Bibelkommentare

Romans 4:6-8

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Paul’s first argument in favor of gratuitous justification was from the case of Abraham; his second is from the testimony of David. The immediate connection of this verse is with Romans 4:5. At the conclusion of that verse, it was said, to him who had no works, faith is imputed, in order to his justification, i.e., he is justified gratuitously, even as David speaks of the blessedness of him whom, although destitute of merit, God regards and treats as righteous. Describeth the blessedness, i.e., pronounces blessed. The words are λέγει τὸν μακαρισμόν, utters the declaration of blessedness concerning the man, etc. To whom God imputeth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards and treats as righteous, although he is not in himself righteous. The meaning of this clause cannot be mistaken. ‘To impute sin,’ is to lay sin to the charge of any one, and to treat him accordingly, as is universally admitted; so ‘to impute righteousness,’ is to set righteousness to one’s account, and to treat him accordingly. This righteousness does not, of course, belong antecedently to those to whom it is imputed, for they are ungodly, and destitute of works. Here then is an imputation to men of what does not belong to them, and to which they have in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the apostle’s definition of the term to justify. It is not making men inherently righteous, or morally pure, but it is regarding and treating them as just. This is done, not on the ground of personal character or works, but on the ground of the righteousness of Christ. As this is dealing with men, not according to merit, but in a gracious manner, the passage cited from Psalms 32:1, Psalms 32:2, is precisely in point: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” That is, blessed is the man who, although a sinner, is regarded and treated as righteous. As the remission of sin is necessarily connected with restoration to God’s favor, the apostle speaks of it as the whole of justification; not that the idea of remission exhausts the whole idea of justification, but it necessarily implies the rest. In like manner, in Ephesians 1:7, it is said, “in whom we have redemption … the forgiveness of sins;” which does not imply that forgiveness is the whole of redemption, that the gift of the Spirit, the glorification of the body, and eternal life, which are so constantly spoken of as fruits of Christ’s work, as parts of the purchased inheritance, are to be excluded.

Here again the doctrine of a personal, inherent righteousness, which it is the special object of the apostle to exclude, is introduced by the modern mystical or transcendental theologians. On the declaration that righteousness is imputed without works, Olshausen remarks: “No matter how abundant or pure works may be, the ground of blessedness is not in them, but in the principle whence they flow; that is, not in man, but in God.” The whole doctrine of the apostle is made to be, that men are justified (made holy,) not by themselves, but by God; thus confounding, as Romanists do, justification with sanctification. In Psalms 32:1, Psalms 32:2, as quoted by Paul from the lxx, ἀφίεναι (to remit,) and ἐπικαλύπτειν (to cover,) are interchanged. Olshausen says the former expresses the New Testament idea of forgiveness (die reale Hinwegschaffung der Sunde) i.e., the real removal of sin; the latter, the Old Testament idea of non-imputation of sin — the sin remaining, but being overlooked. This view of the nature of remission, and of the difference between the Old and the New Testament, is purely Romish.

return to '

Romans 4:9

Cometh this blessedness upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? etc. The apostle’s third argument, commencing with this verse and continuing to the 12th, has special reference to circumcision. He had proved that Abraham was not justified on account of his works generally; he now proves that circumcision is neither the ground nor condition of his acceptance. The proof of this point is brief and conclusive. It is admitted that Abraham was justified. The only question is, was it before or after his circumcision? If before, it certainly was not on account of it. As it was before, circumcision must have had some other object.

