Romans 4 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

ABRAHAM: RIGHT RELATIONSHIP THROUGH TRUSTDAVID: RIGHT-RELATIONSHIP THROUGH FORGIVENESSRomans 4:1-12, Greek Text with Translation4.1 Ti, ou=n evrou/men eu`rhke,nai VAbraa.m to.n propa,tora h`mw/n kata. sa,rkaÈ 4.2 eivga.r VAbraa.m evx e;rgwn evdikaiw,qh( e;cei kau,chma( avllV ouv pro.j qeo,nÅ 4.3 ti, ga.r h`grafh. le,geiÈ evpi,steusen de. VAbraa.m tw/ | qew/ | kai. evlogi,sqh auvtw/ | eivj dikaiosu,nhnÅ4.1 What therefore shall we say Abraham our forefather according to (the) flesh hasfound? 4.2 For if Abraham was placed in right-relationship based on works, he hassomething to boast over; but not towards God. 4.3 For what does the scripture say? "Sothen Abraham placed trust in the God, and it was considered for him for a right-relationship."4.4 tw/ | de. evrgazome,nw| o` misqo.j ouv logi,zetai kata. ca,rin avlla. kata. ovfei,lhma(4.5 tw/| de. mh. evrgazome,nw| pisteu,onti de. evpi. to.n dikaiou/nta to.n avsebh/ logi,zetai h`pi,stij auvtou/ eivj dikaiosu,nhn\ 4.6 kaqa,per kai. Daui.d le,gei to.n makarismo.n tou/avnqrw,pou w-| o` qeo.j logi,zetai dikaiosu,nhn cwri.j e;rgwn\4.7 maka,rioi w-n avfe,qhsan ai` avnomi,aikai. w-n evpekalu,fqhsan ai` a`marti,ai\4.8 maka,rioj avnh.r ou- ouv mh. logi,shtai ku,rioj a`marti,anÅ4.4 Now then, to the one who is working (for wages), the pay is not considered as agift, but rather as something owed. 4.5 But then to the one not working (for wages), butplacing trust in the one who makes the godless rightly-related, the trust of his is considered fora right-relationship, 4.6 just as David also pronounces the happiness of the person whom theGod considers (as being in) a right-relationship apart from works:4.7 How happy those for whom the rebellions were forgiven,and those for whom the missings-of-the-mark were covered over!4.8 How happy a man whose missing-of-the-mark (the) Lord will not consider!4.9 ~O makarismo.j ou=n ou-toj evpi. th.n peritomh.n h' kai. evpi. th.n avkrobusti,anÈle,gomen ga,r\ evlogi,sqh tw/| VAbraa.m h` pi,stij eivj dikaiosu,nhnÅ4.9 This pronouncement of happiness, therefore–(is it only) upon the circumcisedperson, or also upon the uncircumcised person? For we say, "The trust was considered inAbraham for a right-relationship."4.10 pw/j ou=n evlogi,sqhÈ evn peritomh/| o;nti h' evn avkrobusti,a|È ouvk evn peritomh/| avllVevn avkrobusti,a|\ 4.11 kai. shmei/on e;laben peritomh/j sfragi/da th/j dikaiosu,nhj th/jpi,stewj th/j evn th/| avkrobusti,a|( eivj to. ei=nai auvto.n pate,ra pa,ntwn tw/n pisteuo,ntwn diVavkrobusti,aj( eivj to. logisqh/nai Îkai.Ð auvtoi/j Îth.nÐ dikaiosu,nhn( 4.12 kai. pate,raperitomh/j toi/j ouvk evk peritomh/j mo,non avlla. kai. toi/j stoicou/sin toi/j i;cnesin th/j evn206

avkrobusti,a| pi,stewj tou/ patro.j h`mw/n VAbraa,mÅ4.10 In what way therefore was it considered? While being circumcised, or (while) notbeing circumcised? Not while circumcised, but rather, while not circumcised! 4.11 And hereceived a sign of circumcision--a seal of the right-relationship by trust (while) not beingcircumcised, so that he might be a father of all those having trust (while) not circumcised, soas to be considered [also] in them [the] right-relationship; 4.12 and a father of (those who are)crcumcised, to those not based on circumcision alone, but rather also to those who walk in thefootsteps of the trust of our father Abraham, while not being circumcised.Romans 4:1-12, Translation with Footnotes383 3844.1 What therefore shall we say Abraham our forefather according to the flesh383The phrase eu`rhke,nai VAbraa.m to.n propa,tora h`mw/n, “to have found Abraham theforefather of ours,” is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, the first writer ofEphraemi Rescriptus, Minuscules 81, 365, 1506, the Sahidic Coptic, the Bohairic Coptic (?)and in the running text of a commentary by Origen (died 254 A.D.).It is shortened to VAbraa.m to.n propa,tora h`mw/n , “Abraham the forefather of ours,” byVaticanus, Minuscules 6, 1739 (see) and a few other Greek manuscripts, omitting theinfinitive “to have found,” and evidently meaning “What therefore shall we say (concerning)Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?”The phrase is changed to read VAbraa.m to.n propa,tora h`mw/n eu`rhke,nai, “Abrahamthe forefather of ours to have found” by Minuscules 33, 1881 and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to read eu`rhke,nai VAbraa.m to.n pate,ra h`mw/n, “to have found Abrahamthe father of ours” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae,F, G, Psi, Minuscule 629, a few other Greek manuscripts and the entire Latin tradition.These variant readings hardly change the meaning of Romans, but probably indicate aproblem in the primitive text that later copyists and translators have resolved in their own ways.Moo states that “The presence of pa,tera in some manuscripts is a clear case of a morecommon word being substituted for a less common one [Propa,twr is found only once in theGreek translation of the Jewish Bible, and this is its only occurrence in the Greek NewTestament]; propa,tera is almost certainly original. More significant is the possibility thateu`rhke,nai [‘to have found’] is not original...But it is more likely that eu`rhke,nai has beenomitted from the original text...” (P. 258)384Or, we can translate, "...Abraham our forefather has found according to the flesh?" Thequestion has to do with what the words "according to the flesh" are related to. Do they meanthat from a fleshly standpoint, we are related to Abraham as our forefather? Certainly for Pauland his fellow Jewish believers, this was the case. It is a commonplace in the NewTestament that the followers of Jesus are considered to be the descendants of Abraham, in aspiritual sense, if not a physical sense.207(continued...)

385 386 387has found? 4.2 For if Abraham was placed in right-relationship based on works, he384(...continued)Or, does Paul refer to the deeds of Abraham "in the flesh," which Abraham mightconsider a grounds for boasting? It seems from the following statements that perhaps it is thisthat concerns Paul--he is talking about our forefather Abraham's deeds in life, his works while"in the flesh." Paul’s language is ambiguous, and both can be and has been taken in both ofthese senses.We agree with Moo in his conclusion that “Paul asks his readers to contemplate withhim what Abraham has found to be the case with respect to the matters he is discussing.” (P.259)385Literally, “to have found?”As we have noted before, Paul continues asking rhetorical questions for his readers toanswer, seeking to get them involved in theological reasoning, in the style of the “diatribe.”In Romans 3:27-31, Paul has just affirmed that all "boasting" in religion is excluded bythe fact that right-relationship with God is based on trust, not on the basis of "works" that haveearned or merited a right-relationship. He has affirmed that this is a universal matter, and thatall people, whether uncircumcised (i.e., non-Jews), or circumcised (i.e., Jews), can onlyproperly relate to God through trust--and he has affirmed that this is what the Jewish Bibleitself teaches, both in the Law and in the Spokespersons.Now Paul, by this question, raises the example of Abraham--the great patriarch and theone to whom the roots of the Jewish nation are traced--the first person in the Jewish Bible tobe given the covenant of circumcision, and the first person to be described as being in “rightrelationship”with God.Here, says Paul, is a good test-case, and we agree--it is an excellent test-case forPaul's teaching. If what Paul teaches rings true to the biblical picture of Abraham'sexperience, it will be very difficult for his opponents to deny his teaching. For students ofBiblical Theology this poses a most interesting and challenging study.Sanday and Headlam comment that "The proposition which the Apostle sets himself toprove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, is not destroyed but fulfilled by thedoctrine which he preaches...The case of Abraham was the center and stronghold of thewhole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown that this case made for the Christianconclusion and not for the Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul nowundertakes to prove..." (P. 98)Indeed, Paul mounts a “frontal attack” on the narrow Jewish position that only thosewho have been physically circumcised can be considered in right-relationship with God.Paul's overall point in chapter four is that Abraham was considered as being "in rightrelationshipwith God" long before he entered into the covenant of circumcision (and of course,hundreds of years before the giving of the Mosaic covenant on Mount Sinai with its Ten(continued...)208

388 389has something to boast over; but not towards God! 4.3 For what does the scripture385(...continued)Commandments and Levitical sacrificial legislation–that is, the Torah). In spite of Jewishobjections to this conclusion--holding that Abraham fulfilled all the teachings of the Mosaiclegislation before it was ever given--Paul's argument is both true to the biblical text andconvincing.386Moo paraphrases the thought of verse 2 as follows: “What shall we say about Abraham?For if we say he was justified by works, he has reason to boast, and my claim in 3:27-28 thatall boasting is excluded is called into question.” (P. 260)Moo then adds that “The question about Abraham’s being justified by works is no idleone...The Jewish interpretation of Abraham stressed hi works as the essence of his piety andthe basis for his extraordinary, exemplary relationship to God.” (Ibid.) See footnote 389.387Or, “out of works...”, commonly translated “by works.”388Moo translates “he has reason to boast” (p. 258).389Kaesemann paraphrases with "But (this will not stand up) before God." Cranfieldparaphrases, "But this is not how God sees him..." (P. 225) Moo translates “but not beforeGod” (p. 258).In spite of these two scholarly paraphrases, it seems much better to understand Paul assaying that if Abraham was placed in right-relationship with God as a reward for (or rooted in)his own good works of obedience, he would be able to boast in his accomplishments--but thiswould not be the kind of "boasting" that alone is approved in the Jewish Bible--that of"boasting towards God," i.e., praising God for what he has done for us and in us. CompareJeremiah 9:23-24,This is what YHWH says:Do not let the wise people boast in their wisdom;do not let the mighty people boast in their might;do not let the wealthy people boast in their wealth;but let those who boast boast in this,that they understand and know me, that I am YHWH;I act with steadfast love, justice, and right-relationship in the earth.For in these things I delight, says YHWH.The historical fact is that many Jews in the first century taught that Abraham was placedin right-relationship with God through his good works, which meant that he had "merited"salvation, and indeed gained enough "merit" through his good works to pass that merit on tohis descendants. Compare the following three statements:1. "For Abraham was perfect in all his actions with the Lord, and was pleasing throughright-relationship all of the days of his life..." (Jubilees 23:10)(continued...)209

389(...continued)The Book of Jubilees retells the story of Abraham's life, omitting Sarah's harshnesstowards Hagar, and completely omitting the story of Abraham's pretense that Sarah was hissister, thereby allowing her to be taken by Pharaoh and Abimelech, in order to increaseAbraham's personal safety and wealth.)2. "And we find that Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given,for it is written, 'Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, mycommandments, my statutes, and my laws.' (Kiddushin 4:14 in the Mishnah)Here the Mishnah quotes Genesis 26:5--a divine declaration made to Isaac, followingthe death of Abraham. This is a divine evaluation of the life of Abraham, but not a statementof how it was that Abraham entered into right-relationship with God, as is Genesis 15:6. It isan important evaluation, and must be kept in mind in any evaluation of the meaning ofAbraham's life. His life was certainly not one of disobedience or failure to respond to thedivine teachings; but Genesis 26:5 must not be taken as a denial of Genesis 15:6, and it iscompletely anachronistic to think that 26:5 means that somehow the Mosaic legislation wasgiven to Abraham centuries before Moses.We must hold with Genesis 15:6 that Abraham entered into right-relationship with Godthrough placing trust in the divine word of command and promise; but we must also hold withGenesis 26:5 that Abraham's trust was an obedient trust, that fulfilled all that YHWHcommanded. His was not a "dead faith" such as Jacob ["James"] attacks in 2:14-26).3. "Therefore you, O Lord, God of the rightly-related, have not appointed turning-aroundfor the rightly-related, for Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who did not miss-the-mark againstyou; but you have appointed turning-around for me who am a misser-of-the-mark!" (Prayer ofManasseh 8)It is understandable how such a prayer could be placed on the lips of the notoriousManasseh. But the biblical story in Genesis makes it clear that Abraham and Jacob "missedthe-mark"in very obvious ways. Abraham lied about Sarah his wife’s identity, and gave herfirst to Pharaoh in Egypt and then later to the Philistine King Abimelech, in order to protect hisown life and to become rich. Jacob notoriously "over-reached" his brother Esau, takingadvantage of him to gain his birth-right, and then lying to his father in order to get his father’sblessing which rightly belonged to his brother Esau.It is one of the characteristics of the biblical stories, that they do not portray their heroesas being perfect or free from sin–rather, they depict them in all their humanness andweaknesses–but still as being the bearers of the divine word of promise and command.We can agree with Paul that if Abraham was placed in right-relationship with God as areward for his perfect obedience--as these three texts from early Jewish writings hold--hewould indeed have a "basis for boasting" in what he had accomplished. But as we haveshown, these statements demonstrate, these Jewish views of Abraham's "perfect obedience"overlook the biblical description of Abraham as very human, and as having "missed-the-mark"210(continued...)

390 391 392say? "So then Abraham placed trust in the God, and it was considered for him389(...continued)in such significant ways that it is in fact inappropriate and unrealistic to describe him as"perfect.”On the other hand, we cannot agree that Abraham (and Jacob for that matter) was nota very good, God-centered person, whose life was lived out in constant dependence upon andobedience to God--the kind of "trust" that involves the whole person, and all of life--asGenesis 26:5 indicates. He was not perfect, but he did live by trust, obeying God’s word.390Paul appeals to scriptural authority--a very "Protestant" procedure. "I have taught youpeople that only through humble trust can human beings be rightly-related to Almighty God--not through earning and deserving that relationship by their good works. Is my teachingcorrect, or is it simply something that I myself have invented? Let us go to the biblical text tosee whether or not my teaching conforms to the Bible. If it does not, then I will gladly admitthat I am mistaken and wrong in my teaching. But if my teaching is in fact what the Bibleteaches, then will this not cause you to reconsider your objections to my teaching?" So Paulseems to argue.What a challenge this kind of appeal should be to modern day Israel and Judaism. It isa confident affirmation that the Good News of Anointed King Jesus is a fulfillment of what theJewish Bible teaches–and is not in any way a denial or perversion of its teachings.There are some in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), as well as in many other ofthe former "Main-Line Churches," who consider this type of appeal to the Bible as out-datedand no longer relevant. But what a powerful transformation it would make for our preachingand teaching if we could once again learn to make the biblical teaching our standard andguide.Whatever our view of the “inspiration” of the biblical writings may be, the historical factis that the Bible is the foundational document of both the Jewish and Christian faiths, andthose who are Jewish or Christian ought to take its teachings with great seriousness, notbrushing that teaching aside as if it did not matter–as too many religious leaders are prone todo when its teaching does not coincide with their views.391Or, “believed.” This is the first occurrence of the word “to trust,” or “to believe,” in theBible. The Hebrew verb is !mI ßa/h,, the hiphil form of the root !ma which means “to confirm,”or “to support.” In the hiphil it means “to trust,” “to believe,” i.e., to place confidence insomething or someone, to undergird the message being heard with one’s confident affirmationthat it is true, or to place confidence in a person, trusting them, supporting them.The hiphil form of the verb occurs some 52 times in the Hebrew Bible, in the followingplaces (Hebrew enumeration): Genesis 15:6 (here); 45:26; Exodus 4:1, 5, 8, 8, 9, 31; 14:31;19:9; Numbers 14:11; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:32; 9:23; 28:66; Judges 11:20; 1 Samuel27:12; 1 Kings 10:7; 2 Kings 17:14; Isaiah 7:9; 28:16; 30:21; 43:10; 53:1; Jeremiah 12:6;(continued...)211

