Romans 4:1–4:25

Romans 4:1-3 1. What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 1. Quid ergo dicemus, invenisse Abraham patrem nostrum secundw carnem? 2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 2. Si enim Abraham ex operibus justificatus est. habet quo glorietur, sed non apud Deum. 3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. [129] 3. Quid enim Scripture dicit' Credidit Abraham Deo, et imputa tum est illi in justitiam. 1. What then, etc. This is a confirmation by example; and it is a very strong one, since all things are alike with regard to the subject and the person; for he was the father of the faithful, to whom we ought all to be conformed; and there is also but one way and not many ways by which righteousness may be obtained by all. In many other things one example would not be sufficient to make a common rule; but as in the person of Abraham there was exhibited a mirror and pattern of righteousness, which belongs in common to the whole Church, rightly does Paul apply what has been written of him alone to the whole body of the Church, and at the same time he gives a check to the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in than that they were the children of Abraham; and they could not have dared to claim to themselves more holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch. Since it is then evident that he was justified freely, his posterity, who claimed a righteousness of their own by the law, ought to have been made silent even through shame. According to the flesh, etc. Between this clause and the word father there is put in Paul's text the verb heurekenai, in this order -- "What shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?" On this account, some interpreters think that the question is -- "What has Abraham obtained according to the flesh?" If this exposition be approved, the words according to the flesh mean naturally or from himself. It is, however, probable that they are to be connected with the word father. [130] Besides, as we are wont to be more touched by domestic examples, the dignity of their race, in which the Jews took too much pride, is here again expressly mentioned. But some regard this as spoken in contempt, as they are elsewhere called the carnal children of Abraham, being not so spiritually or in a legitimate sense. But I think that it was expressed as a thing peculiar to the Jews; for it was a greater honor to be the children of Abraham by nature and descent, than by mere adoption, provided there was also faith. He then concedes to the Jews a closer bond of union, but only for this end -- that he might more deeply impress them that they ought not to depart from the example of their father. 2. For if Abraham, etc. This is an incomplete argument, [131] which may be made in this form -- "If Abraham was justified by works, he might justly glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God; then he was not justified by works." Thus the clause but not before God, is the minor proposition; and to this must be added the conclusion which I have stated, though it is not expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend to have anything of our own to which a reward is supposed to be due at God's tribunal. Since he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim for himself the least particle of merit? 3. For what saith the Scripture? This is a proof of the minor proposition, or of what he assumed, when he denied that Abraham had any ground for glorying: for if Abraham was justified, because he embraced, by faith, the bountiful mercy of God, it follows, that he had nothing to glory in; for he brought nothing of his own, except a confession of his misery, which is a solicitation for mercy. He, indeed, takes it as granted, that the righteousness of faith is the refuge, and, as it were, the asylum of the sinner, who is destitute of works. For if there be any righteousness by the law or by works, it must be in men themselves; but by faith they derive from another what is wanting in themselves; and hence the righteousness of faith is rightly called imputative. The passage, which is quoted, is taken from Genesis 15:6 ; in which the word believe is not to be confined to any particular expression, but it refers to the whole covenant of salvation, and the grace of adoption, which Abraham apprehended by faith. There is, indeed, mentioned there the promise of a future seed; but it was grounded on gratuitous adoption: [132] and it ought to be observed, that salvation without the grace of God is not promised, nor God's grace without salvation; and again, that we are not called to the grace of God nor to the hope of salvation, without having righteousness offered to us. Taking this view, we cannot but see that those understand not the principles of theology, who think that this testimony recorded by Moses, is drawn aside from its obvious meaning by Paul: for as there is a particular promise there stated, they understand that he acted rightly and faithfully in believing it, and was so far approved by God. But they are in this mistaken; first, because they have not considered that believing extends to the whole context, and ought not to be confined to one clause. But the principal mistake is, that they begin not with the testimony of God's favor. But God gave this, to make Abraham more assured of his adoption and paternal favor; and included in this was eternal salvation by Christ. Hence Abraham, by believing, embraced nothing but the favor offered to him, being persuaded that it would not be void. Since this was imputed to him for righteousness, it follows, that he was not otherwise