Romans 4:1

CHAPTER IV.

Abraham was justified by faith, and not by the works of the

law; for his faith was imputed to him for righteousness, 1-5.

David also bears testimony to the same doctrine, 6-8.

Abraham, the father of the Jewish race, was justified by faith,

even before he was circumcised; therefore salvation must be of

the Gentiles as well as the Jews, 9-12.

And the promise that all the nations of the earth should be

blessed tn him, was made to him while he was in an uncircumcised

state; and, therefore, if salvation were of the Jews alone, the

law, that was given after the promise, would make the promise

of no effect, 13-17.

Description of Abraham's faith, and its effects, 18-92.

This account is left on record for our salvation, that we might

believe on Christ, who was delivered for our offences, and

raised again for our justification, 23-25.

NOTES ON CHAP. IV.

The apostle, having proved in the foregoing chapter that neither Jews nor Gentiles have a right to the blessing of God's peculiar kingdom, otherwise than by grace, which is as free for the one as the other, in this chapter advances a new argument to convince the Jew, and to show the believing Gentile, in a clear light, the high value and strong security of the mercies freely bestowed on them in the Gospel; and, at the same time, to display the scheme of Divine providence, as laid in the counsel and will of God. His argument is taken from Abraham's case: Abraham was the father and head of the Jewish nation; he had been a heathen, but God pardoned him, and took him and his posterity into his special covenant, and bestowed upon them many extraordinary blessings above the rest of mankind; and it is evident that Abraham was not justified by any obedience to law, or rule of right action, but, in the only way in which a sinner can be justified, by prerogative or the mercy of the lawgiver. 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 oppose the Gentiles? especially as the Gentiles were actually included in the covenant made with Abraham for the promise, Ge 17:4, stated that he should be the father of many nations: consequently, the covenant being made with Abraham, as the head or father of many nations, all in any nation who stood on the same religious principle with him, were his seed and with him interested in the same covenant. But Abraham stood by faith in the mercy of God pardoning his idolatry; and upon this footing the believing Gentiles stand in the Gospel; and, therefore, they are the seed of Abraham, and included in the covenant and promise made to him.

To all this the apostle knew well it would be objected, that it was not faith alone, that gave Abraham a right to the blessings of the covenant, but his obedience to the law of circumcision; and this, being peculiar to the Jewish nation, gave them an interest in the Abrahamic covenant; and that, consequently, whoever among the Gentiles would be interested in that covenant, ought to embrace Judaism, become circumcised, and thus come under obligation to the whole law. With this very objection the apostle very dexterously introduces his argument, Ro 4:1; Ro 4:2; shows that, according to the Scripture account, Abraham was justified by faith, Ro 4:3-5; explains the nature of that justification, by a quotation out of the Psalms, Ro 4:6-9; proves that Abraham was justified long before he was circumcised, Ro 4:9-11; that the believing Gentiles are his seed to whom the promise belongs, as well as the believing Jews, Ro 4:12-17; and he describes Abraham's faith, in order to explain the faith of the Gospel, Ro 4:17-25. See Dr. Taylor's notes. We may still suppose that the dialogue is carried on between the apostle and the Jew, and it will make the subject still more clear to assign to each his respective part. The Jew asks a single question, which is contained in the first and part of the second verses. And the apostle's answer takes up the rest of the chapter.

Verse 1. JEW. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?] The κατα σαρκα, pertaining to the flesh, must here refer to the sign in Abraham's flesh, viz. his circumcision; on which the Jew would found his right to peculiar blessings. That this is the meaning of κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh, Dr. Taylor has proved by a collation of several parallel scriptures, which it is not necessary to produce here. We may, therefore, suppose the Jew arguing thus: But you set your argument on a wrong footing, viz. the corrupt state of our nation; whereas we hold our prerogative above the rest of mankind from Abraham, who is our father; and we have a right to the blessings of God's peculiar kingdom, in virtue of the promise made to him; his justification is the ground of ours. Now what shall we make of his case, on your principles? Of what use was his obedience to the law of circumcision, if it did not give him a right to the blessing of God? And if, by his obedience to that law, he obtained a grant of extraordinary blessings, then, according to your own concession, Ro 3:27, he might ascribe his justification to something in himself; and, consequently, so may we too, in his right; and if so, this will exclude all those who are not circumcised as we are.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ch. Rom_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 Rom_3:21, not specially to Rom_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?

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_4:1-25

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Lessons from the case of Abraham

I. However much the most perfect of the species may have to glory of in the eye of his fellows, he has nothing to glory of before God. The apostle affirms this of Abraham, whose virtues had canonised him in the hearts of all his descendants, and who still stands forth as the embodiment of all the virtues of the older dispensation. But of his piety we have no account, till after that point which Paul assigns as the period of his justification. And whatever he had antecedently of the virtues that are useful to and call forth the praise of man, certain it is, that with every human being, prior to that great transition in his history, God is not the Being whose authority is recognised in any of these virtues, and he has nothing to glory of before God. Here we are surrounded with beings, all of whom are satisfied if they see in us their own likeness; and, should we attain the average character of society, its voice will suffer us to pass. But not till the revelation of Gods likeness is made to us do we see our deficiency from that image of unspotted holiness--to be restored to which is the great purpose of our dispensation. Job protested innocence and kindness and dignity before his friends, but when God, whom he had only before heard of by the hearing of the ear now appeared before his awakened eye, he abhorred himself and repented in dust and in ashes. This is the sore evil under which humanity labours. The magnitude of the guilt is unfelt; and therefore does man persist in a most treacherous complacency. The magnitude of the danger is unseen; and therefore does man persist in a security most ruinous.

II. This disease of nature, deadly and virulent as it is, and that beyond the suspicion of those who are touched by it, is not beyond the remedy provided in the gospel. Ungodliness is this disease; and it is here said that God justifies the ungodly. The discharge is as ample as the debt; and the grant of pardon in every way as broad and as long as is the guilt which requires it. The deed of amnesty is equivalent to the offence; and, foul as the transgression is, there is a commensurate righteousness which covers the whole deformity, and translates him whom it had made utterly loathsome in the sight of God, into a condition of full favour and acceptance before Him. Had justification been merely brought into contact with some social iniquity, this were not enough to relieve the conscience of him who feels in himself the workings of a direct and spiritual iniquity against God. It is a sense of this which festers in the stricken heart of a sinner, and often keeps by him and agonises him for many a day, like an arrow sticking fast. And there are many who keep at a distance from the overtures of mercy, till they think they have felt enough and mourned enough over their need of them. But we ought not thus to wait the progress of our emotions, while God is standing before us with a deed of justification, held out to the ungodliest of us all. To give us an interest in the saying, that God justifieth the ungodly, it is enough that we count it a faithful saying, and that we count it worthy of all acceptation.

