성경 주석서

What then shall we say? (τ ουν ερουμεν?). Paul is fond of this rhetorical question (Romans 4:1; Romans 6:1; Romans 7:7; Romans 8:31; Romans 9:14; Romans 9:30). Forefather (προπατορα). Old word, only here in N.T. Accusative case in apposition with Αβρααμ (accusative of general reference with the infinitive). Hath found (ευρηκενα). Westcott and Hort put ευρηκενα in the margin because B omits it, a needless precaution. It is the perfect active infinitive of ευρισκω in indirect discourse after ερουμεν. The MSS. differ in the position of κατα σαρκα.

return to '

Romans 4:1-8. The justification of Abraham, considered in relation to the doctrine just expounded in Romans 3:21-31. The point to be made out is that the justification of Abraham does not traverse but illustrates the Pauline doctrine.

Romans 4:1 The force of οὖν seems to be that the case of Abraham, as commonly understood, has at least the appearance of inconsistency with the Pauline doctrine. “What, then, i.e., on the supposition that Romans 4:21-25 in chap. 3 are a true exposition of God’s method, shall we say of Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? Does not his case present a difficulty? For if he was justified by works (as one may assume), he has ground for boasting (whereas boasting, according to the previous argument, Romans 3:27, is excluded).” This seems to me by far the simplest interpretation of the passage. The speaker is a Jewish Christian, or the Apostle putting himself in the place of one. κατὰ σάρκα goes with τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν, because the contrast with another kind of fatherhood belonging to Abraham is already in the Apostle’s thoughts: see Romans 4:11. If the reading εὐρηκέναι be adopted (see critical note), no change is necessary in the interpretation. To take κατὰ σάρκα with εὑρηκέναι, as though the question were: What shall we say that our forefather Abraham found in the way of natural human effort, as opposed to the way of grace and faith? is to put a sense on κατὰ σάρκα which is both forced and irrelevant. The whole question is, What do you make of Abraham, with such a theory as that just described?

Romans 4:1. Οὖν] Accordingly, in consequence of the fact that we do not abrogate the law through faith, but on the contrary establish it.[954] This οὖν brings in the proof to be adduced from the history of Abraham (“confirmatio ab exemplo,” Calvin), for the νόμον ἱστῶμεν just asserted (Romans 3:31), in the form of an inference. For if we should have to say that Abraham our father has attained anything (namely, righteousness) κατὰ σάρκα, that would presuppose that the law, which attests Abraham’s justification, in nowise receives establishment διὰ τῆς πίστεως (Romans 3:31). Hence we have not here an objection, but a question proposed in the way of inference by Paul himself, the answer to which is meant to bring to light, by the example of Abraham, the correctness of his νόμον ἱστ. His object is not to let the matter rest with the short and concise dismissal of the question in Romans 3:31, but to enter into the subject more closely; and this he does now by attaching what he has further to say to the authoritatively asserted, and in his own view established, νόμον ἱστάνομεν in the form of an inference. Moreover, the whole is to be taken as one question, not to be divided into two by a note of interrogation after ἐροῦμεν; in which case there is harshly and arbitrarily supplied to εὑρηκέναι (by Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Wetstein, and Michaelis) δικαιοσύνην, or at least (van Hengel) the pronoun it representing that word, which however ought to have been immediately suggested by the context, as in Php 3:12 (comp Nägelsbach on Il. 1, 76, 302, ed. 3). In the affirmation itself Ἀβρ. is the subject (quid dicemus Abrahamum nactum esse?). Th. Schott, by an unhappy distortion of the passage, makes him the object (“why should we then say that we have gained Abraham in a fleshly, natural sense for our ancestor?”) This misconception should have been precluded by attending to the simple fact, that in no passage in our Epistle (and in other Epistles the form of expression does not occur) does the τί in τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν mean why. Hofmann, who had formerly (Schriftb. II. 2, p. 76 ff.) apprehended it in substance much more correctly, now agrees with Schott in so far that he takes τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν as a question by itself, but then explains Ἀβραάμ likewise as the object, so that the question would be, whether the Christians think that they have found Abraham as their forefather after the flesh? “The origin of the church of God, to which Christians belong, goes back to Abraham. In fleshly fashion he is their ancestor, if the event through which he became such (namely, the begetting of Isaac) lie within the sphere of the natural human life; in spiritual fashion, on the other hand, if that event belong to the sphere of the history of salvation and its miraculous character, which according to the Scripture (comp Galatians 4:23) is the case.” This exposition cannot be disputed on linguistic grounds, especially if, with Hofmann, we follow Lachmann’s reading. But it is, viewed in reference to the context, erroneous. For the context, as Romans 4:2-3 clearly show, treats not of the contrast between the fleshly and the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in the case of Christians, but of the justification of the ancestor, as to whether it took place κατὰ σάρκα or by faith. Moreover, if Ἀβρ. was intended to be the object, Paul would have expressed himself as unintelligibly as possible, since in Romans 4:2-3 he in the most definite manner represents him as the subject, whose action is spoken of. If we take Hofmann’s view, in which case we do not at all see why the Apostle should have expressed himself by εὑρηκέναι, he would have written more intelligibly by substituting for this the simple εἶναι, so that Ἀβρ. would have been the subject in the question, as well as in what follows. Finally the proposition that Abraham, as the forefather of believers as such, was so not κατὰ σάρκα, was so perfectly self-evident, both with reference to the Jewish and the Gentile portion of the Ἰσραὴλ Θεοῦ, that Paul would hardly have subjected it to discussion as the theme of so earnest a question, while yet no reader would have known that in κατὰ σάρκα he was to think of the miraculous begetting of Isaac. For even without the latter Abraham would be the προπάτωρ of believers κατὰ πνεῦμα, namely, through his justification by faith, Romans 4:9 ff.

