Romans 4, Again: Faith in a Promise, Before Fulfillment

The God Who Counts Things That Are Not as Though They Are

1. Paul Tells Us Which Circumstance Establishes the Doctrine

When Paul explains how a person is counted righteous before God, he takes us to one particular moment in the life of Abraham. We might naturally want to look through Abraham's entire story and point out his faith, his obedience, his failures, and his good works. But Paul does not permit us to do that. As we explored in a previous postprevious post, Paul tells us the crediting of righteousness is "not found" at other places in the chronology of Abraham's life. He tells us exactly where to look:

“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
—Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6

Why does Paul choose Genesis 15:6?

Abraham had already believed God in Genesis 12. He had already obeyed God by leaving his country and going where God told him to go. And there would be much more faith and obedience in Abraham's life after Genesis 15. Yet when Paul establishes the basis upon which righteousness is counted, he deliberately points to Genesis 15:6.

That is not an accident. Paul is the one interpreting Abraham's story for us, and he tells us which circumstance establishes his point.

This is not simply Paul's interpretation of an Old Testament story; this is the apostle entrusted with the gospel explaining the terms by which God counts righteousness under the New Covenant (Gal. 1:11-12). Paul takes us to this one event in Abraham's life to show us the grounds of the righteousness that God now grants through faith in Jesus Christ. If we want to understand Paul's doctrine, this is the story he tells us to understand it through.

But Paul does not merely point to Genesis 15:6 and leave us wondering why this moment is the basis for the New Covenant. He tells us why faith alone is theologically indispensable.

2. Abraham Believed God for What He Could Not Produce

He did not believe because the circumstances were favorable. He believed because God was able to do what He had promised.

Paul says Abraham was “fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.” Then Paul repeats the conclusion:

“That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness.”
—Romans 4:22

This is why Genesis 15:6 matters so much.

Paul is not describing righteousness as something Abraham gradually built up by combining faith with an increasing record of obedience. Abraham had faith before Genesis 15. He had works before Genesis 15. He had faith and works afterward. But Paul identifies one particular circumstance in which righteousness was counted to him: when Abraham believed God's promise concerning what he could not possibly produce himself.

The impossibility is important.  

Abraham could not manufacture the fulfillment of God's promise. His effort could not make the promised child appear. There was nothing he could contribute that would bring God's promise to pass. The fulfillment belonged entirely to God.

And this is where Paul moves from Abraham to us.

Paul says that the words “it was counted to him” were “not written for his sake alone, but for ours also.” We are to understand the same principle from Abraham's experience.

Now there is something fascinating happening in both directions.

3. Both Believed and Counted Before Seeing

Abraham called God able before the promise was visible; God called Abraham righteous before the righteousness was visible.

Abraham believed God could bring about what had not yet appeared. Though he and Sarah had no natural ability to produce the promised child, Abraham was “fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.” He trusted God before he could see the fulfillment.

God, likewise, reckoned Abraham righteous at the moment of faith, before that righteousness had been fully manifested in his life.

Both were counting something before it could be seen.

God was not pretending Abraham was something he was not, nor was Abraham's later obedience unnecessary. Rather, God did not wait for a lifetime of righteous behavior before reckoning Abraham righteous. He reckoned him righteous when Abraham believed the promise.

And Abraham did not wait for visible evidence before trusting God. He believed in the God who “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Romans 4:17).

This is the New Covenant theme Paul gives us: Abraham trusted God for what had not yet appeared, while God reckoned Abraham righteous before that righteousness had been manifested.

Faith rests upon God's promise before the fulfillment can be seen.

The Complicated Relationship of the Church Fathers to Baptism in Water

It is sometimes claimed that the early church fathers were unanimous in teaching that "water baptism saves;" the person who believes in Christ is saved through faith only when that faith is followed by baptism. But there is another historical question that deserves attention: 

How did baptism become something that could be postponed for a lifetime by people who nevertheless considered themselves committed Christians, and then become urgently necessary when death was near? 

The evidence of the practices of the church fathers themselves is surprisingly difficult to reconcile with such a simple claim.

Baptized at or immediately before death

Constantine the Great (337)

• baptized during final illness, died shortly afterward.

Constantius II (361)

• baptized when facing his final crisis/illness, died shortly afterward.

Baptized because death appeared imminent, but survived

Novatian (c. 250)

• catechumen, gravely ill, received clinical baptism on his sickbed, recovered, later became a prominent Roman presbyter.

Baptized during illness but lived for years afterward

Theodosius I (380)

• baptized while ill, but lived another ~15 years.

1. Augustine's writings penned before he was baptized:

Augustine converted to Christianity in 386 and was baptized by Ambrose at Easter in 387. During the months between his conversion and baptism, while he was still a catechumen, he composed the famous Cassiciacum dialogues:

• Against the Academics (Contra Academicos)
• The Happy Life (De Beata Vita)
• On Order (De Ordine)
• Soliloquies (Soliloquia)

He also wrote letters to Nebridius during this period. Augustine himself later refers to these works in the Confessions, describing what he had written at Cassiciacum before his baptism.