‘Cometh this blessedness.’ There is nothing in the original to answer to the word cometh, although some word of the kind must be supplied. The most natural word to supply is λέγεται, David utters the declaration of the blessedness “of the man whose sins are pardoned.” Concerning whom is this declaration uttered? The word rendered blessedness means, more properly, ‘declaration of blessedness.’ ‘This declaration of blessedness, is it upon, i.e., is it about (λέγεται), is it said concerning the circumcision only?’ The preposition (ἐπί) used by the apostle, often points out the direction of an action, or the subject concerning which anything is said. This question has not direct reference to the persons to whom the offers of acceptance are applicable, as though it were equivalent to asking, ‘Is this blessedness confined to the Jews, or may it be extended to the Gentiles also?’ because this is not the subject now in hand. It is the ground or condition of acceptance, and not the persons to whom the offer is to be made, that is now under consideration. The question therefore is, in substance, this: ‘Does this declaration of blessedness relate to the circumcised, as such? Is circumcision necessary to justification?’ — the blessing of which Paul is speaking. The answer obviously implied to the preceding question is, ‘It is not said concerning the circumcised, as such; for we say that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.’ It was his faith, not his circumcision, that was the condition of his justification. The preceding verses are occupied with the testimony of David, which decided nothing as to the point of circumcision. To determine whether this rite was a necessary condition of acceptance, it was requisite to refer again to the case of Abraham. To decide the point presented in the question at the beginning of the verse, the apostle argues from the position already established. It is conceded or proved that Abraham was justified by faith; to determine whether circumcision is necessary, we have only to ask, Under what circumstances was he thus justified, before or after circumcision?

return to '

Romans 4:10

How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Of course, his circumcision, which was long subsequent to his justification, could not be either the ground or necessary condition of his acceptance with God.

return to '

Romans 4:11

And he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised, etc. As Paul had shown that circumcision was not the condition of justification, it became necessary to declare its true nature and design. The sign of circumcision, i.e. circumcision which was a sign, (genitive of apposition;) as “the earnest of the spirit,” for ‘the Spirit which is an earnest,’ 2 Corinthians 1:20. The seal of the righteousness of faith, etc. The phrase, righteousness of faith, is a concise expression for ‘righteousness which is attained by faith,’ or, as it stands more fully in Philippians 3:9, “the righteousness of God, which is by faith.” The word righteousness, in such connections, includes, with the idea of excellence or obedience, that of consequent blessedness. It is the ‘state of acceptableness with God.’ The circumcision of Abraham was designed to confirm to him the fact, that he was regarded and treated by God as righteous, through faith, which was the means of his becoming interested in the promise of redemption. From this passage it is evident that circumcision was not merely the seal of the covenant between God and the Hebrews as a nation. Besides the promises made to Abraham of a numerous posterity, and of the possession of the land of Canaan, there was the far higher promise, that through his seed (i.e. Christ, Galatians 3:16) all the nations of the earth should be blessed. This was the promise of redemption, as the apostle teaches us in Galatians 3:13-18, “Christ,” he says, “has redeemed us from the curse of the law — in order that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles.” The blessing promised to Abraham, in which the Gentiles participate through Jesus Christ, can he none other than redemption. As that blessing was promised to Abraham on the condition, not of works, but of faith, the apostle hence argues, that in our case also we are made partakers of that blessing by faith, and not by works. This was the covenant of which circumcision was the seal. All therefore who were circumcised, professed to embrace the covenant of grace. All the Jews were professors of the true religion, and constituted the visible Church, in which by divine appointment their children were included. This is the broad and enduring basis of infant church membership.

