성경 주석서

그런즉 우리가 무슨 말을 하리요? - 로마서 3:1을 보라. 이것은 오히려 유대인의 반론이다. “믿음으로 말미암는 칭의에 대한 당신의 교리는 성경이 Abraham에 대해 말하는 것과 어떻게 일치하는가? 그의 경우에 율법이 제쳐졌는가? 그는 할례 의식과 하나님께서 그와 맺으신 언약에서 칭의에 아무 유익도 얻지 못했는가?” 이제 사도의 목적은 이 질문에 답하는 것이다.

우리 조상 Abraham이 - 우리의 선조, 그 민족의 아버지와 창시자라는 뜻이다. 마태복음 3:9 주석을 보라. 유대인들은 그가 자기들의 아버지라는 사실을 크게 중시했다. 그러므로 그의 본보기나 행위에서 끌어낸 논증은 특히 강력할 것이다.

육신으로 말하자면 - 이 표현은 많은 논쟁의 대상이 되어 왔다. 원문에서는 이것이 Abraham을 “육신에 따른” 그들의 아버지, 곧 그들의 자연적 아버지 또는 그들이 나온 조상으로 가리킬 수도 있고, “얻었느냐”와 연결될 수도 있다. “우리 조상 Abraham이 육신과 관련하여 무엇을 얻었다고 말하리요?” κατὰ σάρκα kata sarka. 후자가 의심할 여지 없이 올바른 연결이다. 어떤 이들은 “육신”이라는 말을 외적 특권들과 장점들로 보며, 다른 이들은 그의 자기 힘이나 능력으로 본다(Calvin과 Grotius). 또 다른 이들은 그것을 할례를 가리키는 것으로 본다. 나는 이 마지막 해석이 올바르다고 본다. 그것은 문맥에 가장 잘 맞으며, 그 단어의 일반적 의미와도 똑같이 잘 맞는다. 사상은 이렇다. “만일 사람들이 믿음으로 의롭다 하심을 받고, 행위가 아무 자리도 가지지 못한다면, 그러므로 모든 의식과 예식, 모든 율법적 준수가 칭의에서 쓸모없다면, 할례의 장점은 무엇인가? Abraham은 그것에서 어떤 유익을 얻었는가? 왜 그것이 제정되었는가? 그리고 그의 생애의 역사에서 왜 그것에 그런 중요성이 부여되는가?” 비슷한 질문이 로마서 3:1에서 제기되었다.

얻었느냐 - 획득했느냐는 뜻이다. 그는 그것에서 어떤 장점을 얻었는가?

유대인: 그런즉 육신으로 우리 조상인 아브라함이 무엇을 얻었다 하리요? - 여기서 “육신으로”라는 뜻의 κατα σαρκα는 아브라함의 육체에 있던 표, 곧 그의 할례를 가리켜야 한다. 유대인은 바로 그 표 위에 특별한 복에 대한 자기 권리를 세우려 했다. κατα σαρκα, 곧 “육신을 따라”가 이런 뜻이라는 점은 Taylor 박사가 여러 병행 성구를 대조하여 입증했으나, 여기서 그것들을 제시할 필요는 없다. 그러므로 우리는 유대인이 이렇게 논증한다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 당신은 우리 민족의 타락한 상태라는 잘못된 기반 위에 논증을 세운다. 우리는 나머지 인류보다 높은 우리의 특권을 우리의 조상 아브라함에게서 가진다. 그리고 그에게 주어진 약속으로 말미암아 하나님의 특별한 나라의 복에 대한 권리가 있다. 그의 칭의가 우리의 칭의의 근거다. 이제 당신의 원리에 따르면 그의 경우를 어떻게 설명하겠는가? 할례의 율법에 대한 그의 순종이 하나님이 주시는 복에 대한 권리를 그에게 주지 않았다면, 그 순종은 무슨 소용이 있었는가? 또 그가 그 율법에 대한 순종으로 특별한 복의 허락을 얻었다면, 당신 자신이 로마서 3:27에서 인정한 원리에 따라 그는 자기 칭의를 자기 안에 있는 어떤 것에 돌릴 수 있었을 것이다. 따라서 우리도 그의 권리 안에서 그렇게 할 수 있다. 만일 그렇다면 이것은 우리처럼 할례받지 않은 모든 사람을 배제하게 될 것이다.

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.

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.