There is also On the Immortality of the Soul (De immortalitate animae), which is generally associated with this same pre-baptismal period, although its exact chronology relative to the Cassiciacum works is less secure.

So we're talking about at least four major surviving works, and probably five, written by one of Christianity's most influential theologians while he was still technically a catechumen, or by some people's theology, "unsaved."

2. Ambrose - baptized after becoming bishop of Milan

Ambrose is perhaps the most astonishing example.

He was raised in a Christian family but had not yet been baptized when, in 374, the people of Milan suddenly chose him to become their bishop.

Theodoret reports that when the people demanded Ambrose as bishop:

“up to this time he was still unbaptized.”

He was then baptized and subsequently ordained/consecrated bishop.

And, of course, this is the same Ambrose who later defended the salvation of the unbaptized Valentinian.

---

3. Basil the Great

Basil's delay wasn't because he rejected Christianity. Quite the opposite: he was raised within an intensely Christian household.

Interestingly, Basil later became strongly opposed to delaying baptism. He actually rebuked people who kept postponing it.

The practice of delayed baptism existed even among deeply committed Christian families, but later Christian leaders increasingly criticized the practice.

---

4. Gregory Nazianzen - baptized around age 30

Gregory is another especially interesting case.

Gregory's own writings are particularly revealing because he later became an extremely strong advocate for timely baptism.

In Oration 40, he warns people not to use Christ's baptism at age thirty as an excuse for delaying their own baptism. He says, in effect, that Christ had a unique reason for waiting, whereas ordinary Christians face real danger in dying without baptism.

This is fascinating historically: Gregory himself had delayed baptism, yet later strongly opposed the practice.

---

5. John Chrysostom 

Chrysostom was also raised in a Christian environment. His widowed mother, Anthusa, was a devoted Christian.

The same Chrysostom who himself had been baptized relatively late later described martyrdom as a form of baptism.

---

6. Constantine the Great - baptized on his deathbed

He was not baptized until the final illness of his life, in 337.

Eusebius gives us an unusually detailed account. When Constantine became convinced that his death was approaching, he went to the church, confessed and prayed, and then summoned bishops to baptize him.

Constantine himself said:

“The hour has come in which I too may have the blessing of that seal which confers immortality.”

He had apparently hoped to be baptized in the Jordan, but instead was baptized at Nicomedia shortly before his death.  This delay was deliberate on his part.

The practice was connected in part with the widespread fourth-century concern that baptism remitted sins and that serious sins committed after baptism created a grave spiritual problem. Contemporary and later historians specifically identify Constantine as the classic example of this practice.

---

7. Novatian - baptized during a serious illness

Novatian, a prominent third-century Roman theologian and later the leader of the Novatianist schism, was baptized while seriously ill and thought to be near death.

According to Cornelius of Rome, Novatian had been a catechumen when he became gravely ill:

“he was, therefore, given baptism by affusion as he lay on his bed.”

He survived, but apparently did not subsequently receive the other rites that normally accompanied baptism.

This is an early example of clinical baptism—baptism administered to someone on a sickbed because death seemed imminent.

Summary

These examples make the sweeping claim that the fathers simply taught “water baptism saves” far less adequate as a description of what they actually practiced. Their behavior suggests that the relationship between faith, baptism, forgiveness, and final absolution was considerably more complicated than that formula implies.

The Church Fathers Taught Baptism Apart from Water

The Church Fathers: Baptism by Water, Alone?

The fathers certainly regarded water baptism as important for admittance to the church. Yet a number of them also recognized that the saving reality associated with baptism could be present without the ordinary application of water. 

The following examples are arranged roughly chronologically.

---

Tertullian - Baptism by Blood

Tertullian (c. 155–220) is one of the earliest and clearest witnesses.

In On Baptism, chapter 16, he calls martyrdom a second baptism, baptism in blood. More importantly, he says that this baptism:

“stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received”

In other words, Tertullian explicitly describes blood baptism as taking the place of water baptism when it has not occurred.

This is important chronologically because it shows that the idea is not something Augustine invented in the late fourth century. It was already present in North African Christianity around the beginning of the third century.

What this establishes: Tertullian did not understand the saving significance of baptism to be absolutely confined to the physical application of water. He recognized martyrdom as a second baptism that could stand in the place of water baptism when the water rite had not been received.

---

Origen - Water, Spirit, Fire, and Blood

Origen (c. 185–254) is particularly valuable because he explicitly recognizes water, Spirit/fire, and blood as forms of baptism.

In his Commentary on John, while discussing John the Baptist's statement that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit, Origen says that Christ is:

“baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood.”

He connects the baptism of blood with Jesus' words about His coming baptism in Luke 12:50.

Even more interestingly, Origen says that martyrdom can bring forgiveness of sins. In Homilies on Leviticus 2.4–5, he lists several means by which sins are remitted, including baptism, martyrdom, and repentance.