III. While the offer of a righteousness before God is thus brought down to the lowest depth of human wickedness, and it is an offer by the acceptance of which all the past is forgiven--it is also an offer by the acceptance of which all the future is reformed. When Christ confers sight upon a blind man, he ceases to be in darkness; and when a rich individual confers wealth upon a poor, he ceases to be in poverty--and so, as surely, when justification is conferred upon the ungodly, his ungodliness is done away. His godliness is not the ground upon which the gift was awarded, any more than the sight of him who was blind is the ground upon which it was communicated, or than the wealth of him who was poor is the ground upon which it was bestowed. But just as sight and riches come out of the latter gifts, so godliness comes out of the gift of justification; and while works form in no way the consideration upon Which the righteousness that availeth is conferred upon a sinner, yet no sooner is this righteousness granted than it will set him a-working. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)

A crucial case

1. St. Paul has lust shown how the gospel method of justification shuts out the usual Hebrew boast in the Mosaic law as a pathway to eternal life. But some might ask, Did it not set it aside altogether?

2. To this there were two answers possible.

(1) The most obvious would be this: The law had other ends to serve (Gal_3:19; Gal_3:23-24; Rom_3:19).

(2) Here, however, Paul answers by alleging the ease of Abraham. The force of the argument may be somewhat like this: The reward which the Jew hoped to secure for himself through his circumcision and his observance of the Mosaic law was the national blessing which God had originally conferred by covenant upon the ancestor and representative of his race. It was in his character as a descendant of Abraham that each Jew received in his flesh the seal of the national covenant, or had a right to aspire after the national hope. Nothing higher, therefore, could be looked for by any Israelite than to attain to the blessedness of his forefather Abraham (Luk_16:22). Yet this favour had been promised to and received by him, not in consequence of his observance of the Mosaic law, which was not given for a great while after, not even in consideration of his being circumcised, but solely because he was a believer. Instead of Gods covenant with Israel resting on the law, the law on the contrary rested on the covenant. That covenant was, to begin with, one of grace, not of works. So far, therefore, from Pauls doctrine of justification upsetting the Mosaic law, it was just the old teaching of the very earliest Book of the Law. Do we, then, make the law of Moses void? God forbid. On the contrary, we establish that law; since we find for it its ancient basis on which alone it can serve those helpful uses for which it was given.

3. The case of Abraham was thus, as St. Paul clearly saw, a crucial instance in which to test his doctrine of justification by faith. Abraham was not merely the first of Israelites or the greatest of them; he was all Israel in his single person. It would never do for a Jew to pretend that a principle which ruled the relations of Abraham to Jehovah could by any possibility make void the law of Moses.

4. But the example of Abraham proves fruitful for Pauls purpose in more ways than one.

I. His controversy up to this point has involved two main positions. The first is Rom_3:28. The second, Rom_3:30. Both positions he now proceeds to illustrate and confirm by the case of Abraham.

1. It was by his faith Abraham was justified, not by his works of obedience (Rom_3:1-8). Paul finds a remarkable proof-text in Gen_15:16.

(1) The religious life of Abraham gathers round three leading moments. The first, when God bade him emigrate to Canaan (Gen_12:1-5); the second, at Mamre, when God first made with the childless and aged man a covenant that he should have a son, etc. (Gen_15:1-21); the third, when, after the first portion of this promise had been fulfilled, as well as the whole of it sealed by circumcision, Jehovah commanded the child of promise to be sacrificed (Gen_22:1-24). At all these three turning times in Abrahams history his confidence in God appeared as the most eminent feature of his character. But plainly, the first of these was preliminary to the second, which conveyed to him the promises of God; and the third was a consequent of the second. The central point, therefore, in the patriarchs history is to be sought in the second, to which St. Paul here refers. On Gods side there was simply a word of promise; on the mans side, simply a devout and childlike reliance upon that word. God asked no more; and the man had no more to give. His mere trust in the Promiser was held to be adequate as a ground for that sinful mans acceptance into friendship and league with the eternal Jehovah.

(2) The apostles argument is a very obvious one. There are only two ways of obtaining Divine approval. Either you deserve it, having earned it; then it is a pure debt, and you have something to boast in. Or else you have not earned the Divine approval, but the wages of sin, which is death; only you trust in the promised grace of One who justifies the ungodly; then it may be said that this trust of yours is reckoned as equivalent to righteousness. Now, Abrahams acceptance was plainly of this latter sort. He therefore, at least, had no ground for boasting. His, rather, was such blessedness as his great descendant David sang of so long after (Psa_32:1-2).

2. Abraham was justified by his faith, not as a circumcised man, but as an uncircumcised (verses 9-16). It lies in the very idea of acceptance through faith, that God will accept the believer apart from nationality, an external rite, or church privilege, or the like. This inference Paul has been pressing on his Jewish readers, and here is a curious confirmation of it. Abraham, through whom came circumcision, etc., was taken into Divine favour previous to his circumcision. Circumcision came in simply to seal, not to constitute, his justification. And the design of such an arrangement was to make him the type and progenitor of all believers--of such believers first, as are never circumcised at all, since for thirteen years or more he was himself an uncircumcised believer; then of such also as are circumcised, indeed, yet believers. He is the father of us all. The only people whom his experience fails to embrace, whose father he really is not, are those Jews who trust in their lineage and their covenant badge, and expect to be saved for their meritorious observance of prescribed rules, but who in the free and gracious promises of Abrahams God put no trust at all.

(1) Having got thus far, St. Paul has reached this notable conclusion: that so far from his doctrine making the law of Moses void, it is the Jewish figment of justification by the law which makes void Gods promise, and Abrahams faith, and the whole basis of grace on which the privileges of the Hebrew people ultimately reposed. Here, therefore, he fairly turns the tables upon his objectors (verse 14).

(2) Nay, more, another conclusion emerges. It turns out now that instead of St. Paul being a disloyal Jew for admitting believing Gentiles to an equal place in the favour of Israels God, it is his self-righteous countryman, who monopolises Divine grace, that is really false to the original idea of the Abrahamic covenant. All who have faith, whatever their race, are blessed with faithful Abraham, and he, says Paul, writing to a Gentile Church, is the father of us all. The apostle has now completed his polemic against Jewish objectors. Before, however, he is done with the case of Abraham, there is a further use to be made of his bright exemplar.

II. The father of believers stands out as not simply a specimen of the faith that justifies, but as the highest pattern and lesson in this grace to all his spiritual progeny (verses 17-25).

1. I spoke of three leading moments in the spiritual life of the great patriarch. In the roll of heroes in faith given in Heb_11:1-40, stress is laid upon the first and upon the last. Here, it is the second; and it is this proof of faith, therefore, which Paul now proceeds to examine. The particular promise was that when he was ninety-nine, and his wife ninety, a son should be born to them. On this child of promise were made to depend all the other promises--numerous descendants--the land of inheritance--a perpetual covenant--seed, in whom all earths families should be blessed. To believe in this explicit word was to believe substantially in the whole of Gods grace to men as far as it was then revealed. It was gospel faith so far as there was yet any gospel on earth to put faith in. Dimly and far off Abraham saw the day of Christ, and at Gods bare word he risked his spiritual life upon that hope. This was his faith.