τ. πατέρα ἡμ.] “fundamentum consequentiae ab Abrahamo ad nos,” Bengel. Comp Romans 4:11 f. ἡμῶν however (comp Jam 2:21) is said from the Jewish standpoint, not designating Abraham as the spiritual father of the Christians (Reiche, Hofmann, Th. Schott), a point that is still for the present (see Romans 4:11) quite out of view.

κατὰ σάρκα] is, following the Peschito, with most expositors to be necessarily joined to εὑρηκ.; not, with Origen, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Photius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Toletus, Calvin, whom Hofmann, Th. Schott, Reithmayr, Volckmar in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1862, p. 221 ff., follow, to τ. πατέρα ἡμ. (not even although Lachmann’s reading were the original one); for the former, and not the latter, needed the definition. Abraham has really attained righteousness, only not κατὰ σάρκα, and ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 4:2 corresponds to the κατὰ σάρκα. Besides with our reading the latter connection is impossible.

The σάρξ on its ethical side[959] is the material-psychic human nature as the life-sphere of moral weakness and of sinful power in man, partly as contrasted with the higher intellectual and moral nature of the man himself, which is his πνεῦμα along with the ΝΟῦς (Romans 1:9, Romans 7:18; Romans 7:25, and see on Ephesians 4:23), and partly as opposed to the superhuman divine life-sphere and its operation, as here; see the sequel. Hence κατὰ σάρκα is: conformably to the bodily nature of man in accordance with its natural power, in contrast to the working of divine grace, by virtue of which the εὑρηκέναι would not be ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, but ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ, because taking place through the Spirit of God. Comp on John 3:6. Since the ἜΡΓΑ are products of the human phenomenal nature and conditioned by its ethical determination, not originating from the divine life-element, they belong indeed to the category of the κατὰ σάρκα, and ἘΞ ἜΡΓΩΝ is the correlative of ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ (wherefore also Paul continues, Romans 4:2, ΕἸ ΓΆΡ ἈΒΡ. ἘΞ ἜΡΓΩΝ Κ.Τ.Λ[961]), but they do not exhaust the whole idea of it, as has often been assumed, following Theodoret (κατὰ σάρκα τὴν ἐν ἔργιος, λέγει, ἐπείδηπερ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἐκπληροῦμεν τὰ ἔργα), and is still assumed by Reiche. Köllner, limiting it by anticipation from Romans 4:4, holds that it refers to the human mode of earning wages by labour. Entirely opposed to the context, and also to the historical reference of Romans 4:3, is the explanation of circumcision (Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, Estius, and others; including Koppe, Flatt, Baur, and Mehring), which Rückert also mixes up, at the same time that he explains it of the ἔργοις. Philippi also refers it to both.

On εὑρηκ., adeptum esse, comp εὑρεῖν κέρδος, Soph. El. 1297, ἀρχήν, Dem. 69, 1. The middle is still more expressive, and more usual; see Krüger, § 52, 10, 1, Xen. ii. 1, 8, and Kühner in loc[963] The perfect infinitive is used, because Abraham is realised as present; see Romans 4:2.