What this establishes: Origen recognized water baptism, baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, and baptism associated with blood as distinct biblical realities. He also connected martyrdom with the remission of sins.

---

Cyprian - Baptism of Water and Baptism of Blood

Cyprian (c. 210–258) develops the same idea.

He explicitly distinguishes:

baptism of water
baptism of blood

and associates the former with remission of sins and the latter with the martyr's crown.

In Epistle 72.22, he discusses people who believe and repent but are killed before receiving water baptism. His argument is that such catechumens receive the “baptism of blood.”

He explicitly connects this with the thief on the cross, saying that those who are baptized in their own blood are perfected and receive the grace of God's promise.

And in Treatise 11, Cyprian makes the distinction particularly clearly:

“In the baptism of water is received the remission of sins, in the baptism of blood the crown of virtues.”

So Cyprian definitely does not collapse water baptism and blood baptism into exactly the same thing. But he recognizes blood baptism as a genuine baptism with saving significance.

What this establishes: Cyprian continued to regard water baptism as the ordinary Christian baptism, but he also recognized baptism by blood as a genuine baptism for a believer who died before receiving water. The absence of the physical water rite did not automatically mean that such a believer was lost.

---

The Anonymous On Re-Baptism - The Spirit Before Water

The anonymous treatise On Re-Baptism, probably from the third century, is extraordinarily important for this question. Its exact authorship is uncertain.

It argues from Acts 10: Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

The author says:

“the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water”

The author then immediately cites Peter's experience of the Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his household before Peter commanded them to be baptized in water.

The preceding discussion also distinguishes the “baptism of the Spirit” from the “baptism of water.”

The work therefore recognizes that the Holy Spirit can be given to believers before the physical water baptism occurs.

The same work also considers the case of a person who hears the gospel, confesses Christ, and is then killed before he can receive water baptism. The author asks, in substance, whether such a person should be considered to have perished because he was not baptized with water. The answer is no. The author appeals to Christ's promise concerning those who confess Him and describes martyrdom as accomplishing what water baptism could not in that circumstance.

What this establishes: On Re-Baptism provides evidence for both Spirit baptism occurring apart from the timing of water baptism and a believer receiving the saving benefit associated with baptism despite dying before receiving water baptism.

---

Gregory Nazianzen - The Different Kinds of Baptism

Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329–390) gives an even more interesting text.

In Oration 39.17, he explicitly says:

“Let us speak about the different kinds of Baptism.”

He then identifies:

• Moses' baptism — water, cloud, and sea
• John's baptism — water and repentance
• Christ's baptism — in the Spirit
• baptism by martyrdom and blood
• and even a fifth baptism involving tears and repentance.

Most importantly for this question, he says:

“Jesus also baptized, but in the Spirit. This is the perfect Baptism.”

He also calls martyrdom a “Fourth Baptism”—baptism by martyrdom and blood.

What this establishes: Gregory explicitly distinguishes water baptism from baptism in the Spirit, calling the latter the “perfect Baptism.” He also recognizes martyrdom as another genuine form of baptism. For Gregory, therefore, the biblical concept of baptism is broader than the physical water ceremony.

---

Ambrose - The Valentinian Case

Ambrose is essential because Augustine's thinking is not occurring in isolation.

In AD 392, Emperor Valentinian II died while still a catechumen, before Ambrose could baptize him.

Ambrose's funeral oration asks whether Valentinian nevertheless received the grace he desired:

“Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for?”

Ambrose answers affirmatively because Valentinian had desired baptism and requested it.

This is historically important because a recent scholarly study identifies Ambrose's 392 funeral oration as the first clear articulation of what later became known as baptism of desire.

What this establishes: Ambrose provides evidence that a person who desired baptism but died before physically receiving it could nevertheless be regarded as having received the grace he sought. The physical rite had not occurred, but the desire for the rite was treated as spiritually significant.

---

Augustine - The Thief and Baptism Received in the Heart

Augustine's earlier writings provide particularly interesting evidence.

In De diversis quaestionibus 83, Question 62, written approximately AD 391–395, Augustine considers the thief on the cross, who received Christ's promise of Paradise even though he could not physically receive baptism.

Augustine writes:

“baptism was imputed to the believing thief”

and says that it was considered received “in his free mind” because he could not receive it in his body while hanging on the cross.

Augustine's reasoning is significant because he is not simply calling the thief a martyr. He is explaining how the reality of baptism could be credited to someone who could not physically receive the rite.

What this establishes: In his earlier writings, Augustine recognized that the physical absence of baptism did not necessarily mean the absence of the reality God associated with baptism, particularly when a person was prevented from receiving the rite.

---

Augustine - Faith and Conversion Can Supply What Baptism Lacked

Augustine later develops the argument even more explicitly.

In On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book IV, chapter 22, Augustine discusses the thief and concludes:

“not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart”

when baptism cannot be received because there is no time.