2. Now note its characteristics. On the one side lay the improbabilities of an unheard of miracle, to be believed in before it happened; a needless miracle, too, so far as mans reason could discern; for was not Ishmael already there? On the other side, what was there? Nothing but a word of God. Between these two conflicting grounds of expectation a weaker faith than his might have wavered. But Abraham was not weak in faith. Therefore he did not shrink from considering the physical obstacles to the birth of a son. On the contrary, he could afford to fasten his regard on these, without his confidence, in the promise suffering any diminution; since he kept as clearly in view the character of the Almighty Promiser. God is the Quickener of the dead. He can give a name and virtual existence to the yet unbegotten child. Isaac lives in Gods counsel and purpose before he has actual being. So Abraham dared to trust in the hope of paternity given him of God, and gave God glory, by honouring the truthfulness of His word and the power of His grace. Such is faith; so it always works. Without calling its eyes off from the objections and difficulties which are present to sense, it fastens itself, nevertheless, on the veracity of Him who speaks words of grace to men.

3. These things were not written for Abrahams sake alone, but for ours. Abraham trusted in God to quicken his unborn son--by and by to raise him (if need were) from the dead. We trust Him who did raise from the dead His own Son Jesus. The gospel facts, the promises, and blessings of the new covenant in Christ are to us what the birth of Isaac was to Abraham: things all of them beyond the reach of experience or against it; resting for their evidence solely on the word of the living God. Such a faith in God is reckoned for righteousness to every man who has it, as it was to Abraham, the father of all believers. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.)

No room for glorying

That workman should do ill who, having built a house with another mans purse, should go about to set up his own name upon the front thereof; and in Justinians law it was decreed that no workman should set up his name within the body of that building which he made out of anothers cost. Thus Christ sets us all at work; it is He that bids us to fast, and pray, and hear, and give alms, etc.; but who is at the cost of all this? whose are all these good works? Surely Gods. Mans poverty is so great, that he cannot reach a good thought, much less a good deed; all the materials are from God, the building is His; it is He that paid for it. Give but, therefore, the glory and the honour thereof unto God, and take all the profit to thyself. (J. Spencer.)

What saith the Scripture?--

What saith the Scripture

?--

I. What is meant by the Scripture? Paul referred simply to the Old Testament. But we are not to suppose that the Old and New Testaments are different Scriptures. The only difference is that in the New we have a clearer explanation of that which may be found in the Old.

II. What is the authority of the Scripture? The difference between this and the best of other books is that it was written, not by man, but by God; though holy men of old wrote the Book, they wrote it as they were moved by God the Holy Ghost. This Divine authority is supported by ample evidence.

1. Historical.

2. Experimental.

III. What saith the scripture?

1. For the head. It unfolds--

(1) The doctrine of the Trinity.

(2) The plan of salvation.

(3) The judgment to come.

(4) The eternity of future rewards and punishments.

2. For the heart.

(1) It proclaims every kind of encouragement to turn from the error of our ways. It assures us of--

(a) The love of God to each soul.

(b) His forbearance with sinners.

(c) His desire to make men happy.

(2) It secures for those who have turned--

(a) The sympathy of Jesus.

(b) The comfort of the Holy Ghost.

3. For our life--our way of living. It testifies--

(1) To the impossibility of a double service. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

(2) To the necessity of holiness. Without it no man shall see the Lord.

(3) To the vanity of this world compared with the next. What shall it profit a man? etc.

IV. How are we to know these Scriptures? By searching them--

1. Prayerfully.

2. Daily. Conclusion: What an awful responsibility rests upon every man who does not consider what the Scripture saith! It is just as if you were walking in a dark place, not knowing your road, and someone were to offer you a light, and you were to refuse to take it. Not long ago I happened to be visiting in a great castle, situate on the top of a hill, near which there was a very steep cliff, and a rapid river running at the bottom. A person, anxious to get home from that castle late one night in the midst of a violent thunderstorm when the night was blackness itself, was asked to stop till the storm was over. She declined. She was begged to take a lantern, that she might be kept in the road, but she said she could do very well without it. She left, and, perhaps frightened by the storm, she wandered from the road and got upon the top of the cliff; she tumbled over, and the next day the lifeless body of that foolish woman was found washed ashore from the swollen river. Ah! but how many such foolish ones are there who, when the light is offered, and they have only to ask, What saith the Scripture? are prepared to say, I have no need of that Book; I know right from wrong; I am not afraid; I fear not the end. (Bp. Williers.)

What saith the Scripture

?--

I. As a revelation. On some subjects it is the sole authority. Without it man has no light whatever, or only the dimmest light, on the nature of God, His relations to man, the method of reconciliation, immortality. On these subjects its testimony is full, clear, authoritative. How important, then, that man, a spiritual being, with an immortal destiny, should ask, What saith the Scriptures?

II. As a counsellor. Man is a traveller in an unknown way, and needs a guide, or the chances are he will go astray. There are many candidates for the office--many sincere, and desirous only to secure his good; many insincere, seeking their own advantage: all fallible, and liable to give the wrong advice. The Scripture alone is infallible; it displays every step of the way, so that a wayfaring man, if he accepts its guidance, though a fool, will not err. How important, then, that as regards the path of duty and the way to heaven, young and old should ask, What saith the Scriptures?

III. As a standard. Weights and measures in ordinary use may be right or may be wrong. Some are wrong, being too heavy or too light, too long or too short, too large or too small. So it is necessary again and again to apply the standard test of weight, measurement, etc. So the Churches, theological schools, etc., may be right or may be wrong in their enunciation of doctrine, and moralists in their statement of ethics. But the Scripture is the authoritative standard of faith and practice, and to it all teaching is to be referred. The Thessalonians received or rejected Pauls doctrine without referring to the standard; the Bereans were more noble, in that they searched the Scriptures whether these things were so.

IV. As a judge. The Scripture will judge those to whom it has been given at the last day. The Books will be opened, and this amongst them. It will be in vain then for man to plead that he has consulted the Church, human opinion, etc. What will Scripture say then? Come, ye blessed, or, Depart, ye cursed. (J. W. Burn.)

The Bible alone

1. Scripture. means writing. Generally, when the Bible, as a volume, is spoken of, the expression the Scriptures is used, because it is made up of many writings. When some particular part is alluded to, then it is said the Scripture. For instance (Joh_5:39), Christ said, Search the Scriptures, because the whole Bible, from first to last, more or less testified to Him. But when He selects any particular part, then He says, that Scripture (Mat_12:10). Now in the text Paul does not Say, What saith the Scriptures? speaking of the whole Bible, but What says this particular part of Scripture which I am now quoting?

2. From this we gather that the Bible is infallible. When Jesus quotes it, it is with a view to settle all dispute; or when Paul has proved what he has to say by the Bible, he has decided the matter which is in controversy. To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to that Word it is because they have no light in them. Note--

I. What the text does not say. It does not say--

1. What says reason? Many a man says that. Appeal to their reason and they are satisfied. But what is reason? That which is reason to one man is not reason to another. Must I listen to any infidel who chooses to put the Bible aside and say, Listen to me, I am reason? It is true that one man has more mental faculty than another. But when we come to weigh mind against mind, who have displayed greater powers of mind than those who have believed the Bible? And am I to set aside the reason of these men, and take up the reason of other men who are immeasurably their inferiors, and be told that the Bible is not a book to be believed because it is contrary to reason? To me it is the most reasonable thing to believe in the Bible.

