Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans

[RyanS]

Hello:

I have two questions regarding Romans 4, and they are only related in so much as the beginning of the chapter is related to its end.

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, (Romans 4:3-5, ESV)

This comparison that Paul used needs some explanation, it seems. He is effectively equating the work→wages progression to faith→righteousness progression. So much makes sense. However, there is a third point that comes after wages: that it is due instead of a gift. Formally, it would seem that we would have to attach righteousness as a due onto the end of the latter progression as well. If we do not, then for why? If God did not want the distinction between gift and due to be made in this comparison, I am convinced that He would not have inspired Paul to write such a thing. However, when one is "due" something, from whom it is to come is in debt to whom it is due. If an employer withholds wages from an employee, that is unjust. Until that payment is made, the employer is indebted to the employee. However, it seems ridiculous that we could make God our debtor or even put Him in a position where He could commit injustice, so I am struggling to understand the "not counted as a gift but as his due" portion of that verse. For the second question:

He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Romans 4:19-25, ESV)

In short, the Abrahamic example of faith reads to me like how Dr. Dawkins and other New-age atheists portray faith to be: an intellectual assent to something contrary to the available evidences. Of course, I do not buy into that definition at all on the evidence of every other instance I have seen the word "faith" used in the New Testament. The reason I included so many verses for this example is because even the latter part implies a trust based on good evidence (1 Corinthians 15). However, in any text, if the overwhelming majority of it states one worldview, and there is one sentence that could imply a different worldview, then that one sentence is being interpreted wrong. So, I am wrong in my interpretation. This type of rational reinterpretation happens a lot in both literature and life in general. The dichotomy between sensible-literal is the reason out of context quotes are so funny -- there is a sensible way to interpret them in line with everything else that has been laid out in that situation. However, without that situational knowledge, all one can do is interpret them literally, and comedy ensues. So, I seem to be lacking the situational knowledge in this example of Abraham. To be clear, there is no action that Abraham is taking in that passage (from what I see stated explicitly or implicitly), but there are evidences that would rationally lead someone to conclude that he could not have a child (the state of both his body and Sarah's womb) and, in spite of those evidences, he still has faith in God. If I were to posit a guess, I would say the action that is the source of faith that is counted to him as righteousness is him giving glory to God even before he has his children. However, the word "as" does not seem to make them synonymous, but only simultaneous. Moreover, what would the importance be of giving glory to God before the event occurred as opposed to trusting Him so much as to give Him credit for the event happening? Regardless, any help with understanding the use of the word "faith" in this verse is greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much for your help. I hope you enjoy Thanksgiving with your family.
-Ryan S

[jimwalton]

Good to hear from you again. Always glad to discuss.

I get what you're saying about "due." Hopefully I'll address it with my response; if not, just let me know and I'll try again.

The context is clearly salvation by works (you earned it so God owes it to you) vs. by grace (it's a gift and you didn't do anything to earn it or deserve it). If you worked for salvation, even in the least, God would be beholdin' to you and be obligated to bring the situation into balance. But, Paul is saying, this is a grace situation, so works has nothing to do with it.

I think the progressions are most appropriately seen as:

You work → there is an obligation on the part of the employer → you get paid because you worked for it.

vs.

God gave you a gift (of salvation) → He was not obligated to do that but did it out of love as a gift → you get righteousness credited to you through no action of your own.

Or possibly your point is: When I show faith, then God has an obligation to respond by crediting me with righteousness, so in a sense I've created a "debt" situation with my response of faith, and therefore God is beholdin' to me and He owes me. If that's what you're saying, Paul isn't creating that kind of analogy. All he's contending is that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. The difference would be that even your faith is a gift from God, so God has no obligation to you no matter what. It's a pure gift → gift → gift situation with us as the beneficiaries.

Bob Walton writes, "By quoting Gn. 15.6, Paul shows that Abraham’s standing before God was not a just payment for his righteous works, but instead righteousness imputed because of his faith. God credited Abraham with being righteous not because he was righteous, but rather because he trusted God. The passage Paul quotes is particularly telling. In Gn. 15.7-21, God tells Abraham to take 5 animals, cut them in half, and lay the pieces in 2 rows. God then puts Abraham into a deep sleep and passes between the pieces of the sacrifice alone. The significant of this is that in the typical covenant-making ceremony the participants of the covenant would pass together through the pieces, confirming the oath for which they were both responsible. But God passed between the pieces alone, indicating that He, and not Abraham at all, bore the responsibility for fulfilling the covenant. Abraham need do nothing—in fact, could do nothing—but trust God."

Let me know if I'm not understanding you, and we can have another round of discussion.

> the Abrahamic example of faith reads to me like how Dr. Dawkins and other New-age atheists portray faith to be: an intellectual assent to something contrary to the available evidences.