Augustine's point is striking. He does not limit the thief's case to martyrdom. The thief was being executed for his own crimes, not because he was a Christian martyr. Yet he believed, turned to Christ, and received Christ's promise.

Augustine therefore recognizes that faith and conversion of heart can supply what baptism lacked when the sacrament cannot be received.

What this establishes: Augustine explicitly says that faith and conversion of heart can supply what baptism lacked when baptism cannot be received. The thief therefore provides an example of salvation in which the visible sacrament of baptism was absent.

---

Augustine - Cornelius Received the Spirit Before Baptism

Augustine also discusses Cornelius in Acts 10.

Cornelius had not yet received water baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon him. Augustine recognizes this sequence and uses it in his discussion of baptism.

The Spirit therefore came upon Cornelius before the water baptism that followed.

Augustine does not use Cornelius to reject water baptism. In fact, he maintains that Cornelius would have been guilty of contempt if, after receiving the Holy Spirit, he had refused baptism.

But the sequence itself remains important:

The inward work of the Spirit came first. The outward water baptism followed.

What this establishes: Augustine recognized that the Holy Spirit could be given before water baptism. The outward sacrament did not necessarily precede the inward work of the Spirit.

---

Pelagius - Water, Spirit, Fire, and Blood

Pelagius, commenting on Romans 6:1–4, discusses the meaning of baptism in the context of dying to sin and walking in newness of life.

He writes:

“Baptism is received in the Scriptures in three ways: with water; with the Holy Spirit, who is also called fire; and with blood in martyrdom, concerning which [our] Saviour said: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ (Luke 12:50).”

Pelagius then returns to Paul's teaching in Romans 6, explaining that those baptized into Christ are buried with Him, die to their former life, and rise to walk in newness of life.

The importance of the statement is that Pelagius does not use the word baptism exclusively for the physical water ceremony. He identifies three biblical forms: water, the Holy Spirit/fire, and blood in martyrdom.

What this establishes: Pelagius understood the biblical category of baptism to extend beyond water baptism. The term could describe baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism associated with martyrdom as well as the ordinary baptism with water.

Apostolic Constitutions - Book V, section 6

This is a particularly strong passage because it addresses a catechumen who has not yet received water baptism and then dies for Christ.

The text says:

“though he be but a catechumen, let him depart without trouble; for his suffering for Christ will be to him a more genuine baptism, because he does really die with Christ, but the rest only in a figure.” 

John Chrysostom - Panegyric on St. Lucian, 2

The passage is remarkably explicit:

“I have called martyrdom a baptism; for here too the Spirit descends with great abundance, and a removal of sins and a certain wonderful and extraordinary cleansing of the soul takes place.”

He then compares the two:

“just as those who are baptized with waters, so those who bear witness are washed in their own blood.” 

---

What Does the Evidence Show?

These writers do not all make exactly the same argument, and they should not be made to say more than they actually say.

They consistently affirm the importance of a ceremony in water to be counted as baptized. Many of them describe it as the normal or necessary means of receiving salvation. Yet they also repeatedly recognize circumstances in which the reality associated with baptism is present without the ordinary application of water.

The evidence includes:

• Tertullian: martyrdom is a second baptism that can stand in place of water baptism.
• Origen: baptism can be spoken of as water, Spirit/fire, and blood; martyrdom is connected with forgiveness of sins.
• Cyprian: a believer who dies before water baptism can receive the baptism of blood.
• Anonymous On Re-Baptism: the Holy Spirit can be given before water baptism, and a believer who dies before receiving water need not be regarded as lost.
• Gregory Nazianzen: Christ's baptism is baptism in the Spirit, and martyrdom is another baptism.
• Ambrose: a catechumen who desired baptism but died before receiving it could nevertheless receive the grace he desired.
• Augustine: baptism could be imputed to the believing thief who could not physically receive it.
• Augustine: faith and conversion of heart could supply what baptism lacked when the sacrament could not be received.
• Augustine: Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.
• Pelagius: Scripture speaks of baptism in water, in the Holy Spirit/fire, and in blood.

Taken together, these examples establish a clear historical pattern:

The early church did not understand the saving reality associated with baptism as being absolutely confined to the physical application of water.

Water baptism was regarded as the ordinary Christian practice to be saved, and was often strongly defended. Nevertheless, Spirit baptism, baptism by blood, faith, conversion, and the desire for baptism were recognized by various early Christian writers as realities through which God could confer salvation.

Romans 2: A Remarkable Passage Disproving Salvation Through Baptism

As we examine baptism, it is helpful to first look at an outward covenant sign that Paul discusses at length: circumcision.  Paul is using circumcision as a case study to demonstrate something much bigger about righteousness before God.

Romans 2:25–29 shows God's brilliance in how He evaluates the relationship between an outward religious act and the inward spiritual reality it represents.

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.  So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?  The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.  No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Paul makes two remarkable observations.