for a right-relationship." 393391(...continued)40:14; Jonah 3:5; Micah 7:5; Habakkuk 1:5; Psalms 27:13; 78:22, 32; 106:12, 24; 116:10;119:66; Job 4:18; 9:16; 15:15, 22, 31; 24:22; 29:24; 39:12, 24; Proverbs 14:15; 26:25;Lamentations 4:12; 2 Chronicles 9:6; 20:20, 20 and 32:15.These many occurrences of this verb demonstrate how important the idea of “trustingin,” or “believing,” is for Biblical Theology. See in the New Testament some 241 occurrencesof the verb pisteu,ein, “to believe.”392Or, possibly, “to him,” or “in him.” It is the dative singular pronoun auvtw/|, and theseambiguities are inherent in the dative.393Paul's quotation is taken almost verbatim from the Greek translation of Genesis 15:6,and the Greek is a faithful (though not exact) rendering of the Hebrew text, which says`hq" )d'c. ALß h'b,îv.x.Y:w: hw"+hyB;¥ !mIßa/h,w>"And he placed trust (or confidence) in the YHWH; and he considered it for him, 'rightrelationship.'"kai. evpi,steusen Abram tw/ | qew/ | kai. evlogi,sqh auvtw/| eivj dikaiosu,nhnThe Greek translation introduces the name of Abram into the text where the Hebrewdoesn’t have it. As is done throughout the Greek translation, instead of the divine name “(in)the YHWH,” the phrase is “(in) the God.” Instead of the active verb, “he (YHWH) consideredit,” the Greek uses the passive verb, “and it was considered,” and then introduces apreposition into the verse, eivj, “for a right-relationship” instead of the Hebrew’s “(heconsidered it for him) right-relationship.”Paul: evpi,steusen de. VAbraa.m tw/ | qew/ | kai. evlogi,sqh auvtw/| eivj dikaiosu,nhnWhere the Greek translation has the conjunction kai, “and,” Paul uses the synonymde, “so then.” Where the Greek translation has the earlier name of Abram, Paul uses the later,longer name, Abraham. Other than this, Paul’s quotation is exact. This is not exact, word-forword,letter for letter, literalistic use of the biblical text, but it is a serious, faithful use of thattext.When we ask the question, "How did Abraham get involved with YHWH God?", theanswer that comes from reading Genesis is that it all originated with a divine word ofcommand and promise that came to Abraham (as recorded in Genesis 12:1-3), commandingAbraham to leave his home, and go out into a land that YHWH would show him--at the sametime declaring / promising that Abraham and his descendants would eventually become asource of blessing for all the families of the earth.212(continued...)

393(...continued)Abraham is pictured as a person who immediately accepted the divine word, and wholived out his life in obedience to the divine command, in expectation of receiving the divinepromise. Just as soon as he heard the divine word, Genesis tells us that "Abraham went asYHWH had told him..." The narrative tells how Abraham worshiped as he went on thatjourney, but also relates how he became fearful in spite of the divine promise of protection,and how he lied to the Egyptians concerning his relationship to Sarah, his wife, in order tosecure his own life--a deceitful action, but one that resulted in his becoming wealthy. It tellshow Abraham had trouble with his nephew Lot, and had to separate from him--but then heardthe divine word of promise once again. It tells of his courage in defending his nephew'sproperty, and his subsequent participation in the religion of Canaan (offering a tithe toMelchizedek of Salem).Genesis 15 tells the reader that after all of this, a divine vision came to Abraham, tellinghim not to be afraid, and promising him a great mass of descendants, even though he as yethad no child (as Abraham reminded YHWH (verses 2-3). It is in terms of this great promise ofan unbelievably blessed future that would be his, that 15:6 states, "Abraham placed trust inthe God, and it was considered for him (i.e., for Abraham, by God) as a right-relationship."What is the point of all of this? Simply that Abraham was a person who placed trust, orconfidence in the divine word–he obeyed its command and he believed its promise. Thatmeans, he placed confidence in the promise that he would become the father of a multitude ofnations, through whom all the nations of the earth would receive blessing, at the very time thathe and his wife Sarah were seemingly far too old to have children. As the years passed, andAbraham and Sarah constantly grew older, the divine promise seemed increasingly moreimpossible of fulfillment–still Abraham continued to walk out into the future, hand in Hand withYHWH God, trusting that somehow what God had promised would happen.It is just this placing of trust or confidence in the divine word that Genesis tells us wasconsidered by God as a "right-relationship" in Abraham--nothing more, nothing less. He livedout of the divine word, obeying its command, and trusting its promise for his future--even whenit seemed absolutely impossible that it would ever be fulfilled.The proper relationship of Abraham to YHWH is rooted in his trusting the divinepromise, and obeying the divine call, especially at just that time when it seemed most unlikelythat the divine promise could ever be fulfilled. This is the unique and all-importantcharacteristic of the person of faith, the one who walks with God.In spite of his own despondent doubts and even cynical misgivings, stilll Abrahamcontinued to place his confidence in YHWH's promise, and constantly built his life and hopeson the basis of that promise. As Gerhard Von Rad has stated, "Abraham's righteousness isnot communicated within the realm of the cult by a cult official; it is transferred to the realm ofGod's free and personal relationship to Abraham. But above all, his righteousness is not theresult of any accomplishments, whether of sacrifice or acts of obedience. Rather, it is statedprogrammatically that belief [i.e., ‘trust’] alone has brought Abraham into a proper relationshipto God. God has indicated his plan for history, namely to make of Abraham a great people;Abraham 'has firmly assented' to that, i.e., he took it seriously and adjusted to it. In so doing(continued...)213

393(...continued)he adopted, according to God's judgment, the only correct relationship to God." (Von Rad,Genesis, p. 185)We appreciate von Rad’s comment, but note that the text does not say “belief alone.”Rather, while this text only mentions trust, or belief, the overall story of Abraham showsunequivocally that it was an obedient trust or belief, that acted immediately when God’s wordof command came to him.On the basis of the biblical text, we are to understand that the words hq" )d'c. anddikaiosu,nh, both of which mean "right-relationship," describe a right-relationship with God asone of trusting the divine word, both its command and its promise, and being willing to walkhand in Hand with God into the future, trusting that God will bring his promise to pass,regardless of the seemingly impossible obstacles that stand in its way.There is one other passage in the Hebrew Bible where this almost exact phraseoccurs. It is Psalm 106:28-31:28 They [the Israelites, at the close of their wilderness wanderings, just before crossingover the Jordan into the promised land] joined themselves also to Baal of Peor, And atesacrifices made to the dead. 29 Thus they provoked Him to anger with their deeds, And theplague broke out among them. 30 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, And the plaguewas stopped. 31 And that was accounted to him for righteousness To all generationsforevermore. (New King James)The phrase in this last verse is hq"+d"c.li Alâ bv,x'äTew:, “and it was considered to himfor a right-relationship”; in Greek it is kai. evlogi,sqh auvtw/| eivj dikaiosu,nhn, an exacttranslation of the Hebrew. In Genesis 15:6 the phrase is hq")d"c. ALß h'b,îv.x.Y:w:, “and heconsidered it to him a right-relationship” (slightly different from Psalm 106.31); in Greek it iskai. evlogi,sqh auvtw/| eivj dikaiosu,nhn, exactly the same as Psalm 106.31.For the biblical story, see Numbers 25:1 Now Israel remained in Acacia Grove, and the people began to commit harlotry withthe women of Moab. 2 They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the peopleate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger ofthe LORD was aroused against Israel. 4 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leadersof the people and hang the offenders before the LORD, out in the sun, that the fierce anger ofthe LORD may turn away from Israel." 25.5 So Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Every oneof you kill his men who were joined to Baal of Peor."25.6 And indeed, one of the children of Israel came and presented to his brethren aMidianite woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of the children ofIsrael, who were weeping at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. 25.7 Now when Phinehasthe son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose from among the congregation(continued...)214

393(...continued)and took a javelin in his hand; 25.8 and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and thrustboth of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague wasstopped among the children of Israel. 9 And those who died in the plague were twenty-fourthousand.10 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 11 "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the sonof Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he waszealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal.12 "Therefore say, 'Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; 13 'and it shall be to him andhis descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealousfor his God, and made atonement [rPEßk;y>w:, “and he covered over”; kai. evxila,sato, “and heappeased”] for the children of Israel.' "14 Now the name of the Israelite who was killed, who was killed with the Midianitewoman, was Zimri the son of Salu, a leader of a father's house among the Simeonites. 15And the name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi the daughter of Zur; he washead of the people of a father's house in Midian.16 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 17 "Harass the Midianites, and attackthem; 18 "for they harassed you with their schemes by which they seduced you in the matterof Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who waskilled in the day of the plague because of Peor."Compare Ben Sirach 45:23-24, which states that “Phineas the son of Eleazar...waszealous in the fear of the Lord, and stood fast, when the people turned away; in the readygoodness of his soul, and made atonement for Israel. Therefore a covenant of peace wasestablished with him, that he should be leader of the sanctuary and of his people...”Abraham’s believing God’s promise, trusting that God would fulfill what he hadpromised, was a right-relationship with God. But so was Phinehas’s “zeal,” as he was filledwith courage to stand up against the evil that was destroying Israel, and bring it to a halt byputting an adulterous couple to death.Traditional theologians (such as Moo) are reluctant to put these two biblical examplestogether, since doing so undermines their contention that “faith alone” is considered a rightrelationship.But the two passages belong side-by-side, since they are talking about the samething. It is a “right-relationship” with God to believe God’s word, and to build one’s future uponit; but it is also a “right-relationship” with God to take God’s opposition to immorality seriously,and be willing to stand up for it in the midst of society, against arrogant evil that is destroyingGod’s people.Both of these–Abraham’s trust, or belief, and Phinehas’ zeal, or courageous actionagainst evil, are considered by God, counted by God, to be “right-relationship” (with God).What do you think?215(continued...)

394 3954.4 Now then, to the one who is working (for wages), the pay is not considered as393(...continued)If we understand the Reformation Theology correctly, such as is represented by Moo inthe present day, it is that Abraham was not in actuality “rightly-related.” It was only God’sgracious willingness to consider Abraham rightly-related, even though he was not, that liesbehind this statement.Moo admits that “The language could suggest that his faith is considered as the‘equivalent’ of righteousness–that God sees Abraham’s faith as itself a ‘righteous’ act, wellpleasing to him. But if we compare other verses in which the same grammatical constructionas is used in Genesis 15:6 occurs, we arrive at a different conclusion. These parallelssuggest that the ‘reckoning’ of Abraham’s faith as righteousness means ‘to account to him arighteousness that does not inherently belong to him.’ Abraham’s response to God’s promiseleads God to ‘reckon’ to him a ‘status’ of righteousness.” (P. 262)What are the other passages that Moo mentions? The first have to do with the offeringof sacrifices in the Levitical ritual, in which the sacrifice is “reckoned” or “counted” to a person’sbenefit. See Leviticus 7:18; Numbers 18:27, 30. What we see in these passages is notsome “legal fiction,” but real offerings–whether of animals, or grain, or money, for whichindividuals are “credited.” In a way, the tithe of the priests was a “legal fiction,” since it was tobe credited as grain from the threshing floor, or wine from the wine-press; but it was realmoney!Moo next mentions 2 Samuel 19:20, where Shimei, confessing his sin against David,asks that David consider, or “reckon,” or “regard” him in a different light–since he hasacknowledged his sin, and is asking for forgiveness. He is asking for the same kind of graceand forgiveness which David himself had received from YHWH.Moo mentions Psalm 106:31, but dismisses it saying “God’s ‘reckoning’ Phinehas asrighteous...is a declarative act, not an equivalent compensation or reward for merit.” Thispassage is the only real parallel to Genesis 15:6, and Moo’s dismissal of it simply does not dojustice to it. Phinehas’ action in standing bravely for Israel’s sexual integrity, thereby stoppingthe plague, is in fact declared by God to be “a right-relationship.” It is not a legal or religiousfiction! We simply cannot agree with Moo and the Reformers at this point.394Moo comments that “Verses 4-5, which appeal to the gracious nature of God’s dealingswith his people as support for justification by faith apart from works, are the heart of thisparagraph. In this sense, we may characterize 4:1-8 as a kind of ‘commentary’ on 3:27-28.”(P. 259)395The phrase is tw/ | de. evrgazome,nw|, literally “now then to the one working,” but we take thisto mean “now then to the one working (for wages),” since Paul obviously doesn’t mean thatAbraham or other believers do nothing, do not work at all. There are those who work freely,without the expectation of payment–such as parents of children, or those who donate their(continued...)216

396 397a gift, but as something owed. 4.5 But then to the one not working (for wages), but395(...continued)services to building hospitals in third-world countries (such as Albert Schweitzer in CentralAfrica), etc. Abraham was such a “worker”–he was constantly obedient to the divine call, butnot in terms of a “hired worker,” saying “I will do this, if you will give me that...” In Genesis15:2-3 Abraham asks YHWH what he will give him, since he has no child, but still, the promisethat Abraham had been given did not come as a payment or reward for work Abraham haddone. No that call with its promise came, as it were, “out of the blue,” as a free gift of God thatAbraham had not and could not earn or deserve. This is, we think, what Paul is talking about.396Moo comments that “...Paul lays down a general principle about the ‘reckoning’ or‘accounting’ of ‘wages’ to a worker. If a person ‘works,’ says Paul, the pay he or she receivesin return is a matter of obligation, or fair compensation; the employer ‘owes’ the worker acertain wage and is not giving it ‘freely,’ or ‘without compulsion’...“The implicit ‘theologic’ of Paul is clear: since work means the reward is given byobligation, the reward of righteousness must not be dependent on work–for God is neverobliged by his creatures; justification is a gift, freely bestowed, not a wage, justly earned. ThatGod acts toward his creatures graciously– without compulsion or necessity–is one of Paul’snon-negotiable theological axioms. He uses it here to show that the faith that gainedrighteousness for Abraham was a faith that excluded works...“It flew in the face of the dominant Jewish theology of the day, which joined faith andworks closely together, resulting in a kind of synergism with respect to salvation. Against this,Paul argues that the ‘reckoning’ of faith for righteousness–in Abraham’s life, or in anyoneelse’s–is a reckoning that is wholly of grace and must be, then, based on faith.” (Pp. 263-64)We appreciate Moo’s great scholarship and amazing attention to detail in his study ofRomans. But we do not see righteousness being depicted as a “reward” bestowed onAbraham in this passage. Rather, we think, the passage depicts God as recognizingAbraham’s faith or trust as constituting a “right-relationship” with God, and as being consideredby God as genuine “righteousness.” It was a faith, a trust, that was placed in God withoutthought of “payment” or “reward,” even though a great reward was part of the promise.We think that here Paul is making a general observation concerning human experience.People who have entered into a labor contract, agreeing to work for a certain time, inconsideration of specified wages agreed upon in a contract, do not look upon their pay as a"gift." Not at all. It is a “commercial contract,” and their payment upon the performance of thework is owed to them; they deserve it, because of the work they have done. There is noconsideration of "gracious favor" or "free gift" involved in such a payment.Cranfield comments that "The sense intended by [‘not working’ or ‘working’] wouldseem to be 'to him who does no works which establish a claim on God' or 'to him who has noclaim on God on the ground of works,' and, by contrast, '...to him who does works whichestablish a claim on God...' Calvin was...right to observe that Paul has no intention ofdiscouraging the doing of good works... 'To the one not working' does not imply that Abrahamdid no good works, but only that he did none which constituted a claim on God.’" (P. 232)(continued...)217

