Exegesis Romans 4:1-25 the Context

Exegesis

Romans 4:1-25

The context of this passage is essential to its understanding both during the time it was written and to contemporary readers. Though this passage mentions only Abraham and quotes liberally from the Old Testament (particularly Genesis), it directly precedes a chapter concerned wholly with Jesus Christ and his role as savior and redeemer of his people, and the methods by which this redemption is affected. This passage shows -- or arguably creates, to some degree -- strong bonds between the two figures, whose lives as mortals are paralleled at least in their both being founding figures of a religion. As such, this passage can itself be read as something of an exegesis on the passages in the Old Testament concerning Abraham that it references. Much of the New Testament not concerned with the life and works of Jesus of Nazareth is devoted to this type of interpretive pursuit, connecting Old and New Testament idea and figures in order to create a united story and theology able to encompass and envelop the diverse and vast groups of people finding their way to Christianity from Judaism and other religions.

In raising the questions of what constitutes righteousness and the role of faith in redemption, this passage is attempting to define (or redefine) Judeo-Christian theology in the large sense, and on a somewhat smaller though perhaps more directly impacting way to address and perhaps even suggest changes in religious practice of the time. The over-riding message of the passage, other than the connection between Abraham and Jesus Christ as figures of righteousness, and of salvation and redemption for their people, is that it is through faith rather than works that redemption is achieved. This is explicitly taken to mean that the practice of certain customs and laws prescribed by the Old Testament as a part of the contract between God and man (specifically Abraham) was not really necessary for achieving righteousness.

The issue of faith and the similar positioning of Abraham and Jesus are the two larger concepts that the readers (or, more likely, hearers) of this passage during the time it was first written would have perceived. The idea that justification comes through good works is neatly abolished here, and Abraham's righteousness prior to his circumcision is heralded as proof of this new theological and moral direction. In fact, circumcision is focused on as one of the major "works" or acts believed to be of utmost importance in the contract between a man and God that is not actually (according to this passage) a necessity for righteousness, justification, or redemption. In the Old Testament, circumcision is a symbol of the covenant made between God and Abraham, but this passage made the Christian religion open to adult males of any background without requiring them to go through a painful and somewhat disturbing procedure.

The practical and political implications of this passage cannot go without mention. Many of the different aspects of the passage can be seen as encouragements to conversion, on both theological and practical grounds. Increasing the number of Christians would necessarily increase the power and social impact of the earlier practitioners of the religion, and this was the overt and explicit goal of Jesus' ministry for theological reasons as well. Circumcision is only the most explicit instance of the relaxation of rules that this passage presents. In a more general way, it asserts that all works are essentially unnecessary to the correct practice of religion -- faith in God is the only truly inherent requirement for righteousness.

These assertions are not merely stated blithely, but are the result of careful and considered logical arguments. The passage asserts that if works or obedience to the law were the measures of righteousness, then faith would be useless. Because "law brings wrath," or punishment, salvation and/or redemption though works and the law is truly salvation through fear, and this another things this passage sets itself against that might perhaps resonate more with modern readers. This reading of the passage suggests that the route to redemption should not be viewed as a narrow and restrictive path, but that a faith in God is all that is truly necessary for justification.

The debate over the source of justification has been quite prominent at certain points in the development of Christian theology. The Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had similar beliefs about justification; this passage was key to the concept of the covenant of grace, where Jesus Christ's sacrifice was enough to bring redemption to all of the saved. This led to what is known as the Antimonian Contrversy, where all works were deemed effectively worthless. It was feared that this view could lead to lawlessness -- and indeed, such an interpretation is supported by the wording of this passage -- and its advocates were actually cast out of their community in Massachusetts. Obviously, the political and theological implications of rendering the law useless need to be given careful consideration in reading this passage.

Lawlessness is not explicitly advocated in this passage; rather, it is simply stated that following laws is not necessary for redemption. The faith in God and his works that is a requirement, however, suggests that there is a path to righteousness that involves our actions here on Earth. Though it is not a requirement of redemption or justification, it makes sense -- and is suggested in this passage -- that those who are justified and righteous will perform good works.