Abraham, says the apostle, was thus assured of his justification by faith, (εἰς τὸ εἶναι,) in order that he might be the father; or, so that he is the father, etc. The former explanation is to be preferred, not only because εἰς with the infinitive, commonly expresses design, but also because the whole context shows that the apostle intends to bring into view the purpose of God in the justification of Abraham. The father of all them that believed though they be not circumcised, πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι ̓ ἀκροβυστίας i.e. ‘of all believing, with uncircumcision.’ That is, of all uncircumcised believes. The preposition, διά here, as in Romans 2:27, and elsewhere, simply marks the attendant circumstances. The word father expresses community of nature or character, and is often applied to the head or founder of any school or class of men, whose character or course is determined by the relation to the person so designated: as Genesis 4:20, Genesis 4:21 : “Jabal … was the father of such as dwell in tents;” and, “Jubal … was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.” Hence teachers, priests, and kings are often called fathers. Believers are called the children of Abraham, because of this identity of religious nature or character, as he stands out in Scripture as the believer; and because it was with him that the covenant of grace, embracing all the children of God, whether Jews or Gentiles, was reenacted; and because they are his heirs, inheriting the blessings promised to him. As Abraham was the head and father of the theoretical people under the Old Testament, this relation was not disowned when the middle wall of partition was broken down, and the Gentiles introduced into the family of God. He still remained the father of the faithful, and we are “the sons of Abraham by faith,” Galatians 3:7. The Jews were accustomed to speak in the same way of Abraham: Michlol Jophi on Malachi 2:15, by the one there mentioned, “Abraham is intended, for he was one alone, and the father of all who follow and imitate him in faith.” Bechai, fol. 27, he is called “The root of faith, and father of all those who believe in one God.” Jalkut Chadash, fol. 54, 4, “On this account Abraham was not circumcised until he was ninety-nine years old, lest he should shut the door on proselytes coming in.” See Schoettgen, p. 508.

That righteousness might be imputed unto them also. The connection and design of these words are not very clear, and they are variously explained. They may be considered as explanatory of the former clause, and therefore connected with the first part of the verse. The sense would then be, ‘Abraham was justified, being yet uncircumcised, that he might be the father of believers, although uncircumcised, that is, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.’ This clause is most commonly regarded as a parenthesis, designed to indicate the point of resemblance between Abraham and those of whom he is called the father: ‘He is the father of uncircumcised believers, since they also are justified by faith, as he was.’ The words εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι are explanatory of εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα: ‘He was justified in uncircumcision, in order that he might be the father, etc.; that is, in order that faith might be imputed to them also.’ From this it appears that “to impute faith for righteousness” and “to impute righteousness,” are synonymous. To Abraham righteousness was imputed; he had the (δικαιοσύνη τῆς πίστεως) righteousness of faith as truly and really as believers now have. Nothing can be more opposed to the whole tenor of apostolic teaching than the Romish and modern mystical doctrine, that the Old Testament believers were not fully justified; that their sins were pretermitted, but not remitted; that their regeneration was symbolical, but not real.

return to '

Romans 4:12

And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, etc. That the preceding clause is parenthetical is plain, because the grammatical construction in this verse is continued unbroken. Father of circumcision, i.e., of the circumcised. To them, αὐτοῖς, This change of construction from the genitive to the dative may be accounted for either by the fact, that in the Hebrew it may be said “father to” as well as “father of;” or by assuming that αὐτοῖς is the dative of advantage, “for them.” The meaning of this verse is somewhat doubtful. According to our version, which adheres closely to the Greek, the meaning is, ‘Abraham is not the father of uncircumcised believers only, as stated in Romans 4:11, but he is the father of the circumcised also, provided they follow the example of his faith.’ According to this view, as Romans 4:11 presents him as the father of the believing Gentiles, this presents him as the father of the believing Jews. The only grammatical objection to this interpretation is the repetition of the article τοῖς before στοιχοῦσι, which would seem to indicate that “those who follow the steps of his faith” were a different class from the circumcised. Hence some commentators interpret the passage thus: ‘He is the father of the circumcision, and not of the circumcision only, but also of those who follow his faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised.’ Put this is inconsistent with the construction.

1. It overlooks the καί, at the beginning of the verse, by which it is connected with Romans 4:11 : ‘He is the father of the uncircumcised, (Romans 4:11,) and father of the circumcised, (Romans 4:12.)

2. It requires a transposition of the words τοῖς οὐ, so as to read οὐ τοῖς. What Paul says is, ‘To those who are not of the circumcision only.’ This interpretation makes him say, ‘Not to those only who are of the circumcision.’

3. It is very unnatural to make this verse repeat what had just been said in Romans 4:11. There Paul had said that Abraham was the father of Gentile believers; why should he here say he was the father of the Jews, and also of the Gentiles?