398 399 400 401placing trust in the one who makes the godless rightly-related, the trust of his is396(...continued)This observation strikes a note in our modern, capitalist, profit-motivated hearts. We allknow about working under contract, and being paid wages as a result--wages that we haveearned, and deserve, and that are not at all a matter of a gracious favor or gift.There was no such "labor agreement" between God and Abraham. Instead, there wasa divine command accompanied by a promise, which Abraham both obeyed and trusted--andwhen he did that, God considered that a proper or “right-relationship” to himself.There was in fact nothing Abraham could have done or do that would "earn" or“deserve” the giving of the divine promise. That promise had simply come to Abraham out ofYHWH's nature, and the divine intention for the future. Abraham didn't earn it, or deserve it.He simply accepted its great gift and demand, responding to it with obedient trust.The same thing is true of us today. We did not, and we could not, create the GoodNews with its divine call to us. We only hear that call and respond to it in faith. The GoodNews offers us great promise for the future–but it is not something that we can ever “earn” or“deserve.” It is all a matter of God’s great love and gracious gift to us, his sinful creatures. Ifwe cheapen the Good News into a “labor contract,” supposing that its promise is somethingwe can “earn” or “deserve,” we have completely distorted its reality. Our religion becomes aselfish matter of “working for wages,” or doing what we do simply to gain “a home in heaven,”losing the dynamic of love and gracious response that is integral to genuine “rightrelationship”!397Moo comments that with this statement, “Paul is not ‘canonizing’ laziness’ (Morris); nordoes he mean that a Christian need never produce ‘good works.’ As Calvin rightlyemphasizes, Paul is the last theologian who would countenance a complacent Christian,unconcerned with the active putting into practice of one’s faith.” (P. 264)398Literally, “upon.”399The adjective avsebh/j means "ungodly," "profane," "unholy." Moo notes that this phrase,“The one who justifies the ungodly” is justly famous as “a succinct and bold statement ofPaul’s conviction that our standing with God is wholly of God’s free grace. To appreciate theboldness of this characterization, we must set it beside Old Testament condemnation ofhuman judges who ‘justify’ the guilty (Isaiah 5:23; Proverbs 17:15), and especially with God’sdeclaration in Exodus 23:7 that ‘I will not justify the wicked’...[It is important to note that God isnot justifying the impenitent ungodly, but rather, the penitent ungodly who respond to God’scall in faith.]“Paul has in mind a creative act, whereby the believer is freely given a new ‘status.’What is highlighted by the phrase is the nature of God–loving, freely giving, and incapable ofbeing put under obligation to any human being. It is the person who believes in this God, andwho thereby in his belief renounces any claim on God that his good works might exert, whose‘faith is reckoned for righteousness.’” (P. 264) Yes, it is the believing “ungodly” who isjustified, the one who comes to God in penitence, confession and faith–not the impenitent(continued...)218

402 403considered for a right-relationship, 4.6 just as David also pronounces the happiness of the399(...continued)ungodly, who will not turn from their head-long rush to death.Paul's opponents would resent his use of such an adjective in his discussion ofAbraham--whom they considered totally "godly" and "reverent." Paul does not in fact describeAbraham as "godless"; but he does use this word in terms of the kind of God Abraham served--the God who makes the godless rightly-related through gracious forgiveness.And the fact is that the story of Abraham in Genesis reveals throughout that Abrahamwas very "human," and characterized by "fear for the future." Because of that fear, he enteredinto an agreement with his wife to tell people that they were brother and sister (implying thatshe was not his wife), thereby allowing Pharaoh in Egypt, and at a later time the Canaanite /Philistine Abimelech, to take her, out of fear for his own safety, as well as in order to gainwealth.It has been claimed that to describe Abraham's action as those of a "pimp" is totallyunfair. How then should we describe his actions, drawn out so clearly in Genesis? What kindof act is it when a husband gives his wife to another man, claiming she is only his sister--insuch a way as to protect and gain wealth for himself? Is this the act of a "godly" or "ungodly"person? It is true that Paul does not call Abraham a "procurer" or "panderer," or "pimp." Buthe does introduce this matter of the "ungodly," who must relate to God in terms of free gift andgracious favor, instead of in terms of "debt" and "payment owed." What do you think?Cranfield comments that Paul's use of this word "godless" in his description of Abrahamis very important: "To say that Abraham was one who had no claim on God on the ground ofworks...is tantamount to saying that he was ungodly...So the faith which he had in God wasnecessarily faith in the God who justifies the ungodly. That God does do just this is themeaning of His grace...” (P. 232)400The Jewish Bible forbids this matter of "making the ungodly rightly-related." See, forexample, such passages as Exodus 23:7, which says in Hebrew, "...For I will not make awicked person rightly-related!" (See also Proverbs 17:15 (YHWH detests acquittal of theguilty); 24:24 (people will curse and nations denounce one who says to the guilty, “You areinnocent”) and Isaiah 5:23 (woe to those who acquit the guilty for a bribe).But these passages are forbidding a cheap, easy justifying of the guilty apart from anypenitence on their part; while what God is doing for the ungodly in Jesus (and for Abraham inGenesis 15) is a matter of responding in grace to the genuine trust and obedience that hesees in his people. Taken as a whole, Paul's teaching concerning God's gracious favor is notby any means a cheap forgiveness that condones wickedness (what these biblical passagesare forbidding)--not at all. Rather, it is an unbelievably costly forgiveness, that involves thegiving of his own Son as an eternal sacrifice for the guilty and the sinful. This is what Paulteaches.401Moo holds that the definite article here should be translated by “his” (p. 258).219

person whom the God considers (as being in) a right-relationship apart from works: 4044.7 “How happy those for whom the rebellions were forgiven,and those for whom the missings-of-the-mark were covered over!402Here again Paul makes a general observation concerning relationships. Paul turns fromthis matter of "contract labor," in which wages are paid as something due to the worker whohas fulfilled his part of the labor agreement--and asks that the reader consider a different typeof relationship. It is one in which the person who deserves nothing--but who rather, has failedto fulfill his obligation–and who subsequently receives a free gift from the very one he hasfailed. This is quite a different matter.Here, we are not concerned with "merit," or with "what is deserved." Rather, we are inthe realm of "free gift," or "gracious favor." This is the kind of realm in which Abraham'srelationship with YHWH existed; it is the kind of realm we ourselves are in, as we accept God'sfree gift of right-relationship in Jesus. In such a relationship of free gift and gracious favor, theproper relationship of the person receiving the gift apart from any consideration of "wages," isthat of thankful trust in the one giving.With this statement, Paul moves from the realm of human relationships, into that of thedivine. When we deal with God the Creator and Judge, it is very impertinent to make claimsconcerning what we "deserve," or to demand our rightful "reward."Rather, because we are in fact oftentimes "godless," or “ungodly” people, refusing toacknowledge and thankfully worship God, we must approach God in terms of "free gift" and"gracious favor," not asking for what we "deserve," but asking for his free gift of mercy andforgiveness.In proof of this, Paul turns to another passage from the Jewish Bible, this time Psalms32:1-2.403The subordinating conjunction kaqa,per, “just as,” is changed to the synonym kaqw,j byBezae, F and G. This variant reading does not change the meaning of Romans.404In Psalm 32, the pronouncement of happiness or blessedness is made concerning thosewhose works or deeds deserve punishment and condemnation--this is what they have in fact"earned," and now "deserve." But, instead of receiving what they truly deserve, Psalm 32celebrates the fact that the people it describes have been forgiven of their misdeeds, and havebeen placed in right-relationship by YHWH God's loving forgiveness and gracious favor.Paul assumes that the biblical "pronouncement of happiness" means the same thing assaying that those addressed are in "right-relationship" with YHWH. How have these rebellioussinners come to receive the divine pronouncement of happiness (or been treated as being in"right-relationship")? Only by gracious favor and forgiveness and undeserved cleansing that isfreely given to the penitent confessor like David--not by earning that position through theirdeeds, but by having been given it freely by the grace of God. If Abraham is a biblicalexample of what faith can do, David is also an example of what God’s grace can do.220

405 4064.8 How happy a man whose missing-of-the-mark (the) Lord will not consider!”405The genitive masculine singular relative pronoun ou-, “of whom,” or “whose,” is read bythe first writer of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the first writer of Bezae, G, Minuscules 1506, 1739and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to the dative singular w-|, “to whom,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus,Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, F, Psi, Minuscules 33, 1881 andthe “Majority Text.”The variant reading hardly changes the meaning of the text.406Psalm 32 is one of the great "penitential" psalms of the Prayer and Hymn Book of theSecond Jewish Commonwealth (Israel following its return from Babylonian Captivity in 536B.C., continuing until the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.). It has been used in worshipacross the centuries by those who feel the heavy hand of guilt, deservedly resting upon them.This Psalm proclaims the Good News of divine forgiveness--of the taking away ofrebellion, of the covering over of missings-of-the-mark, through the willingness of YHWH to notconsider a person's guilt, when that person comes to God in humble, open confession, askingfor forgiveness. Moo comments that “...It is not the ‘reckoning’ of peoples’ good works, butGod’s act in not reckoning their sins against them that constitutes forgiveness.” (P. 266)[v;P,ª-yWfn> ) yre îv.a;ha'(j'x] yWsåK.~d'ªa' yrev.(a;î!wO=[' Alå hw"åhy> bvoìx.y: al{ÜhY"mir> AxæWrB. !yaeÞw>O the happiness of one (whose) transgression is carried off,(whose) missing-of-the-mark is covered over!O the happiness of a human being--YHWH will not count iniquity to him;and there is no treachery in his innermost being!maka,rioi w-n avfe,qhsan ai` avnomi,aikai. w-n evpekalu,fqhsan ai` a`marti,aimaka,rioj avnh,r ou- ouv mh. logi,shtai ku,rioj a`marti,anouvde. e;stin evn tw/| sto,mati auvtou/ do,lojHow happy those of whom the breakings of law have been forgiven,and those of whom the missings-of-the-mark have been covered over!How happy a man to whom Lord will not consider missing-of-the-mark,neither is there deceit in the mouth of his!(continued...)221

4074.9 This pronouncement of happiness, therefore–(is it only) upon the circumcised406(...continued)Where the Hebrew has the singular passive participle, “one who,” the Greektranslation has the genitive plural relative pronoun, “those of whom”; where the Hebrew hasthe singular “transgression,” the Greek translation has the plural “the breakings of law.”Where the Hebrew has the singular “missing-of-the-mark,” the Greek translation has theplural “the missings-of-the-mark.” Where the Hebrew has “YHWH will not count iniquity tohim,” the Greek translation has “those of whom the missing-of-the-mark Lord will notconsider.” Where the Hebrew has “And there is no treachery in his innermost being,” theGreek translation has “neither is in the mouth of his deceit.”Paul:maka,rioi w-n avfe,qhsan ai` avnomi,aikai. w-n evpekalu,fqhsan ai` a`marti,ai\maka,rioj avnh.r ou- ouv mh. logi,shtai ku,rioj a`marti,anÅPaul quotes the Greek translation verbatim, but only the first three lines, omitting the finalline of the passage.The pronouncement of "happiness" or “blessedness” is not made concerning peoplewho have no rebellions, no missings-of-the-mark, and no guilt. Rather, it is pronounced overjust those people who are guilty–and who simply cannot come before God asking for whatthey "deserve," or for "payment of wages earned."They are people who can only come humbly, and in genuine, honest (there is no deceitin their mouth) penitence, asking for mercy and forgiveness.The Good News of Psalm 32 is that such mercy and forgiveness are freely given byYHWH, and have been experienced by God’s people, whenever they have come to God inhumble penitent confession (see verse 5). This pronouncement is not made concerning theproud person, who feels no guilt, who thinks himself or herself good enough to earn salvation.Such a person is not pretending when confessing--there is no deceit in their mouth! And theclosing verse of this psalm calls just such people “rightly-related,” “righteous”–not on the basisof what they deserve, or have earned, but solely on the basis of God’s gracious willingness tocleanse and forgive!407As we have already observed, Paul understands the biblical "pronouncement ofhappiness" (makarismo,j, found only in Paul, here, in verse 9 and Galatians 4:15) as beingidentical with being "considered in right-relationship." If God calls people "happy," or“blessed,” it must mean that they are in "right-relationship" with God. This is Paul'sassumption that underlies his combination of these two passages. We agree with hisassumption.And if this is the case, it is important to realize that there are many suchpronouncements of “happiness” or “blessedness” of certain people in the Bible–not just thosewhose sins have been forgiven. See the following passages that use this same phrase in theGreek Bible, Maka,rioj avnh,r, “O the happiness (or ‘Blessedness’) of the man”:(continued...)222

408 409 410person, or also upon the uncircumcised person? For we say, "The trust was considered407(...continued)Psalm 1:1–the man who does not walk in the council of the ungodlyPsalm 34:8 (34:9 in Hebrew; 33:9 in Greek)–who takes refuge in the LordPsalm 40:4 (40:5 in Hebrew; 39:5 in Greek)--who makes the Lord his trust (or object ofconfidence, or security)Psalm 84:5 (84:6 in Hebrew; 83:6 in Greek)–whose strength in You (the Lord)Psalm 112:1 (111:1 in Greek)–who fears the Lord, who takes delight in God’s commandmentsProverbs 8:34–who listens to Wisdom, watching daily at her doors, waiting at her doorwayProverbs 28:14–who always fears the LordIsaiah 56:2–who maintains justice and does what is rightWe could add many other passages to these, for example the so-called “Beatitudes” ofJesus in Matthew 5:2-12:the poor in spirit;those who mourn;the meek;those who hunger and thirst for right-relationship(s);the merciful;the pure in heart;the peacemakers;those who are persecuted because of right-relationships;those who are spoken of as evil because of their relationship to Jesus.None of these who are pronounced “fortunate,” or “happy,” or ‘blessed” are people whocome proudly before God, claiming that God owes them anything. They are people who relatetheir lives to God in trust, in humility, longing for divine wisdom, loving to hear and follow God’sdirection (Torah),who maintain justice and right, who recognize their poverty, who can mournwith others, etc. etc. These are the people considered “rightly-related” by God, andpronounced as such in these biblical passages. God considers them as being in “rightrelationship.”There are numerous other biblical passages that can be added to these.408The accusative singular adjective mo,non is interpolated into the text at this point byBezae, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, the Clementine Vulgate and Ambrosiaster (366-384 A.D.)This textual variant supports our translation, into which we have inserted this word.223

411in Abraham as a right-relationship."412 413 4144.10 In what way, therefore was it considered? While being circumcised, or not415 416circumcised? Not while circumcised, but rather, while not circumcised! 4.11 And he409Literally, the Greek text asks, "Is it pronounced upon the circumcision, or also upon theforeskin?", meaning, “upon the Jews, or also upon the non-Jews?”410Following the phrase le,gomen ga,r, “for we say,” the conjunction o`,ti, “that,” isinterpolated into the text by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, F, G,Psi, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”The text without this conjunction is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the first writer ofBezae, Minuscules 630, 1739, 1881 and a few other Greek manuscripts.Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Romans.Kaesemann translates this opening phrase by "For we quoted:..."411Here Paul has paraphrased Genesis 15:6, the passage earlier quoted almost verbatimin verse three.412The interrogative particle pw/j ordinarily means simply "How?," or "In what way?"Cranfield renders it here by "In what circumstances...?"413Here again, Paul’s questioning continues, seeking to get the reader to think with him, andseek to give an answer to his question.414Literally, "...When he was being circumcised...", or "...When he was in a state ofcircumcision..." The question is intended to cause the reader to turn to Genesis, and considerthe condition of Abraham when the statement was made that he was considered as being in“right relationship” with YHWH. Did that statement come before or after his circumcision?415Literally, "...Or in foreskin ( = uncircumcision)."416The story of Abraham's circumcision occurs in Genesis 17, some time later than thestory in Genesis 15, where the statement is made concerning Abraham's trust beingconsidered by YHWH as a right-relationship with himself. This is very important for Paul'sargument. Abraham didn't have to first get himself and all the males in his larger familycircumcised, in order to get in right-relationship with YHWH. Rather, when Abraham placedtrust in the divine word of command and promise, YHWH God considered that as "a rightrelationship"--andit was only a long time later that Abraham entered into the covenant ofcircumcision.Moo comments that Paul’s answer to his question is “clear and direct: ‘It was not whenhe was circumcised but when he was uncircumcised’...Paul has in mind the chronologicalprogression of the Genesis narrative about Abraham...It is not until much later–twenty-nineyears, according to the rabbis–that he is circumcised (Genesis 17).” (P. 268)224