2. What saith science? Some men say they can disprove the Bible by scientific discoveries. One geologist will tell you that the Bible has false statements with regard to the antiquity of the world; but another says that science and the Book of God are in perfect harmony. Well, then, which am I to believe? Science is always changing. Until Galileo made his discovery that the earth moved round the sun, science declared that the earth stood still and the sun moved round it.

3. What saith the Church? Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture do we understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Good; that is the doctrine of all the Churches that hold the truth as it is in Jesus. And right that they should do so. They do not bring a mans interpretation, creeds, decrees, and councils, and say, Take this to be your faith. But they all say, What saith the Scripture?

II. What the text does say.

1. As to doctrine, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. There is the doctrine, then; it is salvation by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. Now many object to this, and say, That is unreasonable; God will expect me to do something. No, the Scripture saith, and with reason. If you look to the law, you must do all the works of the law, or none--Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things in the law. As one leak will sink a ship, so one sin will damn a soul. But is not this a dangerous doctrine? Does it not make a man neglect good works? I cannot help that. Men may abuse the doctrine, as they do other good things, but that is no valid objection against the doctrine itself.

2. As to duty. Having taught that doctrine, we proceed to say that faith will never be without works. As there will always be light and heat in the rays of the sun, so there will always be works following and accompanying faith. Faith worketh by love. Love is the fulfilling of the law. What saith the Scripture? Love worketh no ill to his neighbour. But there are those who speak of faith but show no works. Now, that is not the faith of Gods elect. You will find it described in Jam_2:20-23. This bears upon the subject. The Holy Ghost says that although Abraham was accounted righteous in the sight of God by faith, he justified his character in the sight of men by works. What, then, saith the Scripture to that man who lives as most men live; to that man who is neglectful of secret prayer, who is living in sin, serving divers lusts and pleasures, setting his affection on things below? Why, they condemn him from first to last. He that believeth not is condemned already. He is not a believer; his life proves it. According to the Word of God, where there is faith there will be works. (R. W. Dibdin, M. A.)

The Christian oracles

1. This question is highly characteristic of St. Paul. If a Grecian statesman like Solon had been in a difficulty, his question would have been, What saith the oracle? If a Roman general like Caesar, his would have been, What say the victims? But the Christian apostles is, What saith the Scripture?

2. Universal has been the confession of human ignorance, especially regarding the future. The numerous oracles of antiquity, of which there were twenty-two sacred to Apollo alone, are manifest acknowledgments of this. But those oracles did not arise merely out of a consciousness of human ignorance; they had their origin likewise in a reverence for the gods and a respect for their religion, such as it was.

3. This being the case, let us contrast the oracles of the heathen with the oracles of God. At Delphi was the most famous oracle. In the innermost sanctuary there was the golden statue of Apollo, and before it there burnt upon an altar an eternal fire. In the centre of this temple there was a small opening in the ground, from which an intoxicating smoke arose. Over this chasm there stood a high tripod, on which the Pythia took her seat whenever the oracle was to be consulted. The smoke rising under the tripod affected her brain in such a manner that she fell into a state of delirious intoxication, and the sounds which she uttered in this state were believed to contain the revelations of Apollo. In the long experiment of heathenism it may be truly said that men groped after God, if haply they might find Him. Think of them solemnly examining the entrails of a beast, or studying the intersections of a cobweb; think of them trying to discover the mind of God from dreams or the sounds of the wind among the rustling leaves; and then reflect on our greater light and privileges, for we have the oracles which holy men wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. As we have a nobler oracle, let us consult it with a nobler curiosity and on nobler subjects than the Gentiles did. It is the boast of some natural theologians that they could do without the Bible. But in the full light of nature men acted as we have observed, and therefore something more luminous and powerful was necessary to the renovation of humanity. That one thing needful was a revelation--and that we have got; for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. What saith the Scripture on--

I. The original and present state of man? It tells us we were created upright, that man is fallen and degenerate, and that we are now in a state of sin and death.

II. This present world. How are we to interpret it? Now, just as there is an intended distance for judging of a picture, so there is a right position and attitude for judging this world. A man comes close up to a masterpiece of Rubens, and pronounces it a daub. Let him stand back, and the picture will come out even to his unskilful eye. Just so with the world. You cannot judge it rightly while you are near it, amidst its fascinations. You must retire and prayerfully consult the Word of God. That is the right position and attitude for judging of the world. Many a thoughtful man asks himself, Why has God set me down here in the world? What does He want me to do? If he went to the Bible he would get these questions satisfactorily answered; but perhaps he comes to the easy conclusion that he ought to enjoy himself, and straightway plunges into the stream of pleasure, and basks for a little in her fitful sunshine. He is destined to experience what a million experiences fail to prove to the imprudent, that the pleasures of the world turn to acids. What saith the Scripture? It tells us that man is here on probation, that this is a life of discipline preparatory to another stage of existence, that this life is not our home, but that our home is in heaven.

III. The subject of happiness. It is not to be found in the world. Knowledge will not give happiness; for he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Wealth will not give happiness. A rich man, when he was dying, cried out for his gold. It was brought to him, and he put it to his breast. Take it away! take it away! he shrieked; that wont do! Greatness cannot give happiness. Once a friend called to salute a prime minister, and wished him a happy new year. God grant that it may be! said the poor great man; for during the last year I have not known a happy day. A real Christian is the happiest style of man. Thus saith the Scripture, In the world ye shall have tribulation; but in Me ye shall have peace.

IV. Of the immortality of the soul. How unsatisfactory is mere reason here! But Christ has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Conclusion:

1. We should receive the responses of Gods oracle with meekness.

2. Consider your responsibility. Shall not the heathen rise up in the judgment and condemn us? For they listened for the voice of Deity among the rustling leaves or the cooing of the doves, but many of us despise the voice that speaketh from heaven.

3. Consider the perpetuity of the Word, and tremble. Its reviler has long been in his grave; but the Word of God liveth and abideth forever. (F. Perry, M. A.)

Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.--

The faith of Abraham

1. A simple childlike dependence on the naked Word of God.

2. An acceptance of, and trust in, Gods promised Saviour.

3. A renouncing of his own works as meritorious.

4. A faith that wrought by love, making him the friend of God.

5. One that overcame the world, leading him to seek a better country.

6. One that evidenced its reality by a self-denying obedience. (T. Robinson, of Cambridge.)

The faith of Abraham,

though not the same with a faith in Christ, was analogous to it--

1. As it was a faith in unseen things (Heb_11:17-19).

2. As it was prior to and independent of the law (Gal_3:17-19).

3. As it related to the promised seed in whom Christ was dimly seen. (Prof. Jowett.)

Abrahams faith

I. Whom did he believe? God, as infinitely powerful--who could quicken the dead, and who had merely to will that beings and events should be, and they immediately came into existence (verse 17).

II. What did he believe? What God was pleased to reveal. What is mentioned here is that he should become the father of many nations; but that was only a small part of what was revealed and what he believed. He believed in effect--for this was the sum of what God revealed to him--that one of his descendants was to be the promised Saviour of men; and that both he and his spiritual seed were to be saved by faith in Him. The revelation was comparatively indistinct, but this was its purport.