[954] Observe, in reference to ch. 4 (with Romans 3:31), of what fundamental and profound importance, and how largely subject to controversy, the relation of Christianity to Judaism was in the Apostolic age, particularly in the case of mixed churches. The minute discussion of this relation, therefore, in a doctrinal Epistle so detailed, cannot warrant the assumption that the church was composed mainly of Jews, or at least (Beyschlag) of proselytes.

[959] The most recent literature on this subject: Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 71 ff.; Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, 3; Hahn, Thol. d. N. Test. I. p. 426 ff.; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 374 ff.; Holsten, Bedeutung des Wortes σάρξ im N. Test. 1855, and in Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 365 ff.; Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 96 ff.; and Neut. Theol. p. 142 f.; Wieseler on Gal. p. 443 ff.; Beck, Lehrwiss. § 22; Kling in Herzog’s Encykl. IV. p. 419 ff.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 557 ff.; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, p. 80 ff.; also Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 66 ff.; Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 394 ff.; Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. 1870, p. 8 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 93; Philippi, Glaubensl. III. p. 207 ff., and the excursus thereon, p. 231 ff., ed. 2. For the earlier literature see Ernesti, p. 50.

[961] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[963] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Romans 4:1-2. What shall we say then — The apostle, in the preceding chapter, having shown the impossibility of man’s being justified by the merit of his obedience to any law, moral or ceremonial, or any otherwise than by grace through faith, judged it necessary, for the sake of the Jews, to consider the case of Abraham, on being whose progeny, and on whose merits, the Jews placed great dependance; as they did also on the ceremony of circumcision, received from him. It was therefore of great importance to know how he was justified; for, in whatever way he, the most renowned progenitor of their nation, obtained that privilege, it was natural to conclude that his descendants must obtain it, if at all, in the same way. Was he justified by works, moral or ceremonial? That is, by the merit of his own obedience to any law or command given him by God? And in particular, was he justified by the ceremony of circumcision, so solemnly enjoined to be observed by him and his posterity? That Abraham was justified by one or other of these means, or by both of them united, the Jews had no doubt. To correct their errors, therefore, the apostle appeals to Moses’s account of Abraham’s justification, and shows therefrom, 1st, That he was not justified by works, but simply by faith in the gracious promise of God, independent of all works; and, 2d, That his circumcision, not performed till he was ninety-nine years of age, had not the least influence on his justification, he having obtained that blessing by means of his faith, long before that time. To this example the apostle appeals with great propriety, both because circumcision was the most difficult of all the rites enjoined in the law, and because Abraham being the father of believers, his justification is the pattern of theirs. Therefore, if circumcision contributed nothing toward Abraham’s justification, the Jews could not hope to be justified thereby, nor by the other rites of the law; and were much to blame in pressing these rites on the Gentiles, as necessary to their salvation, and in consigning all to damnation who were out of the pale of their church. He begins his reasonings on this subject thus: What shall we say that Abraham, our father — Our great and revered progenitor, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found — That is, obtained? Hath he obtained justification? The verse is differently understood by expositors. Chrysostom and Theophylact join the words κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh, with Abraham our father, thus: What do we say Abraham, our father according to the flesh, obtained, namely, by works? See Romans 4:3. But as in no other passage Abraham is called the father of the Jews according to the flesh, it seems the ordinary translation is to be preferred; and that flesh in this passage being opposed to spirit, signifies services pertaining to the flesh or body, on account of which the law of Moses itself is called flesh, Galatians 3:3. According to this sense of the expression, the verse may be paraphrased thus: “Ye Jews think ritual services meritorious, because they are performed purely from piety. But what do we say Abraham our father obtained by works pertaining to the flesh? That he obtained justification meritoriously? No. For if Abraham had been justified meritoriously by works of any kind, he would have had whereof to glory — He might have boasted that his justification was no favour, but a debt due to him; but such a ground of boasting he had not before God.” Or more concisely thus: If Abraham had been justified by works, he would have had room to glory: but he had not room to glory: therefore he was not justified by works. By flesh here Bishop Bull understood those works which Abraham performed in his natural state, and by his own strength, before he obtained justification; but the above-mentioned interpretation seems more agreeable to the apostle’s design here. Nevertheless, in some other passages, where he speaks of justification by works, he hath in view, not ceremonial works only, but moral works also, as is plain from Romans 3:20; where he tells us, that by the deeds of the law, or by works of law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight.