just, than as one trusting in God's goodness, and venturing to hope for all things from him. Moses does not, indeed, tell us what men thought of him, but how he was accounted before the tribunal of God. Abraham then laid hold on the benignity of God offered to him in the promise, through which he understood that righteousness was communicated to him. It is necessary, in order to form an opinion of righteousness, to understand this relation between the promise and faith; for there is in this respect the same connection between God and us, as there is, according to the lawyers, between the giver and the person to whom any thing is given, (datorem et donatarium -- the donor and the donee:) for we can no otherwise attain righteousness, than as it is brought to us, as it were, by the promise of the gospel; and we realize its possession by faith. [133] How to reconcile what James says, which seems somewhat contrary to this view I have already explained, and intend to explain more fully, when I come, if the Lord will permit, to expound that Epistle. Only let us remember this, -- that those to whom righteousness is imputed, are justified; since these two things are mentioned by Paul as being the same. We hence conclude that the question is not, what men are in themselves, but how God regards them; not that purity of conscience and integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous favor of God; but that when the reason is asked, why God loves us and owns us as just, it is necessary that Christ should come forth as one who clothes us with his own righteousness. Footnotes: [129] This chapter, as Turrettin observes, divides itself into three parts. The first from 1 to 12 inclusive, the second from 13 to 17 inclusive, in which it is proved that the promises made to Abraham did not depend on the law; and the third from 18 to the end, in which the faith of Abraham is commended, and the Christian faith briefly referred to. But Pareus makes a different division: 1, Four proofs of justification by faith, from 1 to 16; 2, The dispensation of Abraham, from 17 to 22; 3, The application of the subject, from 23 to 25. -- Ed. [130] So did all the fathers according to Pareus, and so does the Vulgate. But later commentators have taken the words as they stand, and with good reason, for otherwise the correspondence between this and the following verse would not be apparent. Beza, Hammond, and Macknight take the words in their proper order; and this is what is done by the Syriac and Arabic versions. Kata sarka is rendered by Grotius and Macknight, "by (per) the flesh. Some understand by the word "flesh," circumcision, as Vatablus; others, natural powers, as Grotius But Beza and Hammond think that it is the same as what is meant "by works" in the next verse; and "flesh" evidently has this meaning: it signifies often the performance of what the law requires, the observance not only of ceremonial but also of moral duties. See Galatians 3:3 ; Galatians 6:12 ; and especially Philippians 3:3 , 4; where Paul gives up "all confidence in the flesh," and enumerates, among other things, his strict conformity to the law. -- Ed. [131] Epicheirema; in Greek epicheirema, an attempted but an unfinished process of reasoning. It is not necessary to introduce this sort of syllogism, it being not the character of Scripture nor of any other writing to discuss matters in this form. The word for "glorying" here, kauchema, is different from that in Romans 3:27 , kauchesis, and means reason, ground, or cause for glorying, and is rendered by Grotius "unde laudem speret -- whereby he may hope for praise;" and by Beza and Piscator "unde glorietur -- whereby he may glory." To complete the following clause, most repeat the words echei kauchema -- "But he has no ground for glorying before God." Vatablus gives another meaning, "But not with regard to God," that is, with regard to what he has said in his word; and this view is confirmed by what immediately follows, "For what saith the Scripture?" In this case there is nothing understood. That pros theon is used in a similar manner, is evident from other passages: ta pros theon -- "things which pertain to God," i.e., to God's work or service. See Hebrews 2:17 ; Hebrews 5:1 . -- Ed. [132] The adoption is evidently included in the words, found in the first verse of this chapter, "I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward." What follows is connected with this, and the promise of a numerous seed arose from what Abraham said respecting an heir. His believing then had an especial regard to the first promise, as the second, respecting his "seed," was only, as it were, an enlargement of the first, or an addition to it. -- Ed. [133] The foregoing observations contain a lucid and a satisfactory view of the character of Abraham's faith, perfectly consistent with what is said of it by Paul in this chapter, and in the epistle to the Galatians. Some think that the principle of faith was the only thing which the Apostle had in view in referring to Abraham's faith, and that he had no special regard to the object of justifying faith, that is, Christ. But that Christ was, in a measure, revealed to him, is evident from the account given in Genesis, and from what Christ himself has said, -- that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced, John 8:56 . At the same time it was the promise of gratuitous mercy, as Calvin intimates, that formed the most distinctive object of Abraham's faith, the promise of a free acceptance, without any regard to works. There are two things which the Apostle clearly intended to show, -- that imputation of righteousness is an act of gratuitous