1.The Outward Act Does Not Establish Credit with God; the Inward Reality Does

Paul begins with the outward sign:

“Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.”
  Romans 2:25

The point is striking. A person could be circumcised outwardly and yet, because the reality represented by that sign was absent, God could regard him as though he were not circumcised.

The physical act itself did not establish righteousness.

But Paul then turns the situation around:

“So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?”
  Romans 2:26

Now the person does not possess the outward sign, yet Paul says that person can be regarded as though circumcised.

This creates a remarkable symmetry:

Circumcised + lawbreaker = regarded as though uncircumcised.

Uncircumcised + obedience in the heart = regarded as though circumcised outwardly.

Paul is showing that God does not ultimately evaluate a person according to possession of the outward sign. What matters is the spiritual reality of the outward act.

That becomes even clearer in verses 28–29:

“A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart…”

The physical sign was not meaningless. But the physical sign was never the thing that God ultimately wanted by itself.

The outside does not create the inside.

And, remarkably, Paul says that the inside is credited as the completeness signaled by the outside act, even when the outside act is absent.

That is an important principle.

God can recognize the inward reality even when the outward sign is not present. Conversely, the outward sign does not guarantee the inward reality.

---

2. The Mechanism Is the Spirit, Not the Written Code

But Paul does not stop with the distinction between outside and inside. He tells us how the inward reality is produced:

“Circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.”
  Romans 2:29

This is crucial.

Paul identifies the mechanism for regeneration: the Spirit.

The written code could tell a person what God required. But the Spirit comes within to enact the transformation God desires, without us first satisfying His code.

So Paul's argument is not simply about having access to God's written commands. The deeper issue is what God is doing inside the person.

The inward work of the Spirit does not merely give meaning to the outward sign. It constitutes the spiritual, inner reality that God is regarding as the satisfaction of the outward sign.

And that brings Paul's argument back to the two sides of the case study:

The outward sign without the inward reality is insufficient.

But the inward reality produced by the Spirit is recognized by God even without the outward sign.

Why This Matters

God is not ultimately impressed by the presence of an outward religious marker when the inward reality is absent. And the inward work of the Spirit is powerful enough that God ratifies that reality even when the outward marker is absent.

That gives us an important principle to carry into our discussion of baptism:

We should not automatically assume that the outward act itself creates the inward spiritual reality. We must first ask what Scripture says the outward act represents, and what Scripture says actually produces spiritual status with God.

Romans 4: What Abraham Teaches Us About Salvation Apart from Obedience

When someone first reads Romans 4, one detail can easily become confusing: circumcision.

Paul talks about Abraham's circumcision several times. Does that mean Christians are supposed to be circumcised?

No. To understand why Paul discusses circumcision, we first need to understand what he is actually trying to prove.

Romans 4 Is a Theological Case Study

A case study is an example examined closely to establish a larger principle.

Paul has just explained in Romans 3 that God's righteousness is available through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works. Someone could ask, “Is this really how God counts people righteous? Or is Paul introducing something new?”

So Paul examines the life of Abraham.

His central question is:

On what basis did God count Abraham righteous?

Since being counted righteous is Paul's language for justification, this is ultimately a question about the basis on which a person is saved and accepted as righteous before God.

---

Abraham's Story Gives Us the Answer

Paul quotes Genesis 15:6:

“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

The timing of this statement is critical.

Abraham was not yet circumcised.

The chronology of Genesis is:

Genesis 15
Abraham believes → God credits righteousness.

Genesis 17
Abraham is circumcised.

Genesis 22
Abraham demonstrates remarkable obedience when God tests him.

Paul is deliberately using this chronology to separate the basis of Abraham's righteousness from the things Abraham did afterward.

---

Righteousness Came Before Circumcision

Paul makes this point directly in Romans 4:10:

“How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised?”

His answer:

“Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.”

Then Paul explains circumcision in Romans 4:11:

“He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised.”

Notice the order:

Faith → righteousness credited → circumcision

Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness Abraham already had by faith.

It was not the act of obedience that caused God to count him righteous.

This is why Paul's discussion of circumcision is actually evidence against the idea that a physical act of obedience could make Abraham righteous.

---

Abraham's Obedience Came Later Too

Abraham eventually demonstrated extraordinary obedience, particularly in Genesis 22.

But that happened after Genesis 15:6 had already declared that his faith was credited as righteousness.

Paul's point in Romans 4:4–5 is that righteousness is not something a person earns from God as a wage for performing enough works.

Instead:

“To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

Abraham's later obedience was real and important. But it did not become the basis of the righteousness God had already credited through faith.

---

Why Abraham Matters to the New Covenant

This is the larger purpose of Paul's case study.

Paul is establishing the grounds for the righteousness made available throughout God's new-covenant plan of salvation.

Abraham demonstrates that a person can be counted righteous before receiving the physical covenant sign and before performing the later works of obedience.

That is why Abraham can be called the father of those who believe, whether or not they possess the physical sign of circumcision.

