; he could not go swaggering around to the other babies bragging about how rich he was. This whole concept of celebrity and fan we were talking about before would not be relevant to him.

And in the same way, Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness, not because it was equivalent to righteousness in any way but because it was the efficient cause of righteousness. God came to Abraham with a great promise; Abraham believed that promise. God offered a covenant and Abraham, in faith, entered into that covenant. And his faith was counted unto him for righteousness because it was the efficient cause of a right relationship with God. But that relationship was offered by God and therefore Abraham had no room to boast before God because his righteousness did not come from his own works but by faith.

We can use a different analogy to picture this. Suppose a man, with great toil and at the risk of his own life, performs some difficult and dangerous task and, as a reward, is given a large sum of money. That reward would be what he deserved; it was what he earned. And if he spent all his time boasting about what he had done and how he had earned the reward—it would make him a little annoying at social functions, but you would have to say that, in one sense at least, he did have a right to boast. He did something worthy of reward and he received his reward.

Now, suppose this man had a friend who was in desperate need of money for some reason and so he decided to give him his reward money, and so he wrote his friend a check for the sum in question. If the friend is going to get the money, he has to take that check down to the bank and cash it or deposit it. That act is the efficient cause of his receiving the money and he could not receive the money otherwise. But it would not be a meritorious act. He could not go around boasting about how well he had deposited the check as if that act had earned him the money.

The righteousness which we receive is something earned—but it was not earned by us, any more than by Abraham. It was earned by Christ through His life, death, and resurrection. And that is why He is given a name above all names to which every knee shall bow. He has room to boast. But we, who receive the reward of righteousness, receive it by faith, as a gift and therefore have no room to boast before God or before man.

And because it is a gift received by faith and not by merit, it can be received by anyone. That brings us back to the story of David and specifically to verse 8: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” David had committed a series of sins which were basically unforgivable; actions which, on pretty much any theory of justice, could not have been pardoned or justified. There was no conceivable way in which David could have found any sort of righteousness on his own. But he did find forgiveness and reconciliation with God (although he did still suffer consequences because of his actions)--and the reason he was able to find that forgiveness was because of faith. Because God offered him forgiveness and David accepted it. His sin was not imputed to him; that is to say, it was stricken from the record; his actions were no longer relevant, no longer brought into consideration in so far as his relationship to God was concerned.

And if that was true for David, it can be true for anyone. There is no one who is too bad to be saved because salvation does not come by merit. No one is too bad to deserve it because it doesn't come by deserving. God loves everyone, regardless of how good or bad they are. And therefore He provided a salvation that can be received by anyone, regardless of how good or bad they are. That is why a lying traitor like Peter could become the first preacher of the gospel. That is why a perfidious murderer like David could be a man after God's own heart. That is why a man who had caused the torture and death of Christians could end up writing a third of the New Testament. Because salvation isn't of works but of faith.

In fact, in one sense, the whole question of goodness or badness is irrelevant. In one sense, for God to save the worst of sinners, the basest of criminals, the wildest of anti-Christian fanatics, the most cynical and corrupt of politicians would be no more and no less difficult than to save anyone else. Because the merit of the person saved isn't entered into the calculation. If you have a large debt you have to pay off, then the size of the debt compared to the amount of money you have on hand is very important. But if somebody else has agreed to pay off the debt for you, then how much money you have is irrelevant because it's not being used. This is the difference that salvation by faith makes. It eliminates both human boasting and human despair because all the merit in salvation is on God's side; not ours.

We have been looking at how this applies to us, but we have to keep sight of the purpose of this passage to Romans. Romans 4:3 is a quotation from the Old Testament; that is what Genesis said of Abraham. David in the Psalms says a similar thing about himself. The point is that even in the Old Testament, this concept of justification by faith was laid down. Paul was not introducing a novelty. Though the gospel expands upon the doctrines of the Old Testament, they are in harmony.