The former interpretation, which is adopted by the great body of commentators, is therefore to be preferred.

return to '

Romans 4:13

Romans 4:13-16 contain two additional arguments in favor of the apostle’s doctrine. The first, Romans 4:13, Romans 4:14, is the same as that presented more at length in Galatians 3:18, etc., and is founded on the nature of a covenant. The promise having been made to Abraham (and his seed), on the condition of faith, cannot now, consistently with fidelity, be made to depend on obedience to the law. The second argument, Romans 4:15, Romans 4:16, is from the nature of the law itself.

For the promise, that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, etc. The word for does not connect this verse with the one immediately preceding, as a proof of the insufficiency of circumcision. It rather marks the introduction of a new argument in favor of the general proposition which the chapter is designed to establish. As Abraham was not justified for his circumcision, so neither was it on account of his obedience to the law. If, however, it be preferred to connect this verse with what immediately precedes, the argument is substantially the same. In the preceding verses Paul had said that Abraham is the father of believers; in other words, that believers are his heirs, for the promise that he should inherit the world was made on the condition of faith. The promise here spoken of is, that Abraham and his seed should be the heirs of the world. The word heir, in Scripture, frequently means secure possessor. Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 6:17, Hebrews 11:7, etc. This use of the term probably arose from the fact, that among the Jews possession by inheritance was much more secure and permanent than that obtained by purchase. The promise was not to Abraham, nor to his seed, (ἤ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ,) i.e. neither to the one nor to the other. Both were included in the promise. And by his seed, is not here, as in Galatians 3:16, meant Christ, but his spiritual children. This is evident from Romans 4:16, where the apostle speaks of πᾶν τὸ σπέρμα, the whole seed. The clause τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶαι is explanatory of ἡ ἐπαγγελία. It states the contents of the promise. The article τό, attached to the infinitive, renders it more prominent or emphatic. As no such promise as that mentioned in this verse is contained, in so many words, in the Old Testament, the apostle must have designed to express what he knew to be the purport of those actually given. The expression, however, has been variously explained.

1. Some understand the world to mean the land of Canaan merely. But in the first place, this is a very unusual, if not an entirely unexampled use of the word. And, in the second place, this explanation is inconsistent with the context; for Paul has reference to a promise of which, as appears from Romans 4:16, believing Gentiles are to partake.

2. Others understand the apostle to refer to the promise that Abraham should be the father of many nations, Genesis 17:5, and that his posterity should be as numerous as the stars of heaven, Genesis 15:5; promises which they limit to his natural descendants, who, being widely scattered, may be said, in a limited sense, to possess the world. But this interpretation is irreconcilable with Romans 4:16.

3. Besides the promises already referred to, it was also said, that in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, Genesis 12:3. This, as Paul explains it, Galatians 3:16, etc., had direct reference to the blessings of redemption through Jesus Christ, who was the seed of Abraham. And here too he speaks of blessings of which all believers partake. The possession of the world, therefore, here intended, must be understood in a manner consistent with these passages. The expression is frequently taken in a general sense, as indicating general prosperity and happiness. “To be heir of the world” would then mean, to be prosperous and happy, in the best sense of the words. Reference is made, in support of this interpretation, to such passages as Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:11, “The meek shall inherit the earth;” Psalms 25:13, “His seed shall inherit the earth.” The promise then, to be the heir of the world, is a general promise of blessedness. And as the happiness promised to believers, or the pious, as such, is of course the happiness consequent on religion, and is its reward, the promise in this sense may include all the blessings of redemption. So in Galatians 3:14, Paul uses the expression “that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles,” as equivalent to saying ‘that all the blessings of the gospel might come upon them.’

4. Or the promises in question may have reference to the actual possession of the world by the spiritual seed of Abraham, and Christ their head. The declaration that Abraham should be the father of many nations, and that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude, included far more than that his natural descendants should be very numerous.