417 418received a sign of circumcision –a seal of the right-relationship by trust (while) not being417The feminine genitive singular noun peritomh/j, “(a sign of) circumcision,” is changed tothe accusative singular form, peritomh,n, “(and he received a sign,) circumcision” (directobject), by Alexandrinus, the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Minuscules 6, 1506, 1739,1881, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Syriac tradition.This variant reading does not change the meaning of Romans.Here Paul is referring to the story found in Genesis 17:10-11, where circumcision isdescribed as a "sign" (tAaål. ., le)oth, “for a sign,” evn shmei,w|, “as a sign”) of YHWH's covenantwith Abraham. Paul describes that "sign" as a "seal" of the right-relationship which alreadyexisted between Abraham and YHWH. Circumcision did not enable that right-relationship tocome into being. Rather, it acted as a sfragi/da, "seal" upon the right-relationship thatalready existed.For the occurrences of this noun in the Greek Bible, see Exodus 28:11, 21, 29(engravings on precious stones, to serve as reminders); 35:22 (rings with signs engraved onthem); 36:13 (addition in Greek; an engraved sign of the names of the Israelites), 21 (theGreek text is quite different from the Hebrew; kai. oi` li,qoi h=san evk tw/n ovnoma,twn tw/nui`w/n Israhl dw,deka evk tw/n ovnoma,twn auvtw/n evggegramme,na eivj sfragi/daj e[kastoj evktou/ e`autou/ ovno,matoj eivj ta.j dw,deka fula,j, “and the stones were out of the names of thesons of Israel, twelve, out of their names, having been engraved for signs, each one out of theown name of his, for the twelve tribes”), 37 (39:30 in Hebrew and English; kai. evpoi,hsan to.pe,talon to. crusou/n avfo,risma tou/ a`gi,ou crusi,ou kaqarou/ kai. e;grayen evpV auvtou/gra,mmata evktetupwme,na sfragi/doj a`gi,asma kuri,w|, “and he made the golden leaf a specialoffering for the set-apart place, of pure gold; and he wrote upon it letters worked in relief, of aseal, something set-apart to [the] Lord”);1 Kings 20:8 (21:8 in Hebrew and English; Jezebel wrote letters in Ahab’s name, andsealed them with his seal); Song of Solomon 8:6, 6 (one lover says to the other, “Set me as aseal upon your heart, as a seal [‘tatoo’?] upon your arm”); Haggai 2:23 (the Lord will makeZerubbabel like a “seal,” or “signet ring”);Tobit 9:5 (money-bags with seals intact); 4 Maccabees 7:15 (“faithful seal of death”has perfected the elderly martyr Eleazar); Sirach 17:22 (charitable gifts are “like a seal” withhim, i.e., the Lord); 22:27 (a seal upon lips, to keep from falling and being destroyed by wrongwords; used as a synonym of fulakh,n “guard”); 32:5, 6 (seals engraved in precious stones);38:27 (similar; engraved by artisans); 42:6 (“Where there is an untrustworthy wife, a seal is agood thing; and where there are many hands, lock things up”); 45:11, 12 (precious stonesengraved with seals); 49:11 (Zerubbabel is a seal; compare Haggai 2:23); Psalm of Solomon2:7 (2:6 in English; the Jews in captivity have a seal upon their neck); Bel and the Dragon1:15, 15, 15, 17 (Cyrus, the Persian king, places his seal upon the Temple of Bel, not knowingof the secret entrance of the priests of Bel);225(continued...)

417(...continued)Romans 4:11 (here, of circumcision); 1 Corinthians 9:2 (Paul’s converts in Corinth arethe “seal” of his Ambassadorship); 2 Timothy 2:19 (the firm foundation of God has this sealupon it, “The Lord knows those who are his,” and “Let everyone who calls on the name of theLord turn away from wickedness”); Revelation 5:1, 5, 9; 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; 7:2; 8:1 (a scroll,sealed with seven seals, that are opened one by one) and 9:4 (people who do not have theseal of God upon their foreheads are to be harmed by the locusts with scorpion like stings).In the early church (see Hermas and 1 Clement), this word "seal" was sometimes usedas a description of Christian baptism, which it was felt had begun to play among Christians thesame, or a similar role, to that which circumcision had played in Judaism.We agree with Cranfield's comment that "The words imply that Abraham's circumcision,while it did not confer a status of righteousness on him, was nevertheless valuable as theoutward and visible attestation of the status of righteousness which he already possessed."(P. 236)Surely we will be wise to understand our own baptism in similar fashion. It is not by anymeans a human action that has saving power, enabling the person baptized to enter into rightrelationshipwith God. But it is a sign, a seal of the right-relationship which God imparts to hispeople who respond to his word in penitent, obedient trust.Moo notes that “The rabbis occasionally used twa (‘sign’) by itself to denotecircumcision; and note Jubilees 15:26, where circumcision is described as ‘a sign’ that marksa person as belonging to the Lord.” (P. 268)418Following the accusative singular feminine noun sfragi/da, “a seal,” “a mark,” “animprint,” the preposition dia, “through,” or perhaps “by means of,” is interpolated into the textby F and G.The interpolation hardly changes the meaning of Romans, but is of the nature of acommentary-like addition to the original text.Moo comments that “Abraham’s circumcision confirms his righteous status, a statusthat was his by virtue of his faith. Circumcision, therefore, has no independent value. Itcannot effect one’s entrance into the people of God; nor does it even ‘mark’ a person asbelonging to God’s people apart from a prior justifying act. Abraham was declared righteouswhile still uncircumcised. His later circumcision added nothing materially to that transaction; itsimply signified and confirmed it...“Many scholars...think that the word has baptismal connotations in Ephesians 1:13 and4:30. This factor, coupled with the relationship drawn between circumcision and baptismelsewhere in the New Testament (compare Colossians 2:11-15), has led many expositors tosuggest that Romans 4:11 has at least indirect reference to Christian baptism...226(continued...)

circumcisied, so that he might be a father of all those having trust (while) not being419 420 421circumcised, so as to be considered [also] in them [the] right-relationship; 4.12 and a418(...continued)“The evidence for this claim is, however, inconclusive... Reading back the imagery oflater Christian writings into the New Testament with respect to the sacraments is aquestionable methodology...We consider an allusion to baptism in this verse, then, asunproven and improbable...” (P. 269)419The conjunction kai, here meaning “also,” is omitted from the text by the first writer ofSinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Psi, Minuscules 6, 81, 630, 1506, 1739, 1881, 2464,some other Greek manuscripts, some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and the BohairicCoptic.It is read by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, F, G, the“Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, a part of the Old Latin witnesses, the Syriac tradition and theSahidic Coptic.Whether read or not makes little difference for the meaning of Romans.420The accusative singular definite article th,n is read by Vaticanus, the first writer ofEphraemi Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, F, G, Psi, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to the preposition ei=j, “in,” or “for,” by Alexandrinus, the first writer ofMinuscule 424, Minuscule 1881, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate and a partof the Old Latin witnesses.It is omitted by Sinaiticus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, the first writer ofBezae, Minuscules 6, 365, a corrector of 424, 1506, 1739 and a few other Greekmanuscripts.Because of these variant readings, the definite article has been placed in the text, butwithin brackets to indicate the lack of certainty as to its originality. The variant readingsscarcely change the meaning of Romans, but indicate the difficulty which was felt by ancientcopyists and translators in dealing with this sentence.421Why does Paul call Abraham the "father of all those who have trust while not beingcircumcised"? Because that is the way it was with Abraham himself. Long before he wascircumcised, he trusted YHWH's word of command and promise, and YHWH had consideredthis to be a "right-relationship" of Abraham to himself.That is why in the present time--thinks Paul--Abraham can be the "father" of those whohave not been circumcised, but who trust the divine word that has been proclaimed as GoodNews by Paul and his companions.There can be no doubt that Paul's opponents would argue that unless the new convertsreceived circumcision, they could not be in right-relationship with God. But Paul counters this(continued...)227

422father of (those who are) circumcised, to those not based on circumcision alone, but rather423also to those who walk in the footsteps of the trust of our father Abraham, while not beingcircumcised. 424421(...continued)contention by showing how Abraham himself, the great forefather of the Jewish people, washimself in right-relationship with YHWH, long before being circumcised.422Of course Abraham was and is considered the "father" of all Israel. No religious Jewwould disagree with Paul on this statement of fact.423The dative plural definite article toi/j, “to the ones,” is changed to auvtoi/j, “to them,” bythe biblical scholars Hort and Beza, simply as a conjecture. Such conjectural readings haveno value for determining the original text.424Moo comments that “In verses 11b-12 we have one long purpose clause, with a resultclause (‘so that righteousness might also be reckoned to them’) stuck inside it. In the majorpurpose clause, Paul depicts Abraham as the spiritual father of all believers, both Gentiles andJews...Because Abraham believed while uncircumcised, he is the father of all Gentile [i.e., notcircumcised] believers; because he believed and was also circumcised, he is qualified to bethe father of all Jewish believers...“Paul now claims Abraham and the inheritance that is his (compare verses 16-17), foranyone who believes. It is through faith, and not through incorporation into the nation ofIsrael, that one becomes Abraham’s spiritual ‘child.’” (Pp. 269-70)It is not enough, Paul insists, simply to be circumcised--to have the external "sign" or"seal" of circumcision in the flesh. Much more, these physical descendants of Abraham must"walk in the footsteps of trust" of their great forefather.Paul does not mean by "trust" simply an "intellectual acceptance" of a proposition, orwhat Jacob ["James"] would call a "dead trust" or "dead faith" (Jacob 2:14-26) Paul meansthe kind of trust that walks in the footsteps of Abraham--who walked hand in Hand with YHWHGod out into the promised future, responding to the divine command in trusting obedience.Neither Jacob nor Paul would countenance "trust without obedience." When Paul rejects"working," he means "working for a reward," "working for wages." He does not reject the kindof works that come from a trusting relationship with God. Rather, he constantly teaches theirabsolute necessity.As Moo notes, “The faith of Abraham that Jewish Christians imitate is a faith that wasfirst exercised when Abraham was in an ‘uncircumcised state.’ Jews who follow their biblicalparadigm will place the proper value on their circumcision: as a mark of a relationship theyenjoy with the Lord through their faith rather than as a visa that will automatically insure theirentrance into heaven.” (P. 271)228

PRAYERGreat God of the universe, we have heard your voice, speaking to us, loudly andclearly, in Jesus, and through his followers, in the preaching of the Gospel. You speak to us aword of infinite grace, and infinite demand; you speak to us a word of command, and a word ofpromise. Just as you spoke to Abraham in the long ago, so you speak to us today. Youcommand us to turn our lives around--to live, not on the basis of earthly desires and rewards,but to live in the light of your coming Kingdom, to walk hand in Hand with you, all our days.And you promise to make of us the source of divine blessing to all the nations of the earth.You promise that if we will walk with you, you will use us to bring Good News to the ends ofthe earth, and to share in building your Kingdom of peace in the life of our world.O God, we trust your word--and we reach out to take your Hand, to walk with youthroughout our short earthly pilgrimage. We know that every one of us will make many a misstep,and that oftentimes our trust will grow weak and hesitating. Nonetheless, we place ourhand in yours, believing that you are the God who takes the weak, and the impure, and thegodless, and makes them "rightly-related” through your mercy and grace.We know full well that our relationship with you is based on your character–on yourkindness, and mercy--on your free gifts of gracious favor--not on our imperfect obedience, oron any partial goodness that we may have, that could ever cause you to "owe" us anything.You do not owe us--but we owe you for everything we have and are.We come to you, not as those who have earned the right to come into your presence,but as those whose sins have been forgiven and covered over, and will no longer be countedagainst us, because of your love for us. Our only hope is in your loving forgiveness andgracious favor--not in our own goodness or ability to fulfill your teaching.This is the truth--but it is also the truth that we, like Abraham of old, and like yourtrusting people in all ages and times, both can and must walk hand in Hand with you. We canfollow in the footsteps of faith, obeying your command, doing everything in our power to fulfillyour teaching, always conforming our lives to your word.O God, we have seen your promise come true so many times in our lives--especially inthe overcoming of the Nazis and atheistic Communism in the twentieth century. We areseeing your promises come true in this twenty-first century, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. Wehave seen the Good News spreading from the tiny country of Israel in its beginnings, untiltoday it reaches into every nation and country upon planet earth. All is not by any meansdone yet--but we trust your promise, and live by its hope. Make us servants of your promise!In the name of Jesus, our Teacher and Lord, we pray. Amen.229

BECOMING STRONG IN TRUST -- AGAINST HOPE, UPON HOPERomans 4:13-25, Greek Text with Translation4.13 Ouv ga.r dia. no,mou h` evpaggeli,a tw/| VAbraa.m h' tw/| spe,rmati auvtou/( to.klhrono,mon auvto.n ei=nai ko,smou( avlla. dia. dikaiosu,nhj pi,stewjÅ 4.14 eiv ga.r oi` evkno,mou klhrono,moi( keke,nwtai h` pi,stij kai. kath,rghtai h` evpaggeli,a\ 4.15 o` ga.r no,mojovrgh.n katerga,zetai\ ou- de. ouvk e;stin no,moj ouvde. para,basijÅ4.13 For not through Law, (did) the promise (come) to the Abraham or to thedescendant(s) of his, that he should be inheritor of a world--but rather, through a rightrelationshipof trust. 4.14 For if those who are rooted in Law (are) inheritors, the trust hasbeen made worthless, and the promise has been made ineffective. 4.15 For the Lawproduces wrath; so then where there is no Law, neither is there transgression.4.16 Dia. tou/to evk pi,stewj( i[na kata. ca,rin( eivj to. ei=nai bebai,an th.nevpaggeli,an panti. tw/| spe,rmati( ouv tw/| evk tou/ no,mou mo,non avlla. kai. tw/| evk pi,stewjVAbraa,m( o[j evstin path.r pa,ntwn h`mw/n( 4.17 kaqw.j ge,graptai o[ti pate,ra pollw/nevqnw/n te,qeika, se( kate,nanti ou- evpi,steusen qeou/ tou/ zw|opoiou/ntoj tou.j nekrou.j kai.kalou/ntoj ta. mh. o;nta w`j o;ntaÅ 4.18 }Oj parV evlpi,da evpV evlpi,di evpi,steusen eivj to.gene,sqai auvto.n pate,ra pollw/n evqnw/n kata. to. eivrhme,non\ ou[twj e;stai to. spe,rma sou(4.19 kai. mh. avsqenh,saj th/| pi,stei kateno,hsen to. eàutou/ sw/ma Îh;dhÐ nenekrwme,non(e`katontaeth,j pou u`pa,rcwn( kai. th.n ne,krwsin th/j mh,traj Sa,rraj\ 4.20 eivj de. th.nevpaggeli,an tou/ qeou/ ouv diekri,qh th/| avpisti,a| avllV evnedunamw,qh th/| pi,stei( dou.j do,xantw/| qew/| 4.21 kai. plhroforhqei.j o[ti o] evph,ggeltai dunato,j evstin kai. poih/saiÅ 4.22dio. Îkai.Ð evlogi,sqh auvtw/ | eivj dikaiosu,nhnÅ4.16 For this reason (it is) rooted in trust, in order that (it might be) according togracious favor--so that the promise might be insured to all the descendant(s), not to thoserooted in the Law only, but rather also to the one rooted in Abraham's trust--who is father of allof us, 4.17 just as it has been written that "A father of many nations I have established you.”(It was) before God, in whom he trusted, the one who makes the dead alive, and who calls thethings that are not existing as existing. 4.18 Who against hope, upon hope, trusted, so thathe became a "father of many nations," according to what has been said, "In this way shall yourdescendant(s) be." 4.19 And not growing weak in the trust, he considered the body ofhimself, [already] having become dead, being some hundred years old; and the deadness ofthe womb of Sarah. 4.20 But he did not waver in the lack of trust in the promise of the God,but rather was made strong in the trust, giving glorious radiance to the God; 4.21 and havingbeen fully convinced that what he had promised, he is able also to accomplish. 4.22Wherefore [also] "It was considered in him for a right-relationship."4.23 Ouvk evgra,fh de. diV auvto.n mo,non o[ti evlogi,sqh auvtw/| 4.24 avlla. kai. diV h`ma/j(oi-j me,llei logi,zesqai( toi/j pisteu,ousin evpi. to.n evgei,ranta VIhsou/n to.n ku,rion h`mw/nevk nekrw/n( 4.25 o]j paredo,qh dia. ta. paraptw,mata h`mw/n kai. hvge,rqh dia. th.n dikai,wsinh`mw/nÅ230