III. Why did he believe this? Just because God had said it. He had no other ground for it. Everything else would have led him to doubt or disbelieve it.

IV. What were the characteristics of this faith? It was--

1. Firm faith (verse 21).

2. Hopeful faith (verse 18).

3. A faith that no seeming impossibilities could shake (verse 20). (J. Browne, D. D.)

Abrahams faith

I. Abraham was a man of faith.

1. His faith was not--

(1) Assent to a creed;

(2) Nor an intelligent conviction of any plan of salvation to be accomplished centuries later in the sacrifice of Christ.

2. It was a grand, simple trust in God. It was shown in--

(1) His forsaking the idols of his forefathers and worshipping the one spiritual God.

(2) In his leaving home and going he knew not whither in obedience to a Divine voice.

(3) In his willingness to sacrifice his son.

(4) In his hope of a future inheritance.

3. Such a faith is personal reliance, leading to obedience and encouraged by hopeful anticipation.

4. This faith is a model faith for us. For faith is to rely upon Christ, to be loyal to Christ, to hope in Christ, and to accept the fuller revelations of truth which Christ opens up to us as Abraham accepted the Divine voices vouchsafed to him. The contents of faith wilt vary according to our light; but the spirit of it must be always the same.

II. His faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. The special point in Abrahams character was not his holiness, but his faith. Gods favour flowed to him through this channel. It was the way through which he, imperfect and sinful as are all the sons of Adam, was called to the privileged place of a righteous man. This is recorded of him in the sacred history (Gen_15:6), and therefore should be admitted by all Jews. The reasons for our relying on faith are--

1. Historical. Faith justified Abraham, therefore it will justify us.

2. Theological. Faith brings us into living fellowship with God, and so opens our hearts to receive the forgiveness that puts us in the position of righteous men.

3. Moral. Faith is the security for the future growth of righteousness; with the first effort of faith the first seed grace of righteousness is sown.

III. Participation in Abrahams faith is the condition of participation in Abrahams blessing. The Jews claimed this by birthright, but Abraham had it by faith. Only men of faith could have it. Therefore Jews who lost faith lost the blessing. But all men of faith are spiritual sons of Abraham (verse 12). The finest legacy left by the patriarch was his faith. (H. F. Adeney, M. A.)

The nature of faith as illustrated in the case of Abraham

I. Faith The Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words hover between two meanings--

1. Trustfulness, the frame of mind which relies on another.

2. Trustworthiness, the frame of mind which can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammatically, as active and passive senses of the same word, or logically, as subject and object of the same act; but there is a close moral affinity between them. Fidelity, constancy, firmness, confidence, reliance, trust, belief--these are the links which connect the two extremes, the passive with the active meaning of faith. Owing to these combined causes, the two senses will at times be so blended together that they can only be separated by some arbitrary distinction. When the members of the Christian brotherhood, e.g., are called the faithful, what is meant by this? Does it imply their constancy, their trustworthiness, or their faith, their belief? In all such cases it is better to accept the latitude, and oven the vagueness, of a word or phrase, than to attempt a rigid definition which after all can only be artificial. And indeed the loss in grammatical precision is often more than compensated by the gain in theological depth. In the case of the faithful, e.g., does not the one quality of heart carry the other with it, so that they who are trustful are trusty also; they who have faith in God are steadfast and immovable in the path of duty?

II. In Abraham this attitude of trustfulness was most marked. By faith he left home and kindred, and settled in a strange land; by faith he acted upon Gods promise of a race and an inheritance, though it seemed at variance with all human experience; by faith he offered up his only son, in whom alone that promise could be fulfilled. This one word faith sums up the lesson of his whole life. As early as the First Book of Maccabees attention is directed to this lesson (chap. 2:52), and at the time of the Christian era the passage in Genesis relating to it had become a standard text in the Jewish schools for discussion and comment, and the interest thus concentrated on it prepared the way for the fuller and more spiritual teaching of the apostles. Hence we find it quoted by both Paul and James. While the deductions drawn from it by them are at first sight diametrically opposed in terms, and as long as our range of view is confined to the apostolic writings, it seems scarcely possible to avoid the conclusion that James is attacking the teaching of Paul. But when we realise the fact that the passage in Genesis was a common thesis in the schools, that the meaning of faith was variously explained, and diverse lessons drawn from it--then the case is altered. The Gentile apostle and the Pharisaic rabbi might both maintain the supremacy of faith as the means of salvation; but faith with Paul was a very different thing from faith with Maimonides. With the one its prominent idea is a spiritual life, with the other an orthodox creed; with the one the guiding principle is the individual conscience, with the other an external rule of ordinances; with the one faith is allied to liberty, with the other to bondage. Thus, and since the circles of labour of the two apostles were not likely to intersect, St. Jamess protest against reliance on faith alone is more likely to have been levelled against the Pharisaic spirit which rested satisfied with a barren orthodoxy than against the teaching of Paul. (Bp. Lightfoot.)

Abraham, the model of faith

I. The faith of Abraham was a simple faith--a faith which asked for nothing but the word of God to rest upon.

II. It was an obedient faith. It led him to do whatever God told him to do. And our faith is good for nothing unless it leads us to be like Abraham in this respect.

III. It was a conquering faith--a faith which helped him to overcome the greatest difficulties.

IV. Abrahams faith was a comforting faith. (R. Newton, D. D.)

Difficulties overcome by faith

Bishop Hall has only overstated a fundamental fact when he says, There is no faith where there is either means or hope: Means and hopes may be mixed with faith, but undoubtedly the mightiest deliverances ever wrought have been by faith alone. Difficulties and apparent impossibilities are the food on which faith feeds.

Believing God

Abraham was the head of a wandering tribe, with probably only such small ambitions as were common to his station; a man of purer life, of higher purposes, perhaps, than his neighbour chiefs, and yet with nothing very marked to distinguish him from them. God calls this man, instructs him, leads him, and as he hears, believes, obeys, he becomes quite another man. In this is the whole source of Abrahams greatness. It was not in his natural gifts that he was distinguished above all other men of his day; ethers may have been as intelligent and as forceful as he. Nor was it in his great opportunities that he excelled. There is nothing very wonderful in his history, if you take away from it his faith and its influence on his life. He wandered farther than many of the men of his day; but they were all wanderers. He fought his petty battles; so did they. But the one thing which raised him above them all, the thing which makes us know that there was such a man at all, is only this, that he believed God. There is nothing small in such a life, for its whole business is to follow Gods call. The same transformation is wrought today over the man who, like Abraham, believes God. It does not come from believing that God is, or believing in God, or on God, but by simply, lovingly, believing God; believing what He says, and all He says, and because He says it. It makes a man a saint if you look at him from the side of personal purity of character and life. It puts him under the holiest influence which can move a mortal man. God has said, Without holiness no man can see the Lord, and he believes God; and having this hope in Him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure. It makes a man a hero, if you look at him from the side of his daring or endurance. He believes God. It makes no difference to him what any man, what all men say. What are mens words against the Word of God? (Christian World Pulpit.)