favor, -- and that it is alone by faith. There is some difference in the wording, though not in the meaning, of the sentence from Genesis 15:6 . Paul gives it literally according to the Septuagint. The word "Abraham," is put in; instead of "Jehovah," it is "God;" the verb "count," is made passive, and a preposition is placed before "righteousness." The Hebrew is this, -- "And he believed on Jehovah, and he counted it to him righteousness." The "it," no doubt, refers to what is included in the word "believed." So Paul explains it in verse 9, where he expressly puts down pistis, faith. It has been said that this faith of Abraham was not faith in Christ, according to what the context shows in Genesis. And it was not so specifically: nor does Paul represent it as such; for this was not his object. He states it throughout as faith in God; it was believing the testimony of God; but that testimony embraced a promise respecting Christ; so that it included the Savior within its compass. We must remember that Paul's object is to establish this truth, -- that righteousness is attained by faith and not by works; and that for this end he adduces the examples both of Abraham and David. It was not his design to point out specifically the object of justifying faith. We must keep this in view, in order to understand the reasoning of the Apostle in this chapter: it is the power and efficacy of faith, in opposition to all works, that he particularly dwells upon, and the gracious promise of God was its object. -- Ed.

What {1} shall we then say that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the {a} flesh, hath found? (1) A new argument of great weight, taken from the example of Abraham the father of all believers: and this is the proposition: if Abraham is considered in himself by his works, he has deserved nothing with which to rejoice with God. (a) By works, as is evident from the next verse.

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? As pertaining to the flesh — That is, As touching his works, Romans 4:2 , called also the letter, Romans 2:27 , and the law a carnal commandment, Hebrews 7:16 ; Hebrews 7:16 .

What shall we say then,.... The apostle having proved that there is no justification by the works of the law; to make this appear more clear and evident to the Jews, he instances in the greatest person of their nation, and for whom they had the greatest value and esteem, Abraham, our father; who was not a righteous and good man, but the head of the Jewish nation; and, as the Syriac version here styles him, , "the head", or "chief of the fathers"; and so the Alexandrian copy, "our forefather": and was the first of the circumcision, and is described here by his relation to the Jews, "our father"; that is, as pertaining to the flesh; or according to carnal descent, or natural generation and relation; for in a spiritual sense, or with respect to faith and grace, he was the father of others, even of all that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles: now the question put concerning him is, "what he, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" for the phrase, "as pertaining to the flesh", may be connected with the word found; and to find anything is by seeking to obtain, and enjoy it: and the sense of the whole is, did he find out the way of life, righteousness, and salvation by the mere hint of carnal reason? and did he obtain these things by his own strength? or were these acquired by his circumcision in the flesh, or by any other fleshly privilege he enjoyed? or was he justified before God by any services and performances of his, of whatsoever kind? There is indeed no express answer returned; but it is evident from what follows, that the meaning of the apostle is, that it should be understood in the negative.

To meet the views of the Jews, the apostle first refers to the example of Abraham, in whom the Jews gloried as their most renowned forefather. However exalted in various respects, he had nothing to boast in the presence of God, being saved by grace, through faith, even as others. Without noticing the years which passed before his call, and the failures at times in his obedience, and even in his faith, it was expressly stated in Scripture that he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, Ge 15:6. From this example it is observed, that if any man could work the full measure required by the law, the reward must be reckoned as a debt, which evidently was not the case even of Abraham, seeing faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. When believers are justified by faith, their faith being counted for righteousness, their faith does not justify them as a part, small or great, of their righteousness; but as the appointed means of uniting them to Him who has chosen as the name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our Righteousness. Pardoned people are the only blessed people. It clearly appears from the Scripture, that Abraham was justified several years before his circumcision. It is, therefore, plain that this rite was not necessary in order to justification. It was a sign of the original corruption of human nature. And it was such a sign as was also an outward seal, appointed not only to confirm God's promises to him and to his seed, and their obligation to be the Lord's, but likewise to assure him of his being already a real partaker of the righteousness of faith. Thus Abraham was the spiritual forefather of all believers, who walked after the example of his obedient faith. The seal of the Holy Spirit in our sanctification, making us new creatures, is the inward evidence of the righteousness of faith.