If they who are of faith ‘are the seed of Abraham, and heirs of’ the promise,’ Galatians 3:9, Galatians 3:29, then will the promise, as stated by the apostle, have its literal accomplishment when the kingdoms of this world are given to the saints of the most high God (Daniel 7:27,) and when the uttermost parts of the earth become the possession of Christ. In this sense, the promise includes the universal prevalence of the true religion, involving of course the advent of Christ, the establishment of his kingdom, and all its consequent blessings. The Jewish writers were accustomed to represent Abraham as the heir of the world. “Bemidbar, R. 14., fol. 202, ‘The garden is the world which God gave to Abraham, to whom it is said, Thou shalt be a blessing.’ ‘God gave to my father Abraham the possession of heaven and earth.’ Midrasch Mischle, 19. Mechila, in Exodus 14:31, ‘Abraham our father did not obtain the inheritance of this world, and the world to come, except through faith.’” Wetstein.

The promise to Abraham and his seed was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. That is, it was not on condition of obedience to the law, but on condition of his having that righteousness which is obtained by faith. Through the law, is therefore equivalent to through the works of the law, as appears from its opposition to the latter clause, ‘righteousness of faith.’ By the law, is to be understood the whole rule of duty, as in other passages of the same kind; see Romans 3:20. In this sense it of course includes the Mosaic law, which, to the Jews, was the most prominent portion of the revealed will of God, and by obedience to which especially they hoped for the mercy of God. The parallel passage, Galatians 3:18, etc., where the law is said to have been given four hundred years after the covenant formed with Abraham, shows it was one part of the apostle’s design to convince the Jews, that as Abraham was not justified by his circumcision, (Romans 4:11,) so also it was not in virtue of the Mosaic economy not yet established; and therefore the promise could not be made to depend on the condition of obedience to that dispensation. This idea, although included, is not to be urged to the exclusion of the more comprehensive meaning of the word law, which the usage of the apostle and the context show to be also intended. It was neither by obedience to the law generally, nor to the particular form of it, as it appeared in the Mosaic institutions, that the promise was to be secured.

return to '

Romans 4:14

For if they which are of the law be heirs, etc. The original condition being faith, if another be substituted the covenant is broken, the promise violated, and the condition made of none effect. “They who are of the law (οἱ ἐκ νόμου,) sometimes, as Romans 4:16, means the Jews, i.e. those who have the law; compare Romans 4:12, “Those of circumcision,” etc. But here it means legalists, those who seek justification by the works of the law; as ‘those who are of faith’ are believers, those who seek justification by faith; compare Galatians 3:10, “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” i.e. as many as seek acceptance by their own works. The apostle’s meaning, therefore, obviously is, that if those who rely upon their own works are the heirs of the promise, and are accepted on the condition of obedience to the law, the whole covenant is broken, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. “Is made void” (κεκένωται,) is rendered useless; see 1 Corinthians 1:17; “The cross of Christ is made useless,” 1 Corinthians 9:15, etc.; compare 1 Corinthians 15:17, “Your faith is vain,” not only without foundation but of no use. The promise is made of none effect (κατήργηται) i.e. is invalidated; see Romans 3:3, Romans 3:31. It is plain from the whole design and argument of the apostle, that by law, in this whole connection, he means not specifically the law of Moses, but the law of God, however revealed as a rule of duty for man. He has reference to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. His purpose is not simply to convince his readers that obedience to the Mosaic law cannot save them, but that obedience in any form, works of any kind, are insufficient for a man’s justification before God. So far, therefore, from the context requiring, as so many of the modern commentators assert, an exclusive reference in this connection to the law of Moses, it imperatively demands the reverse.

return to '