---

What Romans 4 Is Really Teaching

Paul is using circumcision to answer a much larger question:

How does God count a sinful person righteous?

Abraham's life provides the answer:

He believed God.

[next,]

God credited righteousness.

[next,]

Circumcision came afterward as a sign and seal.

[next,]

Obedience followed.

The order matters.

Righteousness was received by faith; the sign and the works came afterward.

Romans 4 is establishing the basis of justification, and how a person is counted righteous before God. It refutes any teaching that righteousness is earned through religious ceremonies or good works.

That is why Abraham is such a powerful case study for understanding the gospel.

One Important Distinction

Romans 4 is primarily explaining how a person is counted righteous before God.  That does not mean Paul's larger message, concerning righteous living, is unimportant.

The chapters that follow increasingly address the next question:

How does that righteousness become evident in the believer's actual life?

That distinction helps us read Romans correctly.

What's in the Greek? “Baptism”

When the New Testament uses the words baptize and baptism, it is easy to assume that the word itself always means a person being physically dipped into water. But the Greek vocabulary used by the New Testament is more precise than that.

A useful place to begin is with Strong’s Greek entries 911, 907, and 908, which are related words:

βάπτω (911) → βαπτίζω (907) → βάπτισμα (908)
dip → baptize → baptism

Looking at how these words are actually used in the New Testament helps us understand why the word “baptism” cannot automatically be equated with a physical water ceremony, much less assumed to mean that a person receives salvation by physically undergoing that ceremony.

---

1. βάπτω (911): The Word for Literal Dipping

Let's look at our Strong's concordance and the use and meaning of the various derivatives of "bapto."

The Greek verb βάπτω (baptō), Strong’s 911, is the clearest place to begin because it is the root word/base word.  

βάπτω (911)
↓ derivative relationship
βαπτίζω (907)
↓ nominal derivative
βάπτισμα (908)

#911 is found in only four instances in the New Testament.

• Matthew 26:23 — Jesus speaks of someone dipping his hand into the bowl.
• Mark 14:20 — someone dips into the dish.
• Luke 16:24 — the rich man asks that Lazarus dip his finger into water.
• John 13:26 — Jesus dips the morsel into the dish.

In every occurrence, the basic picture is the same:

A physical object is dipped into a physical substance.

Luke 16:24 provides the clearest example because the substance is explicitly water. The Greek word translated “dip” is βάψῃ, a form of βάπτω (911).

Thus, the New Testament demonstrably had a word that could describe the simple physical action:

a physical object → dipped → into water.

This gives us an important point of comparison when we examine the words translated “baptize” and “baptism.”

---

2. βαπτίζω (907): The Word Used for “Baptize”

The related verb βαπτίζω (baptizō), Strong’s 907, is the principal New Testament verb translated “baptize.”

It certainly can describe physical baptism involving water.

For example, Matthew 3:6 describes people being baptized by John in the Jordan River. Matthew 3:16 then describes Jesus coming up from the water after His baptism.

So there is no question that βαπτίζω can describe a physical water baptism.

But its New Testament usage is broader than that.  

Consider Jesus' words in Mark 10:38:

“Are you able to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Jesus was not asking James and John whether they were willing to participate in a water ceremony. He was speaking about the suffering and death that He was about to experience.

Verse 39 continues:

“The baptism with which I am baptized, you shall be baptized.”

The same baptism vocabulary is therefore being used in a context where physical immersion in water is not what Jesus has in view.

The New Testament also uses baptism language in connection with the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist says:

Matthew 3:11

“He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

Here the element or sphere of the baptism is not ordinary water.

The same basic vocabulary is therefore used in several different contexts:

βαπτίζω (907) can refer to:

• baptism involving water
• baptism involving the Holy Spirit
• baptism associated with suffering and death
• certain forms of ceremonial washing

The important point is not that all of these uses mean exactly the same thing. Rather, the word βαπτίζω itself does not specify the nature of the baptism in every occurrence.

The context tells us what kind of baptism is being described.

---

3. βάπτισμα (908): The Noun “Baptism”

The next word is βάπτισμα (baptisma), Strong’s 908.

This is a noun, rather than a verb.

The relationship can therefore be viewed simply as:

βάπτω (911) — dip
↓
βαπτίζω (907) — baptize
↓
βάπτισμα (908) — baptism

The noun βάπτισμα identifies the baptism itself—the baptismal event or reality.

Again, context determines what kind of baptism is being discussed.

For example, Matthew 3:7 speaks of people coming to John's βάπτισμα, his baptism. In that context, the baptism is clearly associated with his physical water ministry.

But the same noun is also used in contexts where baptism refers to something other than a physical water ceremony.

Jesus speaks of His own βάπτισμα in connection with His coming suffering and death. Thus the same noun can identify different kinds of baptismal realities.

John's baptism involved water.

Jesus' baptism involved suffering and death.

Other passages speak of baptism involving the Holy Spirit.

The vocabulary remains related, but the nature of the baptism is determined by context.