Folly of self-righteousness

By the works of the law there shall no flesh living be justified; and in the teeth of that millions of men say, We will be justified by the works of the law; so, coming to God with the pretence of worshipping Him, they offer Him that which He abhors, and give the lie to Him in all His solemn declarations. If God says that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, and man declares, But I will be so justified, he maketh God a liar; whether he knoweth it or not, his sin hath that within it. Man is much like a silkworm, he is a spinner and weaver by nature. A robe of righteousness is wrought out for him, but he will not have it; he will spin for himself, and like the silkworm, he spins and spins, and he only spins himself a shroud. All the righteousness that a sinner can make will only be a shroud in which to wrap up his soul, his destroyed soul, for God will cast him away who relies upon the works of the law. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 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 Rom 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, Gal 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 Rom 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Acceptance by Faith foreshadowed in the old Dispensation

In Rom_3:21.; St. Paul set forth the great truth of acceptance by faith. A Jew might object that it was new, and therefore not true. In Rom_3:31; St. Paul answered that in the Law and in faith there is the same moral and religious ideal, which is more completely developed and more perfectly fulfilled by faith. Now he turns to the past, to show that acceptance by faith is not a new idea. It was faith for which Abraham was accepted, not works (Rom_4:1-8), nor circumcision (Rom_4:9-12), nor on account of obedience to the Law (Rom_4:13-17). The history shows the nature of the faith which God accepts (Rom_4:18-22), in our case as well as in Abraham's0.

1-8. It was faith, not works, for which Abraham was accepted.

Paraphrase. '(1) Take, e.g., the case of Abraham. His descendants should readily admit the force of his case, which shows that acceptance by faith is no new principle. (2) If he had been accepted on account of his deeds, he would have had something to be proud of in man's sight. And we men do honour him, and rightly. Yet even then he could not claim merit before God. (3) For the Scripture says that it was on account of his faith that he was reckoned as righteous. (4) Now reward for work would not be so spoken of. There is no favour in paying wages that are due. (5) Such an expression as “his faith is reckoned for righteousness” is only properly used of one who makes no claim for work done, but simply puts faith in God. (6-8) Notice, too, how David pronounced a man happy, although he had sinned deeply, simply because God forgave him and reckoned him as righteous.'

1. What.. then] refers to Rom_3:27. That] RM 'of.' As pertaining to the flesh] i.e. by natural descent. The question is put in the mouth of a Jew. Therefore it does not follow that the Roman Christians were chiefly Jews. Cp. also 1Co_10:1, 'our fathers,' though the Corinthian Christians were mostly Gentile. Hath found] RM omits.

2. Abraham] St. James also refers to Gen_15:6, but concludes 'that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,' Jam_2:23. St. James wrote of mere intellectual belief: cp. Jam_2:19. St. Paul meant by 'faith' a complete change of relation towards God, which would affect the believer's actions: cp. Romans 6. Gen_15:6 was a common text for discussion among the Jews. Possibly St. James was thinking of perversions of St. Paul's teaching. Glory] cp. Rom_3:27.

3, 5. Counted] RV 'reckoned.'

4. Worketh] i.e. a workman in daily life.

5. Worketh not] i.e. as ground of acceptance. Ungodly] not meant of Abraham; the extreme case is put: cp. Rom_5:6.

6. Describeth, etc.] RV 'pronounceth blessing upon.' Imputeth] RV 'reckoneth.' Without] RV 'apart from.'

7. Blessed] i.e. happy; from Psa_32:1.

9-12. The blessing was not dependent upon circumcision, to which as signifying admission to covenant with God, the Jews attach such importance.

Paraphrase. '(9) Again. The blessing was irrespective of circumcision. (10) For at the time that Abraham's faith was reckoned for righteousness, he was uncircumcised. (11) His circumcision was but a token, by which God sealed that acceptance which was his as a believing man. Hence, all Gentiles who believe are his spiritual children, and have righteousness reckoned to them. (12) And those Jews are his children who are not merely circumcised, but believe as he believed.'

9. Cometh] RV 'Is this blessing then pronounced.'

10. Abraham's faith preceded circumcision by many years: cp. Gen_15:6; Gen_17:10, Gen_17:24.

11. sign] cp. Gen_17:11, 'a token of the covenant.' Seal] ratifying his acceptance. Imputed] RV 'reckoned.'

13-17. The promise was independent of any system of law.

Paraphrase. '(13) Again. The promise to Abraham of world-wide inheritance was not to take effect by obedience to law. (14) For if the inheritance be for those who keep a law, then faith has lost its value, and the promise has been nullified. (15) For the effect of law, which reveals the requirements of a righteous God, is to bring about, not blessing, but consciousness of sin and expectation of God's wrath; transgression cannot exist without some law to be broken. (16) Therefore acceptance was made to depend upon faith, that it might proceed from God's bounty not our merit, and that all Abraham's descendants might be certain of obtaining the promise. And by his descendants I mean, not Jews only, but all those who have the faith which he had. (17) For in spite of his old age, he fully believed God who promised him seed, and God has made him the father of all who believe in Jesus Christ.'

13. Heir of the world] i.e. by the universality of the reign of Christ: cp. Gen_12:2.; Gen_22:17.

14. Void] because an opposite condition would have been brought in: cp. Gal_3:18.

15. Cp. Rom_3:20. For where] RV 'but where.'

16. By grace] RV 'according to grace,' i e. on the principle of free gift. Sure] because, (1) not depending on the fulfilment of a law which would certainly be broken, and (2) admitting Jew and Gentile by the same gate of faith. Of the law] i.e. believing Jews.

Abraham] who was not under the Law.

Us all] i.e. Christians, from 'many nations.'

17. Father] cp. Gen_17:5. Before.. God] i.e. God regards Abraham as father of all believers.

Quickeneth] i.e. makes alive. When God promised Isaac, Abraham, and Sarah were as though dead: cp. Rom_4:19. Calleth] i.e. summons. Which be not] i.e. the promised seed.

18-22. It was because Abraham's faith was so unwavering, that it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

Paraphrase. '(18) His confident faith, when it was against human probability that God's promise of a son should be realised, led to the fulfilment of the promise. (19) His faith did not fail at the apparent impossibility. (20) Fixing his eye on God's promise, he received fresh youth, acknowledging God's power and truth (21) with complete certainty. (22) And because his faith was unwavering, God accepted it as though it were righteousness.'

18. Believed in hope] i.e. had confident faith. That he might] RV 'to the end that he might.' So] i.e. as the stars: cp. Gen_15:5.

19. Being not weak] RV 'without being weakened.' Considered not] RV 'considered,' i.e. he realised his weakness, but still believed.

Dead] RV 'as good as dead.'

20. RV 'yea, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith.'

21. Persuaded] RV 'assured.'

22. Imputed] RV 'reckoned.'

23-25. Abraham's faith is the pattern of ours.

Paraphrase. '(23) Thus the history of Abraham's justification teaches us the principle on which God proceeds. (24) As Abraham trusted in God to bring Isaac as it were from death to fulfil His promise, so, if we believe on Him who raised up Jesus to fulfil His purpose, our faith will be accepted. (25) For Christ, who died because we had offended, was raised to bring about our acceptance.'