CHAPTER 4 Ro 4:1-25. The Foregoing Doctrine of Justification by Faith Illustrated from the Old Testament. First: Abraham was justified by faith. 1-3. What shall we say then that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?—that is, (as the order in the original shows), "hath found, as pertaining to ('according to,' or 'through') the flesh"; meaning, "by all his natural efforts or legal obedience." Romans 4:1-8 Abraham himself was justified by faith, Romans 4:9-12 which was imputed to him for righteousness before circumcision, that he might be the common father of believers, whether circumcised or not. Romans 4:13-17 The promise was not given him through the law, else had it been void from the very nature of the law; but being of faith by grace is sure to all the destined seed, and not to those of the law only. Romans 4:18-22 The acceptableness of Abraham’s faith, Romans 4:23-25 which stands recorded not for his sake only, but for the sake of all who shall profess a like faith in God through Christ. The apostle proceeds to prove his main conclusion, Romans 3:28 , which is, that a sinner is justified by faith without works, from the example of Abraham. He was a man that had faith and works both, yet he was justified by faith, and not by works; and who doubts but the children are justified after the same manner that their father was: there is but one way of justification; this is the connexion. As pertaining to the flesh: these words may either be referred to father; and then they import no more but that Abraham was their father according to the flesh, Romans 9:5 . Or else they may be referred to the following word found; and then the question is, What hath Abraham found, i.e. got or attained, according to the flesh? The sense is, What hath he got by his righteousness, which stands in works, and are done in the flesh? Abraham obtained not righteousness by any works, ceremonial or moral. So the word flesh is taken, {see Philippians 3:3 ,4 } when under the word flesh came circumcision, our own righteousness, which is by the law, or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ.

What shall we say then? - See Romans 3:1 . This is rather the objection of a Jew. "How does your doctrine of justification by faith agree with what the Scriptures say of Abraham? Was the Law set aside in his case? Did he derive no advantage in justification from the rite of circumcision, and from the covenant which God made with him?" The object of the apostle now is to answer this inquiry. That Abraham our father - Our ancestor; the father and founder of the nation; see the note at Matthew 3:9 The Jews valued themselves much on the fact that he was their father; and an argument, drawn from his example or conduct, therefore, would be especially forcible. As pertaining to the flesh - This expression is one that has been much controverted. In the original, it may refer either to Abraham as their father "according to the flesh," that is, their natural father, or from whom they were descended; or it may be connected with "hath found." "What shall we say that Abraham our father hath found in respect to the flesh?" κατὰ σάρκα kata sarka. The latter is doubtless the proper connection. Some refer the word "flesh" to external privileges and advantages; others to his own strength or power (Calvin and Grotius); and others make it refer to circumcision. This latter I take to be the correct interpretation. It agrees best with the connection, and equally well with the usual meaning of the word. The idea is, "If people are justified by faith; if works are to have no place; if, therefore, all rites and ceremonies, all legal observances, are useless in justification; what is the advantage of circumcision? What benefit did Abraham derive from it? Why was it appointed? And why is such an importance attached to it in the history of his life." A similar question was asked in Romans 3:1 . Hath found - Hath obtained. What advantage has he derived from it?

