What Paul Has Just Described Is Now Seen To Be In Accordance With Ideas Related To Abraham And David (4:1-25).
No one was of more importance to the Jews than Abraham. It was to him that God had given promises concerning both the land and the people (Genesis 12:1-3). It was because they were ‘sons of Abraham' that they saw themselves as special. Indeed, many considered that because they were sons of Abraham God must look on them with favour and could never therefore reject them. That was why John the Baptiser had had to remind them that God could ‘from these stones raise up sons of Abraham' (Matthew 3:9).
Their high view of Abraham comes out in Jewish literature. ‘Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well pleasing in righteousness all the days of his life' (Jubilees 23:10). ‘No one has been like him in glory' (Sir 44:19). That these citations should not be taken too literally comes out in the fact that we do know of times when God would not have been pleased with Abraham. For example, when he deceived Pharaoh about his wife (Genesis 12:10-20). Or with regard to his treatment of Hagar (Genesis 16:6). Or when he deceived Abimelech about his wife (Genesis 20:2). But their general aim is in order to bring out the high level of Abraham's conformity to the will of God. That would, however, have been Paul's point. That even Abraham did come short of the glory of God.
We must remember that the large majority of Jews were not literally sons of Abraham, and that very few could trace their descent back very far. For, as the Old Testament makes clear, ‘Israel' included people descended from Abraham's multiplicity of ‘servants' (of which 318 were fighting men); from a mixed multitude which left Egypt with Israel who were united with Israel at Sinai and would have been circumcised on entering the land (Exodus 12:38; Joshua 5); and from many who joined with Israel and became Israelites on the basis of Exodus 12:48. Thus Israel were not on the whole physical ‘sons of Abraham'. Those were very much a minority of Israel from the start, even though all Israel no doubt claimed to be. Sonship of Abraham in a natural sense was a myth. But from their own point of view the Jews were confident of their situation. To them therefore the example of Abraham was crucial.
Nor must we overlook the fact that in the following argument Paul is not trying to argue that certain things can be transferred from Israel to the church. The argument is between faith and works of the Law, not Israel and non-Israel. To Paul the church was Israel. It was founded on the Jewish Messiah, established on Jewish Apostles, and initially composed only of Jews. The church was the true remnant of Israel, ‘the true vine (John 15:1-6), the Messiah's ‘congregation' (Matthew 16:18). The inclusion of Gentiles who responded to the Messiah was simply a matter of incorporating proselytes into the true Israel, something which had always happened. That was why the question of whether they should be circumcised was seen as so important. All saw these Gentiles as being incorporated into Israel when they became Christians, the only question was whether they all needed to be circumcised. Paul's reply was that they were already circumcised because they had been circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands in ‘the circumcision of Christ' (the Messiah - Colossians 2:11). But he himself continually confirmed that the church was the true Israel and that it was unbelieving Israel that had ceased to be Israel (Romans 2:28-29; Romans 11:17-28; Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11-22; see also 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 1:1; James 1:1). Thus that was not a problem to be dealt with here.
It will be noted that this chapter takes up many of the points previously stated in Romans 3:27-30. Abraham has no right to boast (Romans 4:1-2, compare Romans 3:27 a). Abraham was justified by faith and not works (Romans 4:3-8; compare Romans 3:27 b). God accepts both circumcised and uncircumcised (Romans 4:9-12; compare Romans 3:29-30). Both Jew and Gentile are involved together (Romans 4:16-18; compare Romans 3:29). It thus sets out to demonstrate that these principles have been recognised in Israel from the beginning.
It is also important to note that what is stated in this chapter would not have the same force had it not been preceded by the arguments in Chapter s 1-3. For Paul and the Jews were looking at things very differently. Paul was seeing righteousness from God's point of view, as something equatable with ‘the glory of God' (Romans 3:23). To be truly righteous was to have lived fully according to the Law of God in every detail. It was to have not come short of the glory of God. To the Jews, however, righteousness involved obedience to the Law in so far as man was seen as capable. That is why the Jews could see Abraham as accepted by God as righteous. It was because Abraham's life came so far above the norm. But even they would have hesitated to say that Abraham had never sinned. If Paul was right, and he has demonstrated it quite clearly in Chapter s 1-3, then Abraham's righteousness could not in itself be sufficient to make him acceptable to the Judge of all men, for Abraham came short on a number of occasions. If, however, the Jews were right then Abraham might well have been seen by God as acceptable because of his godly life. Thus the question of how Abraham was justified before God was a crucial one.
The chapter can be divided into three parts, although having said that it must be recognised that the theme of Romans 4:3 continues throughout the chapter binding the parts together, and it is again underlined in the concluding verses. The divisions can be seen as follows:
1) The Way Of Justification Through Faith Illustrated In Abraham And Announced By David (Romans 4:1-8).
2) How Circumcision Affects The Issue As Illustrated In The Life Of Abraham (Romans 4:9-12).
3) Abraham's Life Illustrates The Fact That God's Greatest Gifts Do Not Come To Us Because We ‘Obey The Law', But Because We ‘Believe In The Lord' (Romans 4:13-25).