23, 24. Imputed] RV 'reckoned.'

24. Us] RV 'our sake': cp. Rom_15:4; 1Co_9:10. If we believe] RV 'who believe.'

25. Delivered] RV 'delivered up,' i.e. by the Father: cp. Rom_8:32 equally by Himself: cp. Gal_2:20; Eph_5:2. Our justification] The Resurrection brings about our justification, because (1) it shows the divinity of Christ, and therefore the value of His death: cp. 1Co_15:17; (2) through the Resurrection, faith in the Atonement became possible, for it showed that the Atonement was complete: cp. Rom_3:25.; Rom_6:10; (3) Christ risen becomes the source of new life to us by our union with Him: cp. Rom_6:11.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Faith-justification shown by Abraham’s Case to lie at the Foundation of the Jewish, as well as of the Christian, Church, Rom_4:1-25.

Abraham himself was gratuitously justified by faith, (Rom_4:1-5;) with a justification whose blessedness is attested by David, (Rom_4:6-8;) and which was conferred upon him in his Gentilism, and afterward sealed by circumcision, (Rom_4:9-11;) rendering him the father of the faithful by faith, (Rom_4:12-17,) insomuch that from that faith sprang by miraculous birth the very race of Israel, (Rom_4:18-22;) a faith identical with justifying faith in Christ, (Rom_4:23-25.)

ABRAHAM was to the Jew the most nearly divine of all human names. His venerable form, to their imagination, rose loftily from the mists of an early antiquity as the founder of their race, securing it a divine preeminence in this world, and a certain salvation in the world to come. He connected their lineal pedigree with Adam, which was yet to culminate in the Messiah. Hence, when Paul identified the Christian faith with the Abrahamic, he based Christianity on the deepest possible foundations, and showed that a great epoch in sacred history had here commenced. (Note Act_7:2.)

1. What—A question not put by the Jew as objection, (as Stuart supposes,) but stated by the apostle to start his argument.

The flesh—In opposition to the spirit, as in Gal_3:3, where the flesh refers to legal works as a means of justification, and the spirit refers to spiritual faith as the means. Hence the present question signifies, What in the matter of justification did Abraham attain by legal works? The phrase as pertaining to the flesh cannot, according to the Greek, qualify father. (See note on Rom_9:8.)

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom_4:1.—Alford, following Meyer, says κατὰ σάρκα is in contrast to κατὰ πνεῦμα, and refers to that part of our being from which spring works in contrast with that which is the exercise of faith. κατὰ σάρκα in respect to efforts by one’s own natural powers, or efforts made in one’s own strength.

Rom_4:2. ἐξ ἔργων.—Talmud maintains that Abraham was justified by works.

Rom_4:3.—Jewish Rabbis viewed Abraham’s faith as so much merit. “As the reward of his faith our father Abraham inherited both this world and that which is to come, as it is said, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted,’ etc.”

Rom_4:4. But of debt.—ὀφείλημα, what one owes—a debt, a due, duty, obligation.

Rom_4:7. Blessed are they, etc.—Paul refers them to the example of Abraham and the beatitudes of David. Another proof that he does not disparage the law (Wordsworth). ἀφίεναι.—New Testament side of forgiveness—real removal of sin. ἐπὶκαλύπτειν.—Old Testament side—sin only covered till atonement should be made for it.

Rom_4:9.—λέγομεν γάρ supposes an affirmative to the preceding questions—viz., “The privilege belongs also to the uncircumcised.” Proved by the quotation from David.

Rom_4:11.—The term σημεῖον, sign, relates to the material thing; the term σφραγίς, seal, to its religious import. Seal of the covenant of grace.

Rom_4:12.—Refers to believers of Jewish origin who formed the other half of Abraham’s spiritual family.

Rom_4:13.—Abraham was justified before the institution of circumcision and the delivery of the law, therefore by faith in Christ to come.

Rom_4:15.—παράβασις, transgression, from παραβαίνειν, to trespass. A barrier cannot be crossed except in so far as it exists; so without law there is no sin in the form of transgression.

Rom_4:17.—καλεῖν is the creature call of the Almighty, by which He, according to the analogy of the first act of creation, calls forth the concrete formations out of the general stream of life (Olshausen). Abraham the father of all the faithful, however far removed. In God’s sight Abraham still lives; in God’s sight we were already in existence when He spake to Abraham.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_4:1-17

The father of the faithful.—The divinity of the Bible shown in this, that it confers immortality upon its heroes which no other book possesses. Abraham’s trials, faith, and final victory are familiar facts to-day. He lives both in Bible story and in tradition’s lore. It is a fact to be noticed that the fame of Bible heroes has spread beyond the book in which it is related. “The memory of the just is blessed;” and Abraham’s memory is blessed and green because he was justified by faith and is the father of the faithful. Consider the negative and the positive aspect of Abraham’s descendants.

I. Negatively.—His descendants:

1. Are not the moralists. Ethical systems cannot be a ground of justification before the unchangeable God. They run from Socrates down to Victor Cousin or Mr. Herbert Spencer. How am I to know by which ethical system I am to be saved? How am I to ascertain which is relatively right and which is absolutely right? Amid hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives, and apodeictical principles, what am I to do? Abraham’s descendants would be few if they were confined to the ethical philosophers and their scholars.

2. Are not the legalists. The law maketh wrath and brings condemnation. For all are guilty of infractions of the law, both natural and revealed. Without the written law men will be judged by the natural law written on their hearts. Conscience is a witness to guilt. When it has not been killed, it doth make us all criminals. Can the criminal claim reward as a debt? Punishment is his due.

3. Are not the ceremonialists. We must coin the word so as to avoid a word which has become descriptive of a certain party. Forms and ceremonies have their place, but we must observe the rule, “A place for everything and everything in its place.” Clothes have their use; but what use are they to the dead? First life, then clothes and food. Abraham had the righteousness of faith, being uncircumcised.

II. Positively.—His descendants are:

1. Those who exercise faith. This is the source from the human side of justification, and is the root force which generates the leaves, flowers, and fruits of the Christian character.

2. Those who are forgiven. The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins too often ignored. The blessing to be realised. Faith rightly exercised brings into the soul the consciousness of the divine pardon.

3. Those who are the subjects of grace. “By grace are ye saved.” The method of grace is one for Abraham and for all God’s people, from the dawn of time to its close.

4. Those to whom belong the sure promises. They are sure, resting upon the solid foundation of God’s grace. This is a rock. All other foundations are as shifting sand. Our moods change; our ethical systems have their days; our volitions vary; our efforts, if strong to-day, are weak the next day, and they always fall far short of our noblest volitions. God’s grace is immutable; His promises are firm:

“Engraven as in eternal brass

The might; promise shines.”

5. Those who stand a gracious army before Him, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things that be not as though they were. Review the muster-roll of faith’s sons and daughters, and it will be found that, though sometimes lightly esteemed, they are indeed the precious sons and daughters of Zion, comparable unto fine gold. They stand in the presence of the infinite Purity, and are ennobled by the gracious influence.