Contents The object of this chapter is to confirm this doctrine of justification by faith. It is divided into two parts. The first, from v. 1-17 inclusive, contains the argumentative portion. The second, Romans 4:18-25 , is an illustration of the faith of Abraham. Romans 4:1-17 Paul, from the 21st verse of the preceding chapter, had been setting forth the gospel method of salvation. That this is the true method he now proves, 1. From the fact that Abraham was justified by faith, Romans 4:1-5 . That this was really the case he shows, first, because otherwise Abraham would have had ground of boasting, even in the sight of God, Romans 4:2 ; second, because the Scriptures expressly declare that he was justified by faith, Romans 4:8 . Romans 4:4 , Romans 4:5 , are designed to show that being justified by faith is tantamount with being justified gratuitously, and therefore all those passages which speak of the gratuitous forgiveness of sins may be fairly cited in favor of the doctrine of justification by faith. 2. On this principle he adduces Psalms 32:1 , Psalms 32:2 , as his second argument; for there David speaks not of rewarding the righteous as such, or for their righteousness, but of the free acceptance of the unworthy, Romans 4:6-8 . 3. The third argument is designed to show that circumcision is not a necessary condition of justification, from the fact that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, and therefore is the head and father of all believers, whether circumcised or not, Romans 4:9-12 . 4. The fourth argument is from the nature of the covenant made with Abraham, in which the promise was made on the condition of faith, and not of legal obedience, Romans 4:13 , Romans 4:14 . 5. And the fifth, from the nature of the law, Romans 4:15-17 . Romans 4:1 What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? The connection of this verse with the preceding train of reasoning is obvious. Paul had taught that we are justified by faith; as well in confirmation of this doctrine, as to anticipate an objection from the Jew, he refers to the case of Abraham: ‘How was it then with Abraham? How did he obtain justification?’ The point in dispute was, how justification is to be attained. Paul proposes to decide the question by reference to a case about which no one could doubt. All admitted that Abraham was justified. The only question was, How? The particle οὖν , therefore, is not inferential, but simply indicates transition. What then shall we say about Abraham? In the question, however, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν , κ . τ . λ . the τί belongs to εὑρηκέναι : ‘What shall we say that Abraham hath found?’ i.e. attained. The words κατὰ σάρκα do not belong to πατέρα , ‘our father according to the flesh,’ but to the preceding infinitive, εὐρηκέναι ‘what hath he attained through the flesh? ’ Although the question is indefinite, the connection shows that Paul meant to ask whether Abraham secured justification before God, κατὰ σάρκα through the flesh . The word flesh admits in this connection of different explanations. Calvin says it is equivalent to naturaliter, ex seipso, and Grotius much to the same effect, propriis viribus , ‘through his own resources.’ Not much different from this is the explanation of Meyer, Tholuck, and De Wette — nach sein menschlicher Weise — that is, after a purely human way; so that σάρξ stands opposed to the divine Πνεῦμα , (Holy Spirit). If this implies that Abraham was not justified by natural, but was justified by spiritual works, (works done after regeneration,) it contradicts the whole teaching of the apostle. This, however, though naturally suggested as the meaning of the passage as thus explained, is not the doctrine of either of the commentators just named. Paul gives his own interpretation of κατὰ σάρκα in the following verse: ‘Did Abraham,’ he asks, ‘attain justification according to the flesh? No, for if he was justified by works, he hath whereof to boast.’ It is plain that he uses the two expressions, according to the flesh and by works , as equivalent. This meaning of σάρξ is easily explained. Paul uses the word for what is external, as opposed to what is internal and spiritual, and thus for all external rites and ceremonial works, and then for works without limitation. See Galatians 3:3 ; Galatians 6:12 ; Philippians 3:3 , Philippians 3:4 . In this last passage Paul includes, under the flesh , not only his Hebrew descent, his circumcision, his being a Pharisee, his blameless adherence to the Jewish law, but everything comprehended under his “own righteousness,” as distinguished from “the righteousness which is of God ( ἐπὶ πίστει ) on the condition of faith.” This is clearly its sense here. It includes everything meant by “works” and “works” includes all forms of personal righteousness. This same result is reached in another way. Κατὰ σάρκα may mean, as Meyer and others say, after a human method , i.e. after the manner of men; and this may be understood to mean after the manner common among men, i.e. through works, or personal merit, which is the way that men adopt to secure favor with others. This is the explanation given by Köllner.