Notes on Romans 4

Peter J. Leithart, March 25, 2005

A couple of scattered notes on Paul�s argument in Romans 4.

1) Paul�s statement about belief in �Him who justifies the ungodly�E(v. 5) clearly applies to Abraham. Verse 2 says Abraham was not �justified by works,�Eand verse 4 refers again to �one who works�Ein contrast to the �one who does not work�E(v. 5), evidently still drawing from the example of Abraham. The �reckoning�Eof verses 4-5 also hearkens immediately back to verse 3, where Abraham�s faith is reckoned as righteousness. Verses 4-5 are certainly drawing a more general conclusion, but it�s one based on the description of Abraham�s justification in Genesis 15.

Now, the interesting thing is that Paul talks about justifying faith in verse 5 as a faith in �Him who justifies the ungodly.�E But where in Genesis do we learn that Abraham had such a faith? Abram�s faith in Genesis 15 is a faith in God�s promise of a seed like the stars of heaven. Is Paul�s description of faith in the Justifier of the ungodly a way of describing Abraham�s faith in the promise of seed? If so, we get an interesting movement in the argument: Abraham believed Yahweh�s promise that He would triumph over death by giving Abraham and Sarah a child, and multiplying that seed like the stars of heaven. Paul calls this a faith in the justification of the ungodly. Thus, believing that God will give a child to two dead parents is equivalent to believing in the justification of the ungodly. That makes sense if 1) ungodliness is seen as a form of death (the basic form) and 2) justification is a deliverance from the dominion of death. And this would also imply that the gift of Isaac, the son of the Spirit, is a public declaration of justification; what Abraham hopes for is a son, and what he hopes for is the justification of the ungodly. Or, to reverse it, he trusts God to justify the ungodly, and what he receives is a miracle baby.

2) In arguments concerning law and promise, Paul frequently emphasizes the passage of time between Abraham and the law, or between different events in the life of Abraham (Romans 4; Galatians 3). What�s up with that? Surely the Jews who are his main opponents on these issues knew all about history, but Paul seems to be reminding them of temporal/historical factors that they have ignored. It is prima facie plausible that first-century Judaism, which had been infected in various ways with Greek modes of thought, would have drifted from the radically historical character of OT faith into a discourse of timelessness. (But I don�t know enough about first-century Judaism to see how this might work out in detail.) One of the things recovered in the gospel is temporality, redemptive history. I suppose there�s a thesis here for someone to develop.