---

4. Why the Distinction Between 911 and 907 Matters

This brings us to an interesting feature of the New Testament vocabulary.

The New Testament authors knew and used βάπτω (911) when they wanted to describe a tangible physical dipping.  Why then is it only used 4 times?  Why is this verb not used at all in the doctrinal passages about baptism?

Luke 16:24 is particularly useful:

“Dip (#911) your finger in water.”

So the New Testament writers had a Greek verb available for the very specific picture of:

taking a physical object and dipping it into water.

Yet when they describe baptism, including physical baptism involving water, they use the distinct vocabulary of βαπτίζω (907) and βάπτισμα (908) rather than simply using βάπτω (911).

That distinction does not prove that water baptism never involved immersion. The New Testament clearly describes physical water baptisms.

But it does establish something important:

“Baptism” cannot simply be defined from the word itself as “a person being physically dipped into water.”

The New Testament uses baptism vocabulary in contexts involving water, the Holy Spirit, suffering, death, and ceremonial washing. Consequently, we must determine from the context what kind of baptism a particular passage is describing.

---

Summary

The New Testament authors had a word for ordinary physical dipping—βάπτω (911)—and used it to describe things such as dipping a hand, a morsel of food, or a finger into water.

Yet the words they used for baptizing and baptism—βαπτίζω (907) and βάπτισμα (908)—have a broader range of use.

Therefore:

The NT writers consistently employed the distinct βαπτίζω (907) and βάπτισμα (908) vocabulary when speaking of baptism, including both physical water baptism and baptism understood in theological or Spiritual terms. 

Part One: Christian Nationalism is Unbiblical

[ This is going to be a three part series. Part one will cover the unbiblical theology we'd best avoid. Part two will describe American exceptionalism and how it has created quite opposing political agendas, especially amongst Christians. Part three will update poor theology with a biblical framework of "exile," that Christians might better channel their faith.]  

Photo by Daniel Reche from Pexels

Part One: What Not to Believe

If you ask a “Patriotic Christian” the question, “Does the founding of our country on Christian ideals give Christians today privilege to dominate politics and law?” they would whole-heartedly agree.  Their expectation of political outcomes follows suit. Non-Christian citizens owe it to Christians to let them dominate the political agenda. Christians have a God-given right to have this society ordered by God’s Word.  Much quotation of the Founding Fathers is used as birthright, on par to scripture itself:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting sun may His kingdom come."

- Sam Adams, Father of the American Revolution

But to quote mere men like this is to add to scripture. I’m not here to revive a debate on the history of whether America was founded as a Christian country.  But I will ask you to be honest: isn’t it an irrelevant question?  Whether it was or not doesn’t change the fact that our constitution grants religious liberties to all faiths.

“Yes, but my faith in Jesus guides me to be a politically-active American.  I want what God wants.  And God does not want these changes.”  I can hear the responses.  Christians are tired. Over the last 50 years they've been losing social prominence as witnessed by legalized abortion, changes to the institution of marriage and gender dysphoria, and the removal of God from our military, schools, holidays, etc. It’s time to ask some sobering questions about how God thinks about America.  Does America belong to God?  Is America special in God’s eyes?  What does God want Christian Americans to fight for?  If God wants us to fight, can that even mean violent force?

 

Unfortunately, Jesus’ has no plan for a Christian theocracy (co-mingling of God’s law and government) in America; not from its inception and not for its future.  How do I know?

Because of the scriptures.  Scripture makes it clear the American government will not be the conduit of Jesus’ kingdom-come on earth.  

The Future Kingdom of Jesus

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.”

All of the earth’s governments will be restored to God through the second advent of Christ (Col. 1:20).  The most significant Gentile empires throughout all of history are represented in the statue of Nebuchadnezzer’s prophetic dream.  The feet of iron mixed with clay was hit by the rock not cut with human hands (Dan. 2:34-45).  This rock is the government of Jesus.  During the time this post-apocalyptic government reigns, all nations of the earth will offer their greatness to the kingdom of the Most High, whose is an everlasting Kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey Him (Dan. 8:27).  On that day -- our desire for a theocracy will be satisfied.  

The Patriot would refute, “But -- America was founded on better things in God’s eyes!”  Scripture itself may have been the guiding light which frames the constitution - but it isn’t enough.  No mere man’s words, no matter how godly, brilliant and glorifying to God as they may be, are any guarantee.  No human has willfully indebted or obligated God.  America shares in common the condition of all governments on earth - corruption.  No amount of political reform can ultimately purge the corruption in any government; even a largely Christian one.  How do I know?  Scripture.  Satan is currently the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). 

Matt. 4:8-9.  “Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.  And he said to Him, ‘All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.’”

Satan offered America to Jesus as a temptation because Satan possesses America - and Jesus refused to take the governments.  