Verses 1-25. - (5) Abraham himself shown to have been justified by faith, and not by works, believers being his true heirs. The main points of the argument may be summarized thus: When Abraham obtained a blessing to himself and to his seed for ever, it was by faith, and not by works, that he is declared to have been justified so as to obtain it. Thus the promise to his seed, as well as to himself, rested on the principle of justification by faith only. The Law, of which the principle was essentially different, could not, and did not, in itself fulfil that promise; and that its fulfilment was not dependent on circumcision, or confined to the circumcised, is further shown by the fact that it was before his own circumcision that he received the blessing and the promise, Hence the seed intended in the promise was his spiritual seed, who are of faith such as his was; and in Christ, offering justification through faith to all, the promise is now fulfilled. Verse 1. - What then shall we say that Abraham our father according to the flesh hath found? The connection, denoted by οῦν, with the preceding argument is rather with vers. 27, 28 of ch. 3, than with its concluding words, νόμον ἱστάνομεν. This appears, not only from the drift of ch. 4, but also from the word καύχημα in ver. 2, connecting the thought with ποῦ οῦν ἡ καύχησις; in Romans 3:27. The line of thought is, in the first place, this: We have said that all human glorying is shut out, and that no man can be justified except by faith: how, then (it is important to inquire), was it with Abraham our great progenitor? Did not he at least earn the blessing to his seed by the merit of his works? Had not he, on that ground, whereof to glory? No, not even he. Scripture, in what it says of him, distinctly asserts the contrary. There is uncertainty in this verse as to whether "according to the flesh" (κατὰ σάρκα) is to be connected with "our father" or with "hath found." Readings vary in their arrangement of the words. The Textus Receptus has Τί οῦν ἐροῦμεν Αβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὐρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα. But the great preponderance of authority is in favour of εὐρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα. The first of these readings requires the connection of κατὰ σάρκα with εὐρηκέναι; the second allows it, but suggests the other connection. Theodoret, among the ancients, connecting with εὐρηκέναι, explains κατὰ σάρκα thus: "What righteousness, of Abraham's, wrought before he believed God, did we ever hear of?" Calvin suggests, as the meaning of the phrase (though himself inclining to the connection with προπάτορα)," naturaliter vel ex seipso." Bull, similarly ('Harmonic Apostolica,' 'Disputatio Posterior,' c. 12:14-17), "by his natural powers, without the grace of God." Alford, following Meyer, says that κατὰ σάρκα is in contrast to κατὰ πνεύμα, and that it "refers to that department of our being from which spring works, in contrast with that in which is the exercise of faith." Difficulty is avoided if (as is the most natural inference from the best authenticated reading) we take κατὰ σάρκα in connection with πάτερα or προπάτορα, in the sense of our forefather in the way of natural descent, the question being put from the Jewish standpoint; and this in distinction from the other conception of descent from Abraham, according to which all the faithful are called his children (cl. Romans 1:3; Romans 9:3, 5, 8:1 Corinthians 10:18). Among the ancients Chrysostom and Theophylact take this view. For the import of εὐρηκέναι, cf. Luke 1:30 (εϋρες χάριν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ) and Hebrews 9:12 (αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος᾿.

IV.

(1-25) The subject of the chapter is an application of the foregoing to the special (and crucial) case of Abraham, with particular reference to two ideas that are continually recurring throughout the last chapter: (1) the supposed superiority of Jew to Gentile (and, à fortiori, of the great progenitor of the Jews); (2) the idea of boasting or glorying based upon this superiority. Following out this the Apostle shows how even Abraham’s case tells, not against, but for the doctrine of justification by faith. Indeed, Abraham himself came under it. And not only so, but those who act upon this doctrine are spiritually descendants of Abraham. It is entirely a mistake to suppose that they of the circumcision only are Abraham’s seed. The true seed of Abraham are those who follow his example of faith. He put faith in the promise, they must put their faith in the fulfilment of the promise.

(1) To come back to the question of Romans 3:1, repeated in Romans 3:9, in what did the superiority of Abraham, the great representative of the Jewish race, really consist?

As pertaining to the flesh.—The construction of these words appears to be determined by their position in the sentence. According to the best MSS. they are distinctly separated from “hath found” and joined with “our father.” They would therefore mean simply “our father according to the flesh,” i.e., by natural descent, as in Romans 1:3.

Hath found.—Hath got, or gained, by way of advantage.

Ch. Romans 4:1-25. Abraham, an apparent exception to the rule of gratuitous acceptance, really the great example of it

1. What shall we say then? &c.] Here a new and independent objection is anticipated. Abraham, the great Head of the Old Covenant, would be appealed to by the Jew, as on the assumption that he at least was justified by its terms; and on him now the argument turns.—See Appendix B.

The reading of the Gr. varies in MSS.; but the most probable reading will be rendered thus, What therefore shall we say that Abraham our father hath found, according to the flesh?—“Therefore:”—this, in our view, refers to the general previous argument from Romans 3:21, not specially to Romans 3:31.—“Our father:”—i.e. of the Jews.—“Hath found:”—i.e., in the way of acceptance and privilege. The perfect tense suggests the permanence of Abraham’s position in men’s thoughts.—“According to the flesh:”—these words do not, as in E. V., belong to “our father,” but to “hath found.” To interpret them here we must remember (what will come out in the course of the Epistle) St Paul’s doctrine of “the flesh.” It is, briefly, that “the flesh” is human nature, in the Fall, as unrenewed and unassisted by Divine special grace. “According to the flesh” will thus mean here “in respect of his own independent works and merits.” Did Abraham win acceptance as meritoriously keeping the covenant of works, which demands obedience and provides no grace? In brief, was he justified by works?

What shall we say? (τι ἐροῦμεν)

See Romans 4:1; Romans 6:1; Romans 7:7; Romans 8:31; Romans 9:14, Romans 9:30. The phrase anticipates an objection or proposes an inference. It is used by Paul only, and by him only in this Epistle and in its argumentative portions. It is not found in the last five chapters, which are hortatory.

Our Father

The best texts read προπάτορα forefather.

Hath found

Westcott and Hort omit. Then the reading would be "what shall we say of Abraham," etc. Found signifies, attained by his own efforts apart from grace.

As pertaining to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα)

Construe with found. The question is, Was Abraham justified by anything which pertained to the flesh? Some construe with Abraham: our father humanly speaking.