Romans 4:1. What shall we then say— In the foregoing chapter the Apostle has proved, that neitherJews nor Gentiles have a right to the blessings of God's peculiar kingdom, otherwise than by grace, which is free to the one, as well as the other. In this chapter he advances to a new argument, admirably adapted to convince the Jew; to shew the believingGentile in a clear light the high value of the mercies freelybestowed upon him in the Gospel, and at the same time to display the wondrous plans of the providence and grace of God. His argument is taken from Abraham's case. Abraham was the father and head of the Jewish nation. God pardoned him through faith, and took him and his seed into his especial covenant, and bestowed upon them many extraordinary blessings above the rest of the world. Thus he was justified through faith; and it is evident he was justified not upon the footing of obedience to law, or the rule of right action, but in the only way a sinner can be justified,—by the favour of the Law-giver. Now this is the very same way in which the Gospel saves the believing Gentiles, and gives them a part in the blessings of God's covenant. Why then should the Jews so violently oppose the Gentiles being interested in those blessings?—Especially if it be farther observed, that the believing Gentiles are actually included in the promise made to Abraham, and the covenant established with him; for at the time God entered into covenant with Abraham, he considered him as the head, not of one nation only, but of many nations (Genesis 17:4.). As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be, with regard to this my covenant, the father of many, or a multitude of nations; consequently, the covenant being made with Abraham, as the head or father of many nations, all in any nation, who should stand upon the same religious principle with him, were his seed, and with him interested in the covenant that God made with him: but he stood only upon the footing of faith in the mercy of God through the seed of the woman, pardoning his sins and graciously bestowing extraordinary blessings; and upon this footing also the believing Gentiles stand in the Gospel; therefore they are the seed of Abraham, and included in the covenant of promise made to him. Now to all this the Apostle knew very well it would be objected, that it was not faith alone which gave Abraham a right to the blessings of the covenant; but his obedience to the law of circumcision; which, being peculiar to the Jewish nation, gave them also, and them alone, an interest in the Abrahamic covenant: consequently, whoever among the Gentiles would be interested in that covenant, ought to embrace Judaism, and, as the only ground of their right, perform obedience to the law of circumcision, and so come under the obligations to the whole law. With this objection the Apostle introduces his argument, ver. l, 2.; shews that, according to the Scripture account, Abraham was justified by faith, Romans 4:3-5.; explains the nature of that justification by a quotation out of the Psalms, Romans 4:6-9.; proves that Abraham was justified long before he was circumcised, Romans 4:9-11.; that the believing Gentiles are his seed, to whom the promise belongs, as well as to the believing Jews, Romans 4:12-17.; and describes Abraham's faith, in order to explain the faith of the Gospel; Rom 4:17 to the end. See Locke.

Abraham our father— Father is of an extensive and emphatical signification in the Hebrew: amongst other things, it signifies a person who is first in the invention, use, or enjoyment of any thing, with regard to those who imitate him, or derive from him any particular custom or advantage. Genesis 4:20-21. Jabal was the father of shepherds; Jubal was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Abraham is the father of all them that believe, Rom 4:11 and the father of us all, Romans 4:16.: namely, as he was the first to whom the grant or promise of extraordinary blessings was made upon his faith, and as all that believe are included in that promise, and are justified in the same way that he was. In this sense the Jew here calls Abraham our father; meaning, not only as the Jews were naturally descended, but as they heldall their privileges from him, were included in the promises made to him, and must be justified as he was. Thus we must understand our father, to give the Jew's argument its proper sense and force; and this he meant according to his own narrow notion, as if Abraham, in this respect, was father to the Jews only, and to no other people. But the Apostle proves that he was, in this respect,—namely as the head and pattern of justification,—the father of all them that believe, whether

Heathens or Jews. The expression, as pertaining to the flesh, or with respect to the flesh, evidently relates to circumcision, and the obligation it laid upon the Jews: for in the flesh,—after the flesh,—or appertaining to the flesh, are thus frequently used;—Galatians 6:12. 1 Corinthians 10:18. 2Co 5:16; 2 Corinthians 11:18. Philippians 3:3. This was the Jew's glorying in the flesh, and is sufficient to point out the sense of Abraham's finding or obtaining, as appertaining to or after the flesh, that whereof he had καυχημα, to glory. See chap. Rom 3:27 and on Romans 2:17. It is what the Jews suppose he procured from God, for his obedience to the law of circumcision, and for answering the peculiar obligations he was thereby brought under; as farther appears from Rom 4:9-12 where, arguing against the Jew's objection started here in the first and second verses, he asks, How was faith reckoned to Abraham?—when he was in circumcision or uncircumcision?—Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision, &c. Now as this reason is undoubtedly full to the purpose of the Jew's objection, it confirms, or rather makes necessary, the sense we have given of the phrase before us.

return to '

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 .

return to '

Chapter IV

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

Analysis

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.

Commentary

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.

return to '