Romans 4:15

For the law worketh wrath, etc. That is, it causes men to be the subjects of wrath. It brings them under condemnation. So far from imparting life, it causes death. If, therefore, the inheritance is suspended on the condition of obedience to the law, it can never be attained; for by the law no flesh living can be justified. The connection of this verse, therefore, may be with what immediately precedes. The promise fails if it be by the law, for the law worketh death. The truth here presented, however, although thus incidentally introduced, is none the less a new and substantive argument for the doctrine of justification by faith. It is the same argument as that urged in Galatians 3:10, derived from the very nature of the law. If it works wrath, if all who are under the law are under the curse, if the law condemns, it cannot justify. As, however, there are two ways in which, according to the apostle, the law works wrath, so there are two views of the meaning of this passage. First, the law works wrath, because it says, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them,” Galatians 3:10. As the law, from its very nature, demands perfect obedience, and condemns all who are not perfect, it, by its very nature, is unsuited to give life to sinners. It can only condemn them. If there were no law, there would be no sin, and no condemnation. But as all are under the law, and all are sinners, all are under the curse. The other way in which the law works wrath is, that it excites and exasperates the evil passions of the heart; not from any defect in the law itself, but from the nature of sin. This idea the apostle presents full in the seventh chapter; where it is properly in place, as he is there treating of sanctification. Here where he is treating of justification, that idea would be inappropriate, and therefore the former interpretation is to be decidedly preferred. Calvin, Tholuck, and others, however, understand the apostle to reason thus: ‘The law, instead of freeing men from sin, incidentally renders their transgressions more numerous, conspicuous, and inexcusable, and thus brings them more and more under condemnation.’ “Nam quum Lex nihil quam ultionem generet, non potest affere gratiam. Bonis quidem ac integris viam vitae monstraret; sed quatenus vitiosis ac corruptis praecipit, quid debeant, praestandi autem vires non subministrat, reos apud Dei tribunal peragit. Quae enim est naturae nostrae vitiositas, quo magis docemur, quid rectum sit ac justum, eo apertius nostra iniquitas detegitur, maximeque contumacia; atque hoc modo gravius Dei judicium accersitur.” For where there is no law, there is no transgression. The interpretation given to this clause depends upon the view taken of the preceding one. It assigns the reason why the law works wrath. If the law be understood to work wrath by exasperating the evils of our corrupt nature, then the meaning of this confirmatory clause must be, that the law makes sin more inexcusable. It exalts sin into transgressions, ἀμαρτία into παράβασις. Thus again Calvin says, that the reason why the law works wrath is, “quia cognitione justitiae Dei per legem perceptâ, eo gravius peccamus in Deum, quo minus excusationis nobis superest — non loquitur apostolus,” he adds, “de simplici justitiae transgressione, a quâ nemo eximitur; sed transgressionem appellat, ubi animus edoctus, quid Deo placeat quidve displiceat, fines voce Dei sibi definitos sciens ac volens perrumpit. Atqui ut uno verbo dicam, transgressio hic non simplex delictum, sed destinatam in violandâ justitiâ contumaciam significat.” But all this belongs to the inefficacy of the law to produce holiness, and not to its impotency in the matter of justification, which is the point here under consideration. The apostle’s argument here is, that the inheritance must be by faith, not by the law, for the law can only condemn. It works wrath, for without it there would be no condemnation, because there would be no transgression. Besides, Paul does not make the distinction between sin and transgression, between ἁμαρτία and παράβασις, which the former interpretation supposes. What is here said of transgression, is, in Romans 5:13, said of sin. Where there is no law, there can be no sin, because the very idea of sin is the want of conformity to a rule, to which conformity is due; so that where there is no rule or standard, there can be no want of conformity. Such being the meaning of this clause, it is plain that by law, the apostle does not intend the Mosaic law, but law as the standard to which rational creatures are bound to be conformed. If men would only acquiesce in Paul’s idea of law, they could not fail to receive his doctrine concerning sin and justification. If the law is holy, just, and good; if it is spiritual, taking cognizance not only of outward acts, but of feelings, not only of active feelings, but of the inherent states of the mind whence these (ἐπιθυμίαι) spring; if it condemns all want of conformity to its own inflexible standard of complete perfection, then there must be an end to all hope of being justified by the law.

return to '