4.23 Now it was not written for him alone that "It was considered in him," 4.24 butrather, also for us, to whom it is about to be considered, to those who are trusting upon theone who raised Jesus the Lord of ours out from dead people–4.25 who was handed over forthe transgressions of ours, and was raised for the declaration of the right-relationship of ours.Romans 4:13-25, Translation with Footnotes425 426 427 4284.13 For not through Law, (did) the promise (come) to the Abraham or to the425Kaesemann comments that "The word 'promise' is the connecting link in verses 13-25.The argument is grouped around three statements. In verses 13-17a the idea that thepromise is attached to the law is contested. In verses 17b-22 the promise is characterized bythe fact that only faith in the resurrection of the dead corresponds to it. The conclusion isdrawn in verses 23-25 that Abraham's faith is an anticipation of Christian faith. HenceScripture really testifies to Paul's thesis by the example of Abraham." (P. 118)Moo in like manner comments that “...The theme of the promise runs throughoutverses 13-22, binding them together in an overall unity. The noun ‘promise’ [evpaggeli,a]which occurs for the first time here in the letter, is used four times in these verses, the verb ‘topromise’ [evpagge,lomai] once. In each case, the reference is to the promise given to Abraham,with Paul emphasizing particularly how it was faith that secured what God had promised...“There is evidence that Paul has built his exposition on the foundation of a traditionalJewish and Jewish-Christian interpretation of Abraham’s faith. This interpretation, whosegeneral outline can be discerned in Philo, Acts 7, Hebrews 11, and 1 Clement 10, focusesparticularly on the miracle-working power of God and the way Abraham (and Sarah)experienced this power by ignoring the ‘facts’ of the situation and trusting rather in the promiseof God...“The first part of Paul’s exposition departs from the traditional interpretation with itspolemical contrast between the law and faith and, to a lesser extent, with its inclusion of theGentiles in the ‘seed’ of Abraham...Verses 13-22 continue, then, Paul’s exposition of faith byway of contrasts: to ‘faith apart from works’ (verses 3-8) and ‘faith apart from circumcision’(verses 9-12), we can add ‘faith apart from the law’ (verses 13-16) and ‘faith apart from sight’(verses 17-21).” (Pp. 272-73)426Moo comments that “As the ‘for’ suggests, the paragraph beginning in verse 13 has anexplanatory function–it explains why Paul made no mention of the law in tracing the spiritualdescendants of Abraham (verses 11-12).” (P. 273)As we have stated, it was the standard Jewish interpretation that Abraham earned hismerit through faithful observance of the Jewish law (Torah), long centuries before that law wasgiven through Moses (see Galatians 3:17, where Paul notes that the law came 430 yearsafter the promise to Abraham), and that therefore only those who kept the Torah could be thelegitimate descendants of Abraham.427Moo, along with the majority of modern English translations (with the exception of NewInternational), interpolates the definite article into the text, translating by “the law,” even(continued...)231

427(...continued)though there is no definite article in the Greek text. Moo notes that “The lack of an articlebefore no,mou has led some expositors to think that Paul is thinking here of ‘law’ in general, asa principle (for example, Sanday-Headlam), but there are too many reasons for the omissionof the article in Greek to justify such a verdict.” (P. 273) We are inclined to agree with Sandayand Headlam.428The noun evpaggeli,a which we have translated "promise," has been combined from twowords, evpi, "upon," and av,ggelia, "message." The combined word ordinarily means "anannouncement," or "an order." It was used in Attic Greek in a legal sense to mean "adenunciation," or "information" given in court.This noun occurs only eight times in the Septuagint–at 1 Esdras 1:7 (Josiah gives katVevpaggeli,an tw/| law/, “according to promise to the people”); Esther 4:7 (th.n evpaggeli,an h]nevphggei,lato Aman tw/| basilei/, “the promise which Haman promised to the king,” no realequivalent in the Hebrew); Psalm 55:9 (56:9 in Hebrew, 56:8 in English; Greek is differentfrom Hebrew: e;qou ta. da,krua, mou evnw,pio,n sou w`j kai. evn th/| evpaggeli,a| sou, “...youplaced the tears of mine before you, as also in the promise of yours”); Amos 9:6 (the Greek isquite different from the Hebrew, stating that God th.n evpaggeli,an auvtou/ evpi. th/j gh/jqemeliw/n, “establishes the promise of his upon the earth”); 1 Maccabees 10:15 (promisesthat Demetrius sent to Jonathan); 4 Maccabees 12:9 (the seventh martyr brother’s promise tospeak to the king if released); Ode 12:7 (avme,trhto,n te kai. avnexicni,aston to. e;leoj th/jevpaggeli,aj sou, “both immeasurable and untraceable, the gracious mercy of the promise ofyours”) and Psalm of Solomon 12:6 (And may the Lord's set-apart ones inherit the Lord'spromises).The noun occurs much more often in the Greek New Testament, at Luke 24:49; Acts1:4 (both of these passages, “the promise of the Father”); 2:33 (the promise of the Set-apartSpirit from the Father), 39 (the promise of forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit is for everyonethe Lord calls); 7:17 (Stephen recalls the promise God made to Abraham); 13:23 (God hassent the Savior, Jesus, as he promised), 32 (similar); 23:21 (the Jewish men who intend toambush and kill Paul are depending upon the promise of the Roman Military leader); 26:6(Paul claims that he is on trial on account of his hope in the promise of God to the Jewishancestors);Romans 4:13, 14, 16, 20 (four times in this present passage, Romans 4; allconcerning the promise of God to Abraham); 9:4 (the promises given by God to the Jews), 8(the children of the promise to Abraham are God’s children), 9 (God’s promise to Abrahamconcerning a child to be born to Sarah); 15:8 (the Anointed King has confirmed the promisesmade to the forefathers);2 Corinthians 1:20 (in Anointed King Jesus, all the promises are “Yes!”); 7:1 (thepromises which Christian believers have of being called the sons and daughters of God);Galatians 3:14, 26, 17, 18, 18, 21, 22, 29 (eight occurrences in this passage; all withreference to the promise made to Abraham, fulfilled in Anointed King Jesus); 4:23, 28 (Isaac(continued...)232

429 430descendant(s) of his, that he should be inheritor of a world –but rather, through a right-428(...continued)and Christian believers are children according to promise); Ephesians 1:13 (the promisedSet-apart Spirit); 2:12 (non-Jews were at one time strangers to the covenants of promise); 3:6(but they now share in the promise in Anointed King Jesus through the Good News); 6:2 (thecommandment to honor parents is the first commandment with a promise); 1 Timothy 4:8(godliness holds promise both for the present life and for the life to come); 2 Timothy 1:1 (thepromise of life that is in Anointed King Jesus);Hebrews 4:1 (the promise of entering into God’s rest is still open); 6:12 (believersshould become imitators of those who inherit the promises), 15 (Abraham, after long waiting,finally received the promise), 17 (God guaranteed his promise with an oath); 7:6 (Melchizedekblessed those inheriting the promise of God); 8:6 (Jesus and his new covenant give betterpromises than those of the old covenant); 9:15 (the promised eternal inheritance of the newcovenant); 10:36 (through endurance what was promised will be received); 11:9, 9 (the landpromised to Abraham and his descendants), 13, 17 (promises made to Abraham and hisdescendants), 33 (people of faith obtained promises), 39 (still there are promises not yetreceived); 2 Peter 3:4 (sceptics ask, “Where is the promise of his coming?”), 9 (the Lord is notslow about his promise) and 1 John 2:25 (he has promised us long-lasting life)–a total ofsome 52 occurrences.The strange fact is that there really is no word for "promise" in the Hebrew Bible. Thatis why Schniewind and Friedrich state in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament II, p.579, that "This word has no preliminary history in the Old Testament." But their conclusioncan be easily contested, for the Jewish Bible is filled with statements / declarations made byGod concerning what will happen in the future, especially in terms of blessings for his people,that can accurately be described in our modern terminology as “promises.”What we find in the Hebrew Bible is that God "speaks," and announces to his peoplewhat their future holds for them, whether of blessing or disaster--and because it is God's"word," it holds true. When Almighty God says "I will do thus and so," the person who truststhat divine word knows that it will "come true"--simply because God has said it, and God'sword is true.Paul calls this an evpaggeli,a, a “promise"--or, we may understand Paul as affirming, it isa divine "announcement" or "order" to history. Of course it will happen, because God hasannounced it, God has ordered it.429What does Paul mean by "the promise that came to Abraham and his descendants"?There can be little doubt as to the correct answer. Paul has reference to the very "back-bone"of the Genesis story of Abraham and his descendants. They were the recipients of a divineword concerning the future, a promise that carried them forward into the future. It was a divineword that served as a sort of "command to history,” as it described what the future would holdfor Abraham and his descendants, and as it gave him and his family their “marching orders.”The first occurrence of that word is:233(continued...)

429(...continued)"And YHWH said to Abraham, 'You--go from your land, and from your relatives, andfrom your father's house, to the land which I will show you! And I will cause you to become agreat nation; and I will honor you, and I will make your name great. And you, be a blessing!And I will bless those who bless you; and the one who treats you contemptibly, I will curse.And in you, all peoples of the earth will receive blessing!'" (Genesis 12:1-3)There are three specific relationships from which Abraham is commanded by the divineword to separate himself, and they are named in an increasing order of specificity andpainfulness: land, relatives, and father's home. The call of YHWH demands that Abrahamleave the secure, the familiar, the traditional--to go out into an unknown future, trustingYHWH's guidance and provision for his future.In this divine call to separation from the securities of the past and the present, in orderto enter into an unknown future which rests solely on the truth of YHWH's word or declaration,is rooted the biblical motif of the "pilgrim," the "wandering people of God," who have to enduretrials and testings before they reach the divine goal of their pilgrimage.Westermann disagrees with this view, holding that Abraham and his family werealready wandering bedouins, and that the command to go out to a new land would be nothingnew to these people who had never experienced a "sedentary" life-style. He is partially right;but even wandering bedouins have lands and family groupings that they consider their own,and to which they are traditionally associated and accustomed.The emphasis of this divine "Word" to Abraham is not, however, on the command,which calls Abraham to leave his native home, to go, and to be a blessing! Rather, theemphasis is on the divine action that is promised on his behalf. "I will cause you to become agreat nation"; "I will honor you"; "I will make your name great"; "I will be a source of blessingfor you"; "I will curse those who treat you contemptibly"; "In you, all peoples of the earth willreceive blessing!" Yes, Abraham has a task to fulfill; but far more than that, YHWH God setsbefore Abraham what he will do for him. He will make of Abraham and his descendants amighty source of blessing for all the peoples of the earth.This statement is of great importance for our understanding of Biblical Theology.Genesis 1-11 introduces the biblical story with a universal outlook that includes all the earth,and all humanity in its view. There is no mention of Israel, or of the "Jewish People" in theentirety of those first eleven chapters of Genesis. Rather, we are introduced to the "seventynations" in Genesis 10, who represent the totality of the human race, together constituting onefamily, the descendants of Noah and of Adam, all of whom are God's unique creatures, madein the divine image and likeness.When the story reaches Abraham, not the first (see Enoch, in Genesis 5), but thegreatest exemplar of a human being who walks by trust in YHWH's word, Genesis insistsemphatically that Abraham has been called by YHWH for the sake of those seventy nations.YHWH intends to bless all the peoples of the earth through Abraham and his descendants. "Itis like 'a command to history' (Jacob). Abraham is assigned the role of a mediator of blessingin God's saving plan, for 'all the families of the earth.'" (Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, p. 160)(continued...)234

429(...continued)Westermann concludes his study of Genesis 12 with the words, "In the introduction tothe story of Abraham, where God's command to depart is linked with the promise, the[narrator] has succeeded in a striking way in sketching a plan of history: God's universalaction, which he presented in [Genesis 1-11], continues through the action with Israel'sancestors and then with the people of Israel, towards the goal which God has for 'all thefamilies of the earth.'" (Genesis 12-36, p. 158)The nature of that story is not nearly so much about how trusting Abraham and hisdescendants have been, but rather of how graciously YHWH God has dealt with them,blessing them, and using them for his great purpose of grace to all earth's peoples, in spite oftheir obvious weaknesses and failures. The emphasis is clearly not on what Abrahamachieves, but on what YHWH achieves by blessing and guiding and protecting Abraham.It is a total misunderstanding of the biblical story to say that Abraham "earned" or"merited" the divine blessing, or the divine call. Abraham is not the creative agent in this story,but YHWH God, who calls and enables Abraham to play a significant role in the divine plan forhuman history. In fact, the promise comes to Abraham even before he is characterized ashaving trust. Th. C. Vriezen stated:"Yahweh is the alpha and the omega of history. By His miracles He has called thepeople into existence: both Isaac and Jacob are children given by a divine miracle; the peoplewere miraculously preserved (Joseph) and delivered (Moses) in Egypt, and miraculouslyconducted through the desert to the promised land. Yahweh led Israel and brought it to itsdestination notwithstanding the sins of the fathers: the sins even of the patriarch Abraham,the exemplar of the truly believing friend of God, who in his cowardice delivered theancestress of the people into the hands of the Egyptian Pharaoh, and who could not wait forthe fulfillment of God's promises (compare his marriage to Hagar); of Jacob, who, thoughbearer of the promise, walked in sinful human ways [he was a cheat and a deceitful liar!]; ofMoses, who showed great hesitation at the time of his call; and especially of the people, whocontinually rebelled against the will of God."The call, promises and miracles of God dominate this history entirely, while on the partof mankind obstinacy and unbelief are found again and again. In the course of this historyGod's promise to Abraham is reverted to over and over again..." (An Outline of OldTestament Theology, p. 45)What all of this means is that the story of Abraham is primarily the story of a divineword--a word of command, but primarily a word of promise. The meaning of Abraham's life isfound in his response to that divine word through obedient trust in YHWH, who spoke to himconcerning the wondrous future he was bringing to pass.As Kaesemann has noted, the most prominent word in Romans 4:13-25 is just thisword, "promise." Paul has rightly sensed how the divine word of hope for the future is thebasis of Abraham's life-story.235