Again, I get what you mean, but you're missing some pieces. (I'm a strong evidentialist.) By the time Abe got to the child situation, he had plenty of evidences of God's competence at fulfilling his promises. He had arrived at the land, he hadn't starved to death or been killed (Gn. 12); Lot left the land to him alone (Gn. 13), he had been successful at war and blessed by Melchizedek (Gn. 14), he had a vision of the covenant (Gn. 15), he had talked with God (Gn. 18), and seen God's direct hand of action (Gn. 19), so he's not flying blind or believing against evidence. Every experience Abe has (and the Genesis account is of one test and learning experience after another) is another rock on the pile of evidences of God's ability to fulfill His promises.

Granted, decrepit he and ancient Sarah having a baby is quite a stretch further than anything he's experienced yet, but what's different about that from Jesus telling the disciples "You feed the 5000," or "you go heal the sick and raise the dead," or Peter asking, "Lord, invite me to walk on the water with you!" The fact is, they had seen enough of Jesus to accept the stretch. In like manner, Abe had had enough experiences with God that God could legitimately say, "Now let's try this one," and Abe should go for it on the basis of what he already knows, not blindly. Remember, he doesn't even have to do anything (like walk on water, multiply bread, or confront Pharaoh and lead the children of Israel out of Egypt); all he has to do is have sex with his wifey-poo. The issue of trust would come in not repeating two previous mistakes (thinking Eliezer would be his heir or knocking up his concubine)—or taking any other action to take matters into his own hands.

> However, the word "as" does not seem to make them synonymous, but only simultaneous.

"As" is an English insert. The Greek reads ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα. Let's break that down.

ἀλλὰ: The strongest adversative particle. It opposes and disannuls or discounts what has gone before, in this case the idea of "gift."

κατὰ: This is what has been translated "as," but the idea is "according to; after the pattern of; in conformity with; in accord with."

Kata often serves to introduce the norm that governs behavior or the example with which something should conform, or the reason for something

We could translate it a different way than "as," with the idea that wages are an obligation (a debt owed), not a present.

ὀφείλημα: Debt; obligation; something owed."

So if that breakdown doesn't help, again, let's talk more.

> any help with understanding the use of the word "faith" in this verse is greatly appreciated.

We can stab at what Paul means by it here, since Paul uses faith in different ways at different times. N.T. Wright says, "Their faith—faith in this future family-creating act of grace—is the faith because of which the covenant is established with Abraham." Matthew Bates says it's allegiance grounded in (1) mental affirmation of the truth of what has passed, (2) an expectation that what has been promised for the future will thereby come to pass, and (3) a loyalty to the agreement, recognizing YHWH as his suzerain and his own commitment to continued conformity to the covenant.

Sarah Ruden writes, "For the Greeks it was a powerful word, pistis (faith), and for the Romans, fides, with the same Indo-European root and the same basic meanings, was one of the 5 or 10 most powerful in their language. Pistis/fides always had to do with trustworthiness or trust, but its applications among polytheists were almost opposite to those in the New Testament. Polytheistic pistis/fides was good backup: a guarantee or other binding commitment, often based on scary oaths;[1] the past experience of a businessman’s good faith or good credit; a long-term reliability of friends, family, associates, or fellow-citizens; or a proof or very persuasive argument. Pistis/fides could also be the feeling of trust evoked by any of these things. Moralistic Roman writers of all kinds were infatuated with it: prisca fides, or “old-fashioned reliability,” summoned up the fantasy of a time when everyone kept his word or was tied to four horses who were then whipped to run in divergent directions.

"Trust or Trustworthiness, like everything else important, was a deity; but then, so was Terror. Before Christianity, neither the Greeks nor the Romans seem ever to have used the concept in what we would call a spiritual sense—that would have broken it and re-formed it forever for them, which is in fact what Christianity did. Pistis/fides for the polytheistic ancients came from watching their backs. Our 'faith' comes from the agape version of love, from putting away intent self-protection and relying on God’s providence."

As far me, I define faith as knowledge, pure and simple. It’s different, though. Knowledge is because you’ve seen, and faith is that you know even though you haven’t seen. I define faith as “an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption.”


[1] The swearer might invoke, for his own destruction in case he lied, the combined power of the earth, heaven, and the underworld

[RyanS]

Hello:

That explanation makes a great deal of sense. To summarize: regarding the beginning of the chapter, I confused an analogy with a contrast. IE the "Now to the one...And to the one" is not equating the two, but contradistinguishing them. Regarding the end of the chapter, Paul is illustrating the idea of biblical faith through an example that hinges on knowing context that his audience would have known and immediately connected with the example. If you believe I am missing something important or am wrong in my summary, then please correct me. Otherwise, thank you very much for your prompt, rational response as always.

Thank you,
-Ryan S