The Former Offer of the Kingdom  

Jesus’ government nearly arrived 2000 years ago.  Jesus offered a Christian kingdom, a God-ruled government (theocracy) to first-century Israel - but not to the nations.  In the beginning half of Jesus’ ministry He and John the Baptist preached “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand [or, near].”  It was at hand because their Messiah had arrived and if they repented they could have ushered in their Messianic kingdom.  

The people of Israel had three conditions to satisfy so that they might receive the kingdom of Christ: 1- they must accept their Messiah 2- they must be living in the promised land and 3- they had to have spiritual obedience to God’s commands.  When the people refused to repent and meet the conditions required, and when the Pharisees demonstrated unbelief at Christ’s miracles, that offer was put in abeyance (put on delay).  This turning point was in Matthew 12:24.  Jesus set aside the offer of a Christian kingdom away from Israel and began to teach them in parables.  From then on when Jesus teaches, the kingdom is not at hand and it will be postponed till after the church age.  That is why in Acts when the disciples asked a risen Jesus when the kingdom would be established, Jesus changed the topic:

Acts 1:6-8 “Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, ‘Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’  And He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.  But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’” 

Are There Any Special Promises God Can Make with America?  

Seems straightforward to say, even Israel had conditional terms for possessing their inheritance!  But at least God had promised Israel to the Jews.  You might sum up the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants by saying the land was unconditionally owned and conditionally possessed. Christian Americans have no such arrangement in the scriptures for us and this North American nation.  Even Israel got kicked out of their own land when they didn’t keep in obedient step with our God.  How much more can we expect to have no rights over our land!

“Special Promise” Proof Text #1  “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” Psalm 33:12

Response: Well, which nation is it who has God as their Lord?  Isn’t that Israel?  Put the verse into context and read it again….  “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His own inheritance.”  The rest of the sentence identifies that nation whose God is the Lord; it is the people of His inheritance which is Israel of course.  Didn’t God promise blessing to Israel in Deuteronomy 30?  Of course.  Deut. 32:8-9 says, "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance." America doesn’t have a covenant like Israel, concerning possessing the land or blessing in the land.  America doesn’t have any promises in scripture.  Yet Franklin Graham, a Christian nationalist, used this verse and this verse alone as justification for his most urgent call to political action.

“Special Promise” Proof Text #2  “... if my people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”  2 Chronicles 7:14

Response:  This promise I am certain has truth in it that can be applicable to American believers.  Certainly we believe that if we humble ourselves God will lift us up for that is written in the epistle of James.  But once there is a promise toward a “land,” we have to ask ourselves is this part of the specific covenant God has with the land of Israel??  The answer is yes, this verse while in part relevant for all believers everywhere, has specific promise to the land of Israel alone, for it is only the nation of Israel who is given a promise from God.  Look at the context for more clues anyway - it is right after Solomon dedicates the temple.  God said to him one sentence above, “I have… chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice” vs. 12.  

The Patriot might ask, “I thought we could subvert American government to God’s blessings and authority?”  The logic goes that if there are enough Christians in a country who love God, God will give them what they want, which is control over the land.

While we commend that as many Christians run for office as possible, while we commend believers who use their right to vote and their rights to peaceful protest and recall and reform, we cannot go so far to condone this Christian nationalist falsehood in the public square: that America’s ruling caste is Christianity. 

Does this mean we should just give in and give up in the face of government corruption?  That’s not right either.  We should participate.  Our grounds for involvement are NOT from knowing the framers’ Christian beliefs! Our reason for involvement is because we care about our society!  Our reason for involvement is because God has given us gifts and callings.  Our grounds for involvement is the constitution which extends the right to participate equally to all citizens.  

And Finally - And Most Sensitively - What About Violence?

How far should we go to advance Christ’s kingdom?  Should we fight for it?  Like, literally physically fight for the agenda of Christ?  Take up arms?  

To Pilate Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here.”  (John 18:36)

Though Jesus was a King, He was no threat to Rome or Pilate because His kingdom would not come through a worldly revolution.  His kingdom would be in heaven, for the individual citizens born from above during the church age; it would not come to dominion over a land until after tribulation.

In light of Jesus’s words, how should we understand January 6th and the storming of the U.S. Capitol?  How does God feel about the Christians who were there with Jesus banners, hitting police with their flagpoles?  

Jesus said, "My servants would fight" if His kingdom were here. Because the kingdom of God is not here, who were these violent Christians truly serving in the Capitol breach? Peter could have been a model citizen of the rioter's kingdom because he used a sword as they arrested Jesus.  He swung and sliced off a soldier's ear. But Jesus healed the soldier’s wound.  It is clear that Jesus did not condone revolutionary violence for spiritual matters, nor for any other such as Barrabus's.  Barabbas was jailed for murder with other insurrectionists of Roman rule.  

Matthew 26:52  “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back in its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

In conclusion: this certain expectation of providence upon the political aims of well meaning-brothers and sisters needs a refresh. Together we can examine the truth about the hope of Israel and the millennial kingdom of Christ. Until the day of the Lord, we might do well to find a more biblical stance for our sojourn.