431 432 433relationship of trust. 4.14 For if those who are rooted in Law (are) inheritors, the trust430This phrase, "inheritor of a world," which is intended to sum up the meaning of YHWH'sword to Abraham, seems strange at first reading. But it is, in fact, the very language used byJews both before and after the time of Paul to describe the universal implications of the divinepromise to Abraham.The Pseudepigraphic writing, Jubilees, which most probably originated in the latesecond century B.C. states:"[Concerning Jacob, Abraham's grandson, it is said,] he will be blessed forever and hisseed will be one which fills all of the earth. If a man is able to count the sand of the earth, thenhis seed will be counted." (Jubilees 19:21)"[Abraham blesses Jacob with words that include the following:] May He strengthenyou and bless you, and may you inherit all of the earth." (Jubilees 22:14b)"[Jacob, in a divine vision, hears the following words:] I am the LORD who createdheaven and earth, and I shall increase you and multiply you very much. And there will bekings from you; they will rule everywhere that the tracks of mankind have been trod. And Ishall give to your seed all of the land under heaven and they will rule in all nations as theyhave desired. And after this all of the earth will be gathered together and they will inherit itforever." (Jubilees 32:18b-19)A later Jewish writing concludes: "So you find that our father Abraham became the heirof this and of the coming world simply by the merit of the faith with which he believed in theLORD, as it is written: 'He believed in the LORD, and he counted it to him for righteousness.'"(Mekilta 40b)It is certainly a fact that the Genesis story contains the divine word to Abraham that hehas a divinely chosen destiny that is universal in extent--"blessing for all the families of theearth." It is this universal destiny of blessing that is meant by Paul when he says thatAbraham should "inherit a world."Moo comments that “This language does not match any promise to Abraham found inthe Old Testament but succinctly summarizes the three key provisions of the promise as itunfolds in Genesis: that Abraham would have an immense number of descendants,embracing ‘many nations’ (Genesis 12:2; 13:16;15:5; 17:4-6, 16-20; 22:17), that he wouldpossess ‘the land’ (Genesis 13:15-17; 15:12-21; 17:8), and that he would be the medium ofblessng to ‘all the peoples of the earth’ (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18)...“Particularly noteworthy is the promise in Genesis 22:17b that Abraham’s seed would‘possess the gate of their enemies.’ Later in the Old Testament, there are indications that thepromise of the land had come to embrace the whole world (compare Isaiah 55:3-5; see alsoSirach 44:21...2 Apocalypse Baruch 14:13; 51:3). Against this background–to which we canadd Jesus’ beatitude, ‘Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth’–Paul probablyrefers generally to all that God promised his people.” (P. 274)236

431Earlier, in our comments on Romans 4:4, we have described Paul's general observationconcerning human experience with reference to "labor-contracts." Under such contractedagreements, wages that are paid to the laborer are not in any way considered as a "gift," or asan expression of the "grace" of the employer. Paul insists that Abraham's (and our)relationship with God is not based at all on a "labor-contract" model, but rather, on a model of"gift" and "gracious favor,” in which the person involved responds in thankful, obedient trust toa divine call and blessing, which has been neither earned nor merited.Here, Paul envisions a similar matter in human experience; it has to do with religiouscodes of law, and human fulfillment of those codes. There is a widely held religious view ofhumanity's relationship with God as being one of "legalism." Under such an arrangement,God announces his code of laws, with all of the divine "rules" for human behavior. Humanbeings respond to that legal code by "keeping the rules," by obeying the manifold laws. If theysuccessfully fulfill the divine code of laws, they are granted divine blessing, which they have"merited" by their performance. If they fail to obey the divinely given code of laws, they will notbe given the divine blessing, but will instead be subjected to divine punishment for their failurein performance.Under this legalistic way of envisioning religion, it was thought that on "Judgment Day,"each individual would be called into the divine court-room, and there have all deeds weighedin the balances. If the good deeds outweighed the bad deeds, the person would be saved,and allowed to enter into the future City of Jerusalem. If the bad deeds outweighed the gooddeeds, that person would be thrown into the Valley of Hinnom (meaning, certain destruction).Everything hinges on obedience to laws, to divinely given rules.This is quite different from another way of viewing humanity's relationship with God.This alternative view (which Paul holds) sees even the best, most religious of human beingsas weak and needy, and as incapable of fully obeying divinely-given codes of law--andtherefore as being deserving of divine wrath rather than as deserving of divine declarations /promises, if all that counts is obedience to rules.But Paul holds that the very nature of God is that of unfailing love and gracefulforgiveness of the undeserving, and that what human beings cannot possibly accomplish forthemselves by their good deeds, or by their observance of divinely given codes of law, such asthe Ten Commandments, or the 613 commandments found by legalistic Jews in the JewishBible, God himself has accomplished in his continual forgiveness throughout Jewish history,and which has now been wondrously fulfilled and affirmed in the gracious gift of his own Son,who offered up himself as an eternal sacrifice for human sinfulness.The one is a religion of legalism, based primarily on human performance rather than ontrust; the other is a religion of grace, based totally on divine love and goodness, which impartsstrength to fulfill the divine will through obedient trust. The one rejoices in the observance ofrules and codes of law, and leads to boasting in human ability; the other rejoices in graciousfavor and forgiveness of the unworthy, of those who have failed in their performance, andleads to humility before God, and boasting in the goodness of God. The one is based onworks of obedience, and leads inevitably to failure, because of human weakness and inability237(continued...)

434 435has been made worthless, and the promise has been made ineffective. 4.15 For the Law431(...continued)to fulfill the Law; the other is based on trust in divine goodness and gracious favor, and leadsto the joyful fulfilment of the divine teaching, out of thankfulness for mercy received.432Moo comments on verse 14 that “Paul now explains (‘for’) why the promise cannot beattained ‘through the law’: if those who are of the law were heirs, faith would be emptied andthe promise would be nullified.” (Pp. 274-75)433New Revised Standard has “If it is the adherents of the law”; New International andNew Jerusalem have “For if those who live by (the) law.” Moo comments that the phrase‘Those who are out of the law’ is a literal and rather awkward translation of a phrase thatappears to mean something like ‘those who are basing their hope for the inheritance on thelaw.” (P. 275)434If right relationship with God is achieved by human performance of divinely-given codesof law, then the statement that Abraham was placed in right-relationship with God throughtrust is inadequate and mistaken. How can a sinful individual be in right-relationship with Godthrough trust--if the basis for right-relationship is a life-long fulfillment of rules and laws?435Paul is absolutely right. If the divine word for the future, concerning Abraham and hisseed inheriting a world, and thereby the families of the earth receiving divine blessing, hadbeen based on the correct performance of a divinely-given code of laws--specifically the Lawand teachings given by Moses--then such a future would never have come to be--becauseAbraham himself failed in significant ways (again we refer to his lying about Sarah to Pharaohand Abimelech, in order to cause them to take Sarah as their wife, and in order to secure hisown safety and wealth). And if Abraham did not perfectly fulfill every divine requirement, howmuch less have his descendants--whose failures to fulfill the Mosaic legislation wereresponsible for their Assyrian (723 / 22 B.C.) and Babylonian (587 / 86 B.C.) captivities, andare drawn large in the writings of the great Spokespersons of Israel!The divine promise has been given--no doubt. But if its fulfillment is predicated onAbraham's, and Israel's performance in terms of all the divinely-given rules contained in theMosaic legislation, the promise has certainly become ineffective. There might as well be nopromise, if these are the conditions for its fulfillment. Moo comments concerning “the inherentimpossibility of any person adhering to the law to the extent necessary to gain the inheritance,”that “Paul is arguing: ‘If it is the case that the inheritance is to be based on adherence to thelaw, then there will be no heirs, because no fallen human being can adequately adhere to thelaw–and that means that faith is exercised in vain and the promise will never be fulfilled.” (P.275)Father Abraham was no perfect saint (even though oftentimes so described in laterJudaism), and Israel, in spite of her claim to be able to fulfill all that YHWH commands, hasnever lived up to that proud claim, but has constantly denied its truth by her actions (seeespecially Exodus 32-34).238

436 437 438produces wrath; so then where there is no Law, neither is there transgression.436What Paul means is that divinely-given laws or teachings serve to point out our humanweakness and constant missings-of-the-mark, and therefore the necessity of divine judgment--if we are to be judged solely on the basis of our performance in the light of these highstandards. Paul could point to both Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the entirety of theJewish Bible, as a witness to the fact that the divine Law and Teaching had far too oftenresulted in Israel's hardening of its heart, and the coming of divine wrath upon both theNorthern Kingdom of Israel, and then the Southern Kingdom of Judah as well. This theme ofthe wrath of God being revealed against all ungodliness--including Jews as well as non-Jews,has been one of the major themes of Romans 1-3. As Moo notes, Paul is substantiating theconclusion drawn in verse 14 by showing “...what the law does–produces wrath–as opposedto what it cannot do–secure the inheritance.” (P. 276)437The conjunction de, “then,” is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Minuscules 81, 104, 945, 1506, a few other Greekmanuscripts and the Harclean Syriac margin.It is changed to the conjunction ga,r, “for,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Bezae, F, G,Psi, Minuscules 1739, 1881, the “Majority Text” and the Syriac tradition.Whichever conjunction is read, the meaning or Romans is the same.438It should be obvious that if Abraham had never been given the Mosaic legislation (whichof course he hadn’t), he could not be held responsible for transgressing that legislation.Abraham lived hundreds of years before the birth of Moses, or the giving of the Torah onMount Sinai. How foolish it is, then, to claim that Abraham's right-relationship with God camethrough fulfillment of that divine Law and teaching.Are we to conclude from this that it was impossible for Abraham to miss-the-mark, or beguilty of transgression? No--because even though he did not have the Mosaic legislation,Abraham along with all people, prior to the coming of Moses, was still responsible for thefulfillment of his God-given responsibilities and directions. According to Paul, all humanity hasa God-given conscience, that teaches them right and wrong. Abraham certainly had that, andaccording to Genesis, much more--a continuing revelation from God of the way in which heshould walk.As Moo notes, “Paul, then, is not claiming that there is no ‘sin’ where there is no law,but, in almost a ‘truism,’ that there is no deliberate disobedience of positive commands wherethere is no positive command to disobey. As Calvin puts it: ‘He who is not instructed by thewritten law, when he sins, is not guilty of so great a transgression as he is who knowinglybreaks and transgresses the law of God’...Before and outside the Mosaic law wrath certainlyexists, for all people, being sinners, stand under God’s sentence of condemnation (1:18). Butthe Mosaic law ‘produces’ even more wrath; rather than rescuing people from the sentence ofcondemnation, it confirms their condemnation. For by stating clearly, and in great detail,exactly what God requires of people, the law renders people even more accountable to Godthan they were without the law.” (P. 277)239

439 440 4414.16 For this reason (it is) rooted in trust, in order that (it might be) according togracious favor442–so that the promise might be insured to all the descendant(s), not to thoserooted in the Law only, but rather also to the one rooted in Abraham's trust--who is father of all443of us, 4.17 just as it has been written that "A father of many nations I have established444 445 446 447you." (It was) before God, in whom he trusted, the one who makes the dead alive,439Moo comments on verse 16 that “In verses 14-15 Paul has elaborated the negativepoint in verse 13: the inheritance comes ‘not through the law.’ Now Paul turns to its positiveantithesis: the inheritance is given ‘through the righteousness of faith.’” (P. 277)440Moo holds that this phrase, “for this reason,” looks forward to the purpose clause “inorder that it (that is, the promised inheritance) might be according to grace.” (P. 277) Weagree.441The dative singular feminine relative pronoun h-|, “by which,” is interpolated into the text atthis point by Alexandrinus, Minuscule 1505 and few other Greek manuscripts.This interpolation does not change the meaning of Romans, but clarifies its sense.442That is, since the Mosaic legislation had not been given, and since Abraham was notrelated to YHWH God in terms of his successful performance of the Law of Moses, he musthave been related in some different way. What is that way? It is the way of trustingobedience, as described in Genesis 15:6--Abraham placed trust in the divine word, obeyingits commands, and gladly receiving its promises as gifts of God's gracious favor–not assomething that God owed Abraham because of his record of trust or of perfect obedience.Moo comments that the blessing would not have come to pass “if it had depended onhuman ‘works’ or obedience to the law; but because faith grasps the absolutely sure promiseof God, a promise that he has determined freely to give, the inheritance God has promisedcan become a reality, and a reality for anyone who believes.” (P. 278)443Moo comments that “Paul’s ‘universalism’ is a ‘qualified’ universalism that gives theGentiles the same opportunity as Jews to respond to the gospel and to become part of thepeople whom God is calling out of the world in the last days...Paul has forcefully stated thatthe true descendants of Abraham are those who believe (verses 11-12)...” (P. 278)444 Here Paul is quoting Genesis 17:5 from its Greek translation, pate,ra pollw/n evqnw/nte,qeika, se, “a father of many nations I have place you, translating the Hebrew !Amïh]-ba;^yTi(t;n> ~yIßAG;, “a father of an abundance of nations I gave you.”Paul's point is that Abraham was divinely promised that he would become the father of"many nations" at the very time he was childless. If everyone who trusts God, and thankfullyaccepts his free gifts in loving obedience to his direction, is a child of Abraham--then it isobviously true that this divine word has come to pass. There is no nation upon earth that240(continued...)

448 449and who calls the things that are not existing as existing. 4.18 Who against hope, upon444(...continued)cannot respond to God in this way. Both the Jewish Nation, the Islamic nations, and followersof Jesus all across the world, can claim Abraham as their spiritual "father."But if only those who have received the Mosaic legislation (the Nation of Israel) are trulyrelated to God, then such a relationship is a "Jewish" matter, not a universal matter, such as itis if trusting obedience to God is its basis.445It is clear from Genesis that Abraham lived out his life in the presence of God; hisobedience, hope, and plans for the future were all centered in YHWH’s word of command andpromise concerning the future. The immediacy of this personal inter-relationship with Godwas determinative for Abraham's. There was no code of laws, or constant concern forfulfillment of a long list of rules that stood between Abraham and God. It was simply arelationship of trusting obedience.446We have divided Paul's sentence into two parts. Paul's language here is difficult totranslate, and a change in thought is obvious, as reflected in our translation.447What does Paul mean by his description of God as "the one who makes the dead alive"?In verse 19 Paul will state that Abraham's own body was "already dead"--at least as far asbeing able to give birth to a child, and that the womb of Sarah was "dead." But the God inwhom Abraham placed his trust could enable that elderly couple to give birth to Isaac--something completely impossible from the standpoint of human capabilities.While this is the kind of "making the dead live" that is in the immediate context of hisstatement, there can be little doubt that Paul intends to remind the reader of the resurrectionof Jesus from among the dead, and how believers in Anointed One, Jesus can have hope forresurrection from the dead, even though such a thing seems “impossible.”448What does Paul mean by this phrase, when he describes God as the one who "calls thethings that are not existing as existing"? Does he mean that God has created the universe"out of nothing"? Compare Hebrews 11:3, which states that "By faith we understand theworlds [or ‘ages’] to have been prepared by God's word, so that the things that are seen havecome into being out of things not appearing." Perhaps Paul means no more than that Godspeaks of "many nations" that will one day come from Abraham, when as yet he doesn't evenhave one child.The two phrases combined, "The one who makes the dead alive, and who calls thethings that are not existing as existing," mean that Abraham stood before the God ofmiraculous, supernatural power, who, Abraham trusted, was able to give life to the dead, andcall the non-existent into being. Moo comments that “God can promise Abraham–andAbraham can believe–that certain things not now existing will exist because God is the Godwho ‘gives life to the dead and calls those things that are not as though they were.’” (P. 280)Is this the kind of God we believe in? Or is our God the victim of his own laws--i.e., notable to do anything beyond the "natural," incapable of performing the miraculous? For many241(continued...)

450hope, trusted, so that he became a "father of many nations," according to what had been448(...continued)of us, this is so. In the words of J. B. Phillips, "Our God is too small." Our God is not the Godof Abraham.449The phrase parV evlpi,da, can mean either "...against hope..." or "...beyond hope..." IfPaul means "beyond hope," then his point is that "Abraham believed God at a time when itwas no longer a human possibility for him to go on hoping--human hope's utmost limit hadalready been reached and passed; and, so far as human possibility was concerned, he hadgiven up hoping." (Cranfield, p. 245)Moo comments that “The emphasis in verse 18 falls on the paradoxical description ofAbraham’s faith as ‘against hope, on the basis of hope.’ No better explanation of the phrasecan be found than Chrysostom’s: ‘It was against man’s hope, in hope which is of God.’ AsPaul will explain in verse 19, Abraham had every reason, from a human point of view, to giveup the attempt to produce a child through Sarah. His faith flew in the face of that hope whichis founded on the evidence of reason and common sense...Yet his faith was firmly based onthe hope that springs from the promise of God...“Abraham’s faith is not described as a ‘leap into the dark,’ a completely baseless,almost irrational ‘decision’–as Christian faith is pictured by some ‘existentialist’ theologians–butas a ‘leap’ from the evidence of his senses into the security of God’s word and promise.” (Pp.282-83)Evidently what Paul means is that Abraham went on hoping even when he knew thathis hope was contrary to all human expectation. "The point will then be that Abraham'sbelieving [‘against hope’] is a defiance of all human calculations..." (Cranfield, pp. 245-46)450The second part of the phrase, evpV evlpi,di "upon hope," is somewhat ambiguous. DoesPaul mean "on the basis of hope," i.e., the hope that came because of the divine promiseconcerning the future--even though that future was completely against or beyond all humanexpectation or calculation?However we may understand the entire phrase, "...Against [or 'beyond'] hope, uponhope, he trusted," it is obvious that Paul means there was a kind of conflict or tension withinAbraham's understanding. He knew that according to all human calculations, what God saidwas "against hope," or at least "beyond hope." Still, he hoped, even in the face of theseemingly impossible, trusting that the divine promise would come true in spite of all denialsand seeming impossibilities.This same kind of tension-filled conflict characterizes the true life of trust in God--as wesee all human possibilities fade, and are forced to cast ourselves on God alone as the basisfor our hope. Perhaps the best example of this is when believers pray earnestly for physicalhealing of their loved ones, and then see the loved ones die. Our hope for resurrection of ourdead loved ones is certainly "beyond hope," at least as far as human possibilities areconcerned. But still we hope, basing that hope on our trust in God, who makes the dead alive--and who can create new, resurrected, "spiritual bodies" out of dust or ashes.242

451 452 453said, "In this way shall your descendant(s) be." 4.19 And not growing weak in the trust,451The phrase w`j oi` avste,rej tou/ ouvranou/ kai. to. av,mmon th/j qala,sshj, “like the stars ofthe heaven and the sand of the sea,” is interpolated into the text at this point by F, G and theOld Latin Manuscript a.This phrase has been taken (but not exactly) from the Greek translation, Genesis22:17, which reads w`j tou.j avste,raj tou/ ouvranou/ kai. w`j th.n a;mmon th.n para. to. cei/lojth/j qala,sshj. The interpolation does not change the meaning of Romans, but simplyexpands on Paul’s statement.The words ou[twj e;stai to. spe,rma sou, "...In this way will be the descendant(s) ofyours," are an exact quotation of the Greek text of Genesis 15:5b, ou[twj e;stai to.spe,rma sou, “in this way will be the descendant(s) of yours,” which is a very accuratetranslation of the Hebrew. "In this way" means "as numerous as" the stars in the heavens.Sometimes it is claimed that there is no such thing as "predictive prophecy"--that inactuality all so-called "predictions of the future" in the Bible were written after the events hadalready occurred, and were inserted into an earlier time by a later writer who knew what hadhappened, "after the event."But here is a predictive prophecy that cannot be explained away in this manner. At thelatest dating that can be given to this ancient story, the descendants of Abraham were at themost a tiny nation, with little promise for the future. But they held on to this ancient promise ashaving come from their God--that they would become a great nation, and that through them allthe families of the earth would receive divine blessing. Has that prediction come to pass?Through Abraham's descendants, the knowledge of God has come to the Jewishpeople, and has been taken throughout the world. Especially through the greatest descendantof Abraham, Jesus of Nazareth, the knowledge of God has been sent forth to "all the nations,"and today the Good News of God is proclaimed in over 2,000 languages, all across planetearth. These descendants of Abraham have gone into almost every nation, country, and townin all the world, healing the sick, teaching the ignorant, bringing the lost and dying into theworship and hope and security that comes with the knowledge of God. There is no honestway to deny the reality of this "predictive prophecy.”But for Abraham, it was only a hope--a hope that went against all human expectationsand possibilities. Nonetheless, he hoped--against hope, upon hope in God--because heplaced trust in the divine word that had come to him.452Moo comments that “Verses 19-20 detail the way in which Abraham believed ‘againsthope on the basis of hope’...’He did not weaken in faith when he observed his own body.’ The‘against hope’ aspect of Abraham’s faith is accentuated, as Paul stresses that Abrahamcontinued to believe God’s promise to him even as he observed the physical condition thatrendered the fulfillment of that promise so unlikely.243(continued...)

454 455he considered the body of himself, [already] having become dead, being some hundred452(...continued)“This physical evidence would certainly have given Abraham reason to doubt that hewould produce offspring through Sarah. His own body was ‘already dead,’ in the sense thathe was past the age when procreation was likely to occur–he was ‘about a hundred years old’(compare also Hebrews 11:12)...“Paul’s indication that Abraham was past the age of procreation creates difficulties forthe notice in Genesis 25:1-2 that Abraham later bore six sons to another wife, Keturah.Augustine, noting the difficulty, suggested that only Sarah’s barrenness stood in the way ofAbraham’s producing a child (City of God 16.28), but both this verse and Hebrews 11:12 areclear in attributing physical disability to Abraham as well as Sarah. The best solution is toassume that the procreative power granted by God to Abraham was not confined to the birthof Isaac alone, but remained with him afterward also (so, Bengel; Calvin).” (Pp. 283-84)The common assumption of biblical students is that the stories in Genesis are arrangedin chronological order, but this may well not be the case. If it is not, the story of Abraham andKeturah may be concerned with one of Abraham’s concubines at an earlier time in his life, asthe Jewish commentator, Nahum Sarna thinks is the case, stating that "Over forty years earlierthe patriarch had judged himself to be too old to sire children; it is hardly likely that he had sixsons after the age of one hundred and forty. Hence, the present report does not relate to atime subsequent to Sarah's death and Isaac's marriage, but to many years before. That iswhy verse 6, like 1 Chronicles 1:32, refers to Keturah as a 'concubine,' not a wife." (TheJewish Publication Society Torah Commentary, Genesis, P. 172)453The preposition evn, “in” is interpolated into the text at this point by the first writer ofBezae; and by F and G.The interpolation makes no difference for the meaning of Romans, because the dativearticle and noun following it imply the meaning “in.”454The negative ouv, “not,” is interpolated into the text at this point by Bezae, F, G, Psi,Minuscules 33, 1881, the “Majority Text,” a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, theClementine Vulgate, the Harclean Syriac, Methodius of Olympus (died after 250 A.D.) andAmbrosiaster (366-384 A.D.).It is not read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, Psi,Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscript m, the Stuttgartiensis Vulgate,the Peshitta Syriac nor the Coptic tradition.This interpolation changes the meaning of Romans. Instead of stating that Abrahamconsidered the deadness of his own body, it says that he did not consider it. Even so, thishardly changes the overall meaning of Paul’s statement. Whether or not he considered thedeadness of his own body, he still hoped for the fulfilment of the divine promise.455The adverb hv ,dh is omitted by F, G and the entire Latin tradition. See footnote 439.244(continued...)

456years old; and the deadness of the womb of Sarah. 4.20 But he did not waver in the lack of457 458trust in the promise of the God, but rather was made strong in the trust, giving glorious455(...continued)Because of this textual evidence, the adverb has been placed within brackets in the textthof Nestle-Aland, 27 edition, indicating uncertainty as to whether or not it was in the originaltext. We do not think this is sufficient textual evidence to cause the word to be placed withinbrackets, but think that it should be considered original.456Moo comments that “...Standing in the way of the fulfillment of the promise was not onlyAbraham’s advanced age but the ‘deadness,’ the ‘barrenness,’ of Sarah, the woman predictedto be the mother of the child through whom Abraham’s ‘seed’ would come. Since the word‘deadness’ is not the normal word for a woman’s barrenness, Paul has deliberately chosen hislanguage to make clear that Abraham’s faith with respect to this promise was specifically faithin the ‘God who gives life to the dead’ (verse 17b). In another way, also, our faith is to be likeAbraham’s, as Calvin eloquently notes:“‘Let us also remember, that the condition of us all is the same with that of Abraham.All things around us are in opposition to the promises of God: He promises immortality: weare surrounded with mortality and corruption: He declares that he counts us just; we arecovered with sins: He testifies that He is propitious and kind to us; outward judgments threatenHis wrath. What then is to be done? We must with closed eyes pass by ourselves and allthings connected with us, that nothing may hinder or prevent us from believing that God istrue.’” (P. 284)457Moo comments that “When Paul says that Abraham did not ‘doubt...because of unbelief,’he means not that Abraham never had momentary hesitations, but that he avoided a deepseatedand permanent attitude of distrust and inconsistency in relationship to God and hispromises. Unlike the ‘double-souled’ person who displays a deeply rooted division in hisattitude toward God (James 1:6-8), Abraham maintained a single-minded trust in thefulfillment of God’s promise...“Paul’s insistence that Abraham ‘did not waver because of unbelief’ in the face of God’spromise that he would foster offspring seems to be unjustified in light of Genesis 17:17, whichsays that Abraham, when told that Sarah would bear him a son, ‘fell on his face and laughed,and said in his heart, ‘Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah,who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” The apparent conflict may be resolved in three mainways. (1) The reaction of Abraham in Genesis 17:17 may be understood as an ‘expressionof wonder’ at the promise rather than a reaction of disbelief...(2) We might confine Paul’scomment to the situation a described in Genesis 15...(3) Paul is not denying the presence ofsome degree of doubt in Abraham’s faith (for, after all, he was a sinful human) but is focusingon the heart attitude of Abraham towards God’s promise.” (P. 285)Terrence Fretheim comments that “While Abraham responds by falling on his face inobeisance in 17:3, here he falls on his face in laughter. His questions suggest that thislaughter expresses incredulity (contrast 15:6), or possibly bewilderment.” (The NewInterpreter’s Bible, Volume 1, p. 459) Or, we might further suggest, the laughter may245(continued...)

457(...continued)express joyful shock and wonder at such an unbelievably great promise in spite of humanindications of impossibility.Gordon Wenham comments that "The promises to Sarah are abruptly, even rudely,interrupted...But this break gives a chance for the promises to be reiterated, even moreemphatically in what follows. And as Abraham voices his incredulity, this allows the reader'sown doubts to be raised as well." (Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 2, p. 25)There is no divine reprimand of Abraham for this seemingly irreverent response, andthe promise is restated. Not only in Abraham depicted as laughing at this promise, in 18:12,13, 15, 15, Sarah, like Abraham, laughs at the divine promise, then lies to YHWH; she isimmediately reproved by YHWH who knows she has laughed.The Jewish anthology of Rabbinic commentators on Genesis, Bereishis 2, p. 577,discusses this matter of laughter, concluding that it implies that he laughed jubilantly. “TheTargum Onkelos renders...'and he rejoiced'...Abraham had faith and 'rejoiced' while Sarah'sneered' [Genesis 18:12]; hence God was angry with Sarah but not with Abraham (Rashi)."Claus Westermann comments that "Abraham's laughter in 17:17a has something of thebizarre about it in immediate confrontation with God who is making a marvelous promise tohim. But that is precisely [the author’s] intention; this is shown in verse 19 when God, inresponding, does not pursue it. God has promised to act; he continues along his majesticway, which is 'above all understanding' beyond Abraham's laughter and doubt. The name ofthe child, which is a play on Abraham's laughter [or Sarah's?], will attest this marvelous actionof God." (Genesis 12-36, p. 268) The biblical text does not say Abraham “doubted,” or was“incredulous.” It only states that Abraham laughed, and questioned the divine promise, muchas most believers in every age must laugh in wonder at the great promises of God that defyhuman logic or possibility.458Paul makes two statements concerning Abraham's trust--that he did not grow weak intrust (verse 19), and that he did not waver in lack of trust (verse 20). Overall, we can agreewith Paul, if he is speaking of the total outcome of Abraham's life, and of the way that thisdivine word continued to guide and motivate Abraham throughout the long course of his life.However, the story of Abraham / Abraham in Genesis does not give the impression thathe was always trusting, always calm, never doubting, never questioning, never growing weakor wavering in his trust. Rather, Abraham / Abraham is pictured in Genesis as having thesame kind of doubts and questions that many of us experience in our pilgrimage. Considerthe following text from Genesis 15:1-3:"...YHWH's Word came to Abraham in (the) vision, saying, 'You will not be afraid,Abraham! I (am) your Shield, your Pay--exceedingly great!' And Abraham said, 'My LordYHWH, what will you give to me? And I, (I am) one who passes on childless! And a son ofslaves (makes up) my household! It is Damascus--Eliezer!' And Abraham said, 'See--to meyou have not given a descendant; and look--a son of my household (slaves) is about to inheritme!'"(continued...)246

458(...continued)This passage shows clearly how Abraham responded to the divine word with deephonesty and refreshing openness. There is no cheap piety, no mouthing of religioussentiments, as Abraham addresses God. Von Rad comments that "Abraham demursresignedly. His despondent skepticism in the face of the assurance of divine protection andthe exceptionally great divine gift borders almost on blasphemy..." (Genesis, p. 183)Yes, any perceptive commentary on this story will have to use words like these--"despondent skepticism, that borders almost on blasphemy”–far from “never wavering.”The narrative goes on to tell how Abraham trusted YHWH, and how YHWH consideredit a "right-relationship" in Abraham (15:6). But then, immediately afterwards, in 15:8, we aretold how Abraham said, "My Lord YHWH, by what (sign) shall I know that I will inherit it?"(15:8)There is a refreshing, almost sacrilegious honesty and bluntness in Abraham'sresponse to YHWH's promise. This "person of trust," who places his confidence in YHWH,still is human enough to ask for a sign--for something by which he may be sure that YHWH'sultimate promise will come true.We easily ask, "Well, doesn't Abraham trust in YHWH's promise?" Yes, he does–butnevertheless, Abraham is pictured by the biblical text as honestly expressing his puzzlementand concerns to God, and as refusing to make pretense or use pious language in his addressto God.In the response that follows Abraham's request for a sign, he is given a disturbingrevelation. The divine promise will not fail, but the road to its fulfillment will be a much longer,much more indirect route than would have been expected: a road through 400 years ofterrible, harsh suffering of enslavement and oppression, through which Abraham'sdescendants must walk. We are reminded of the historian's dictum, "The mills of God grindslowly, but they grind exceeding fine." The divine purpose is pictured as arching over thecenturies, embracing far more than one life-time could experience, including entire nations andpeoples within its plan. During those 400 years in Egyptian slavery and oppression, therewould be many an opportunity for wondering, for questioning, for puzzling over whether or notthe divine promise was true.Genesis 16 tells how Abraham's wife Sarah expressed disappointment in her failure toproduce offspring for Abraham, and so suggested a plan for fulfilling the divine promise ontheir own--a suggestion which Abraham was quickly willing to accept:"...Sarah, Abraham's wife, did not give birth for him; and she had a female slave, anEgyptian, and her name (was) Hagar. And Sarah spoke to Abraham, 'Look now--YHWH hashindered me from giving birth; come now to my female slave--perhaps I will be built (up) out ofher.' And Abraham listened to Sarah's voice." (Genesis 16:1-2)We know the remainder of that story--how Abraham gave birth to a son by the name ofIshmael through Hagar, and how Sarah became jealous of Hagar, and harshly sent her away(continued...)247

458(...continued)to die in the desert--where Hagar and her son's life were saved only by divine intervention.Is this the picture of people who wait patiently for the fulfillment of the divine promise?Or is it not rather the picture of those who, discouraged with the fulfillment of the divinepromise, seek to "help out" the divine plan, substituting their own misguided human actions fordivine provisions?In Genesis 17:1-16, where Abram’s name is changed to Abraham, and Sarai’s toSarah, there is a lengthy repetition of all the divine declarations / promises made to Abraham,including the covenant-sign of circumcision, along with a renewed promise that Sarah wouldbear a son for Abraham, from whom would come nations and kings.Verses 17-18 state: "...Abraham fell upon his face, and he laughed; and he said in hisheart, 'Shall (a son) be born to a one hundred year (old) man? And if Sarah--shall a ninetyyear (old) woman give birth?' And Abraham said to the God, 'If only Ishmael could live in yourpresence!'"What does this tell us about this great biblical exemplar of trust? We expect Abrahamto fall upon his face before God, uttering pious words of thanksgiving and praise. But just theopposite occurs: Abraham laughs at God's promise, saying in his heart that such anoccurrence is impossible, and suggesting an alternative means of fulfilling the divine promise.This led Skinner to describe this as "...A strange mixture of reverence and incredulity."(Genesis, p. 295) No, Genesis certainly does not picture the person of trust as being"credulous," "willing to believe anything and everything." Rather, the picture is that of a veryhuman honesty and frankness that is refreshing. God, in response to Abraham's laughter andincredulity, instead of scolding or punishing him for his suggestion, simply says "No"--and thenrepeats the divine promise.In Genesis 18 there is the strange but intriguing story of a divine theophany toAbraham--in the form of three "men" who visited him at his tent near the oaks of Mamre. Thestory reveals that YHWH God was present in those men, revealing to Abraham the divine planto destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, where Abraham's nephew Lot lived.When these three men revealed to Abraham the soon-coming birth of a son, and wereoverheard by Sarah, the story tells us how Sarah, like Abraham before her, also laughed:"And Sarah is listening (at the) door of the tent...And Sarah laughed inside herself, saying,'After I am worn out, has (sexual) pleasure (again) become mine? And my lord is an oldman!'" (Genesis 18:10b, 12)Once again there is a marked absence of pious language; instead, there is a starkrealism and even cynical questioning of the divine promise, based on good reason. It is a farcry from pious "wish-projection"! The Jewish commentator Speiser has stated that "Sarah ispictured as 'down-to-earth to a fault, with her curiosity, her impulsiveness, and her feebleattempt at deception.'" (Genesis, p. 131)248(continued...)

459 460radiance to the God; 4.21 and having been fully convinced that what he had promised, he458(...continued)Bowie comments, "To have a general pious belief in God's existence was one thing; totrust that his power and grace could come directly into her life with a wonderful blessing wasanother [especially in a way so contrary to all human reason and expectation]. Why shouldshe be simple-minded enough to believe that?" (The Interpreter’s Bible, I, p. 619) Indeed,Sarah's attitude is easily understandable, and quite often imitated in our own lives.When the divine intention to destroy the cities of the plain was made known toAbraham, Abraham argued with God, seeking to get God to relent from the divine judgment(Genesis 18:22-33). In this way, the biblical picture of the "person of trust" is of one whobrings his highest feelings and longings, and expresses them openly and honestly to God,refusing to simply accept the divine verdict without any questioning.There is of course much more to the story of Abraham, the person of trust, than this.But we have seen enough to know that what the Bible means by "trust" is a far cry from anunquestioning acceptance of the divine promise. The person of trust is pictured in Genesis ascompletely human, honestly questioning, laughing at what seems incredulous, always openand blunt with God in expressing his true feelings and puzzlement and alternative suggestions.This is the Abraham whom Paul describes as "never wavering" and "never growing weak" inhis trust.Is Paul, then, wrong in his evaluation of the trust of Abraham? We might ask just aswell, was Jesus not a person of trust because of his agonizing questions in the Garden ofGethsemane, or his cry upon the Roman post, "My God, my God, why have you forsakenme?"Perhaps the problem is that we have a non-biblical understanding of trust, and of whatit means to "walk with God." If we ask, "Did Abraham ever quit walking with God?" Theanswer is obvious--"No, he never quit walking with God." Again, "Did Abraham ever turn hislife away from the divine promise, to build his life upon something else?" And the answeragain is, "No--he kept in touch with God; he lived out his long life-time in constant dialoguewith God--even though on occasion he was severely tempted to find some human way to fulfillthe promise himself."When we ask, whether Abraham was always pious, never expressing his innermostfeelings and puzzlement, the answer which we must give is, no, he seems very earthy, and heexpresses the same kind of questioning and troubled feelings that we ourselves experience attimes in our own lives. But Abraham never turned back, never ceased building his life uponobedience to that divine promise that had come to him with its demand and seeminglyunbelievable promise for the future.459Moo comments that “It was Abraham’s faith itself that grew stronger. In what way...? Inthe sense that anything gains strength in meeting and overcoming opposition–muscles whenweights are raised; holiness when temptation is successfully resisted. So Abraham’s faithgained strength from its victory over the hindrance created by the conflict between God’spromise and the physical evidence. And in this strengthening of his faith, Abraham gave(continued...)249

461 462 463is able also to accomplish. 4.22 Wherefore [also] "It was considered in him for a right-459(...continued)‘glory’ to God.’ In his faithful response to God’s word, Abraham therefore accomplished whatthe idolaters of 1:21 failed to do.” (Pp. 285-86)460The conjunction kai, is omitted by F, G and the entire Latin tradition. See footnote 437.thThis is the same textual evidence that has caused Nestle-Aland 27 edition to placethe adverb “already” within brackets in the text, but this has not happened here–a procedurewhich we consider arbitrary and inconsistent. We think both of these words should beconsidered a part of the original text.461What is Paul referring to in verses 20-21, when he says that Abraham "...Did not waverin lack of trust concerning the promise of God, but rather was made strong in trust, givingglorious radiance to God; and having been fully convinced that what he had promised, he isable also to accomplish"? Moo answers that “It is Abraham’s conviction that God is fully ableto do whatever he promised that enabled his faith to overcome the obstacle of the tangibleand visible ‘facts.’” (P. 286)The reader of Genesis can easily conclude that what Paul refers to is a processthrough which Abraham went--his long pilgrimage--during which his trust was tested, and triedin many ways, and as a result of which, he gradually became stronger and stronger in thattrust, until Genesis 22 can picture Abraham as obeying the incredibly difficult command totake his beloved son of promise--Isaac--and offer him up as a sacrifice to YHWH God. Theresoluteness of Abraham in the picture painted in Genesis 22 is unmistakable--by this time inhis long life Abraham had truly "been made strong in trust," and rather than questioning ordoubting the divine word, quickly obeyed its command--and in this way, "gave gloriousradiance to God."That is, he was no longer fearful or hesitant to act on the divine word, trusting YHWH toprovide even there, on that mountain of sacrifice--to which he gave the name, "YHWH WillProvide.”At an earlier time, Abraham had sought to help enable the divine promise to come topass, following human alternatives (taking Hagar as his wife, bearing Ishmael), laughing at thethought that two old people long past the age of child-bearing could have a child. But inGenesis 22 all of that former weakness and wavering has been replaced by firmness, bywillingness to trust YHWH God whatever the cost. The result of his life-long pilgrimage anddialogue with YHWH God in response to the divine word was that Abraham had truly been"made strong in trust.”Is Paul right in his evaluation of Abraham's life? His entire life, as narrated in Genesis,was a life-time of responding to, and questioning, and wondering about that great divinepromise that had come to him, and initiated his pilgrimage. That process of being shaped andmolded by the divine word, and by the experiences that flowed from that word, never failed tobe true for Abraham. But his pilgrimage was also a time of great testing, and constant growth.It is only in the light of Abraham's life as a whole, with chapter 22 included, that Paul's view of(continued...)250

464relationship."465 466 4674.23 Now it was not written for him alone that "It was considered in him," 4.24461(...continued)the constancy of Abraham's trust can be considered accurate. If it is understood to mean thatAbraham never once questioned, or puzzled, or argued with God, it is simply untrue to theGenesis story.462Moo comments that “‘Wherefore’ indicates that this verse draws a consequence orconclusion from the preceding verses...With a last reference to Genesis 15:6, Paul rounds offthe discussion of that verse which has been the constant touchstone since verse 3. Now, in asense, Paul’s ‘historical’ exposition is ended, and he can turn in application to his Christianreaders.” (P. 286)463The conjunction kai, is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, acorrector of Bezae, Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881, the “Majority Text,” a majority of the OldLatin witnesses and the Bohairic Coptic.It is omitted by Vaticanus, the first writer of Bezae, F, G, a few other Greekmanuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscripts b, m, the Peshitta Syriac and the Coptic tradition.thBecause of this balance of the textual evidence, Nestle-Aland 27 edition has placedthe conjunction in the text, but within brackets, to indicate uncertainty as to its originality. Herewe think the decision to place within brackets is much more reasonable.464The consideration of Abraham's trust as a right-relationship, as stated in Genesis 15:6,was validated and confirmed by the much older Abraham, when he was willing to offer upIsaac in obedience to the divine word, as recorded in Genesis 22. It is as if Paul meant to saythat YHWH God, who knew the end of the story at its beginning, counted that life of constantdialogue with the divine promise, and its successful conclusion in heart-wrenching obedience,as the kind of trust that is in fact a right-relationship with God.465Moo comments on verses 23-25 that “While these three verses are related to verses 18-22, they can be considered a separate paragraph because they draw conclusions from theentire exposition of verses 3-22. Paul has, of course, applied his far-ranging exposition ofGenesis 15:6 to Christians throughout the chapter, in both explicit and implicit ways. Butnowhere does he so solemnly and clearly state the application as he does here.” (Pp. 286-87)466No, the ancient biblical story is not just a matter of history, or of ancient facts. Muchmore, it is written "on our behalf," "for us." We can be thankful for the Genesis story ofAbraham. It explodes many modern views of piety, and what it means to be "religious." Itrestores honesty, and humanness to our distorted pictures of what it means to walk by trust inGod. It is so human a story, so much like us, that it gives us great hope and courage to walkin the footsteps of the trust of Abraham, our father.467The phrase eivj dikaiosu,nhn, “for right-relationship,” is interpolated into the text at thispoint by a corrector of Bezae, Minuscule 1241, a few other Greek manuscripts, theClementine Vulgate and the Peshitta Syriac.(continued...)251

468but rather, also for us, to whom it is about to be considered, to those who are trusting uponthe one who raised Jesus the Lord of ours out from dead people469–4.25 who was handed467(...continued)The interpolation does not change the meaning of Romans, but is an attempt by latercopyists and translators to make its meaning clearer.468Moo comments that “The conviction expressed in verses 23-24 that what is written inGenesis about Abraham has relevance to the Christian believer has been the implicitassumption of the whole of chapter 4...Paul’s conviction that the Old Testament everywherespeaks to Christians is fundamental to his theology and preaching.” (P. 287)469Paul here describes Christians in two parallel clauses:oi-j me,llei logi,zesqaitoi/j pisteu,ousin evpi. to.n evgei,ranta VIhsou/n to.n ku,rion h`mw/n evk nekrw/nto those he is about to considerto the ones, they place trust upon the one raising Jesus the Lord of ours out from deadpeopleWe believers, says Paul are in the process of being considered in right-relationship, justas was Abraham of old;we are identified as the people who believe in or place trust in the God who raised theLord Jesus from among the dead, the God of the resurrection.Compare Romans 8:11, “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead isliving in you, he who raised Christ form the dead will also give life to your mortal bodiesthrough his Spirit, who lives in you”; 10:9, “...If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”; 1 Corinthians6:14, “By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also”; 15:15,“...We have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead” and 2 Corinthians 4:14,“...We know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise with Jesus,and present us with you in his presence.”Abraham placed his trust in YHWH God, who, he trusted, could enable the birth of ason from the dead womb of Sarah, and who could restore his son Isaac even if sacrificed inobedience to the divine word. That kind of trust, developed out of a life-long dialogue withGod's word, can also be grown in us. We believe in the God who raised up Jesus from amongdead people--and we are called to walk hand in Hand with that God, learning through ourexperiences, through our own peculiar testings, to grow strong in that trust, and to risk all inobedience to the divine word.Moo comments that undoubtedly Paul designates God as the one who raised Jesusfrom the dead here “to bring Christian faith into the closest possible relationship to Abraham’s(continued...)252

over for the transgressions of ours, and was raised for the declaration of the right-relationshipof ours. 470469(...continued)faith. Not only is our faith of the same nature as Abraham’s; it ultimately has as its object thesame God, ‘who gives life to the dead’ (compare verse 17b). And the connection is evencloser. For Abraham’s faith in God had to do not just with the miraculous creation of life wherethere was ‘deadness,’ but with the fulfillment of God’s promise to bless the world through him.It is the God of the promise, the promise given to Abraham but ultimately fulfilled in Christ andChristians, in whom both Abraham and we believe. While, therefore, the locus of faith hasshifted as the course of salvation history has filled out and made ever more clear the specificcontent of the promise, the ultimate object of faith has always been the same.” (Pp. 287-88)470Again Paul uses parallelism in the two clauses of this verse:o]j paredo,qh dia. ta. paraptw,mata h`mw/nkai. hvge,rqh dia. th.n dikai,wsin h`mw/nwho was handed over because of the transgressions of oursand was raised because of the declaration of right-relationship of oursThe combined statement, "Who was handed over for (or, ‘because of’) ourtransgressions, and was raised for (or, ‘because of’) the declaration of the right-relationship(dikai,wsij , see Romans 5:18) of ours" is a brief summary of the Good News Paulproclaimed. Indeed, it can be considered a summary of Romans 3:21-26. It means that thereis a divine sacrifice that has been made for us--for all Paul's readers, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, whether his first-century readers in Rome, or us today, wherever we may live. Godhas handed his Son over "for (or ‘because of’) our transgressions." It is the divine "payment"that makes us free, the great divine act of liberation that purchases our emancipation, enablingus to truly be forgiven, and to live in union with God, no longer in slavery to sin.But not only has Jesus been offered up as a sacrifice for human transgressions--beyond that, he has been raised up from among the dead, thereby ensuring us that God hasapproved his sacrifice, and thereby conquered death. What has been accomplished throughJesus means that there is a divine declaration of “right-relationship” made for us. He liveseternally, and his living presence with us enables us to live in right-relationship both with Godand with our fellow human beings.Moo notes that both of these clauses are closely related to the Greek translation ofIsaiah 53, verses 11-12,“After the suffering of his soul,he will see the light of life, and be satisfied;by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,and he will bear their iniquities.Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,(continued...)253

470(...continued)and he will divide the spoils with the strong,because he poured out his life unto death,and was numbered with the transgressors.”He comments that “Paul is affirming here a theological connection between Jesus’resurrection and our justification (compare 5:10). As Jesus’ death provides the necessarygrounds on which God’s justifying action can proceed, so his resurrection, by vindicating Christand freeing him forever from the influence of sin (compare 6:10), provides for the ongoingpower over sins experienced by the believer in union with Christ.” (P. 290)254

PRAYERO God, it is not through our own merit, or our performance in observing your Law, thatwe can rightly relate to you. No, it is only by trusting your grace and your loving forgiveness.Indeed, that is the only hope any human being can have. In this spirit we come to you inprayer, confessing our deep need for your gracious forgiveness, and guidance. We need tohear your word, with its command, and with its promise.O God, we want to stand before you, listening, and responding with obedience andtrust. The world all around us says that it is impossible--that guilty criminals cannot beforgiven; that there is no such thing as "new birth"; that everything is going to the dogs, thatnothing can be renewed, or changed for the better--that there is no real future for your people,no such thing as resurrection of dead bodies from dust or ashes. But we do not believe thepessimistic voices that are constantly pounded into our ears in this modern world.We stand before you, the God who gives life to the dead, and who calls the things thatdo not exist into existence. You spoke, and the galaxies were flung out into infinite space.You spoke, and the tiny atoms whirled in their orbits. You created this world, and every one ofus. You raised our Lord Jesus from the dead, and brought him with the clouds, to sit at yourright hand, giving him and us your eternal Kingdom–making him the Lord of history, the onewho is universally present, coming to us in every time of need. And you have a glorious futurefor all your people. You can and do bring order out of chaos, light out of darkness, hope out ofdespair. Even when our physical strength is gone, and every human possibility has come toan end, you are still the Creator, the All-Powerful God. What you have promised, you are ableto accomplish. You are the God who can raise new life from dust and ashes--you are the Godwho gives eternal life and unending hope to the hopeless. In you we trust, O God.Yes, you raised up Jesus our Lord from among the dead--the Lord who grants totalforgiveness and cleansing from all our transgressions; the Lord who enables all of us to live inright-relationship with you, and with our fellow human beings. Because of your gracious favorand free gift of forgiveness, we can joyfully live by your teaching. Thanks be to you, O God,whom we praise through Jesus, our Lord. Amen.255