(1) Let us seek for that faith which justifies and leads on to purity.

(2) Let us strive to walk in the steps of that faith which has been exercised by the noblest,—these are the steps leading to spiritual greatness and happiness.

(3) Let us believe the promises sure because they are of grace.

(4) Let us glory, not in ourselves, not in works, but in our sublime heirships.

Rom_4:3. “What saith the Scripture?”—In the third chapter St. Paul had brought this truth plainly forward—that all men before God are sinners. Those to whom the apostle was referring thought they had such special privileges connected with themselves that they at least ought to be exempted from this general statement. But the apostle says, No such thing; and he falls back therefore upon the question; “What saith the Scripture?” Now before I attempt to lead you to the answer which ought to be given to this question, it will be necessary that I dwell briefly upon one or two introductory points.

I. What is meant by the Scripture?—When St. Paul used these words he certainly referred simply to the Old Testament Scriptures; but we are never for a moment to suppose that the Old Testament and the New Testament are different; and therefore if a man ask me, “What saith the Scripture?” I am quite as ready to give him an answer out of the Old Testament as I should be to give him one out of the New, and just as ready to answer him out of the New as I should be out of the Old. But when a man asks me a question about his soul, when he is asking me how a man may get to heaven, I should like to answer him out of both Testaments, because when they are put together the one seems to explain the other, enabling a man to say, “Thus saith the Scripture.”

II. What is the authority of Scripture?—If you ask me what there is in this book different from what there is in the best kind of other books, I have but one plain answer. It is because this book was written, not by man, but by God; it is because, though “holy men of old” wrote the book, they wrote it “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” We speak of “the Gospel according to St. Matthew,” “the Gospel according to St. Luke,” or “the Gospel according to St. John”; but we say it is “the gospel of the grace of God,” and we acknowledge that from first to last the book was written as God Himself put it into the hearts and minds of the different writers. So then we acknowledge in this book the authority of God Himself. No wonder therefore St. Paul should fall back upon the question of the text. I would only further remark in connection with this part of my subject that we are not to think that the Scripture was intended for men of another age or another country, as if it did not bear upon ourselves; neither must you, when you look at the Scriptures and consider them as the word of God, expect to find them without their difficulties. Even infidels who have disbelieved the Bible have testified to its morality. They have said that if they wanted to bring up their children well there was no morality like that which was to be found in the Bible. To the truth of what the Bible contains the researches of the last few years have testified.

III. “What saith the Scripture,”

1. For my head? It unfolds to me many difficulties. That great doctrine of there being three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—but one living and true God. But the Scripture unfolds to me another great subject, and that is the plan of salvation. The apostle had been showing that all men were sinners—if sinners, they could not save themselves, and that therefore a plan must be devised by which they could be saved. Here is the plan. You and I could do nothing for ourselves. When we were condemned as sinners Christ died in our place, bore our punishment, endured the shame, suffered on the cross, and has now set us free.

2. But “what saith the Scripture” for my heart? I have known the Scripture turn many a bad man into a good man and make him happy, but I have never known it make a single person unhappy. To each individual I say, You have no hope; but you may have a full hope, a good hope through Christ.

3. But “what saith the Scripture” for our life—I mean our way of living? It tells us the impossibility of a double service: “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Therefore if the man who loves his sin would only read, “What saith the Scripture?” he would find that he must leave off sinning if he would have peace, for “there is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” But “what saith the Scripture” still for our life? It bids us ask ourselves, in the midst of the busy world, in the midst of all our occupations, when we rise early and late take rest—it bids us ask ourselves, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

IV. But how are we to know these Scriptures?—We must search those Scriptures; and if we were asked how and when, I should say the how must be prayerfully and the when must be daily. I would say to all that if you will only follow that advice there is not one but may be mighty in the Scriptures—if you will only search them and pray over them, and that daily. There is an awful responsibility that rests upon every one who does not study that book, who does not read the Bible, who does not consider what the Scripture saith. It is just as if you were walking in a dark place, not knowing the road, and some one were to offer you a light, and you were to say, I do not require it, and refuse to take it. If a man suffered injury under such circumstances, who would marvel?—Dr. Villiers, Bishop of Carlisle.

How did Abraham get his righteousness?—Justification by faith is a very old doctrine—one of the oldest dogmas on record. It is as old as Abraham, as old as Abel.

I. Who justifies?—“It is God that justifieth.” The Judge, the Lawgiver, is the Justifier. Self-justification is as useless as it is impossible.

II. What sort of justification does He give?—His justification is:

1. Righteous. The adjustment of the question between us and God is a righteous adjustment. Nothing but this would satisfy God or ourselves, or make us feel safe in accepting it in our dealings with a holy God. This righteousness is secured by the full payment of the penalty by a surety or substitute.

2. Complete. It extends to our whole persons, to our whole lives, to every sin committed by us. The whole man is justified; it is no half pardon.

3. Irreversible. No second verdict can alter our legal position. “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?”

4. Divine. It is a justification worthy of God; a justification which shall place the justified on a far higher level than the first Adam stood upon.

III. For whom is it?—For the ungodly. Yes; for such alone. Righteousness for the unrighteous is that which the righteous One came to bring. In this matter of pardon and acceptance, the principle is not, to him that hath shall more be given, but to him that hath nothing shall all be given.

IV. How we get it.—By believing. In accepting God’s testimony to this righteousness, in crediting His word concerning this justification, we are justified at once. The righteousness becomes ours; and God treats us henceforth as men who are righteous, as men who, on account of the righteousness which has thus become theirs, are entitled to be dealt with as righteous out and out, Of Abraham it is said, “His faith was counted for righteousness”—that is, God counted this believing man as one who had done all righteousness, just because he was a believing man. Not that his act or acts of faith were substituted as equivalent to work, but his believing brought him into the possession of all that working could have done. Thus, in believing, we get the righteousness. Our believing accomplishes for us all that our working could have done.—H. Bonar.

Rom_4:3. Belief in God.—Belief in God is the foundation of all religion, both natural and revealed. Now as without belief in God there can be no religion, so where there is such belief in God the Scripture always of course supposes it accompanied with every other part of true religion. As the foundation of religion in general is believing in God, so the foundation of Christianity in particular is the belief of that great act of God, the raising His Son from the dead, in order to judge the world in righteousness.

I. Now the account which the Scripture gives us of the faith of Abraham is this:

1. It consisted in his believing the true God, the Maker and Governor of the universe, the Lord of heaven and earth. The nations among whom he sojourned were all idolaters, worshippers of dead men, worshippers of the kings who had reigned over them in their lifetime; for that was the original of all the heathen idolatry. Every city or territory had its own prince, and the world was divided into small kingdoms. These kings were honoured by their flatterers with honours during their lives too nearly divine, and after their deaths they were by the ignorant people worshipped as gods. The worship paid to such gods of their own making was accordingly superstitious; and the corruption of their manners was answerable to the absurdity of their religion. From these Abraham separated himself and believed in the true God, the Maker of all things; and for the sake of that belief forsook his native country.

2. As Abraham’s faith consisted in general in believing the true God, so in particular it manifested itself in such acts of dependence upon Him as became a person who had just and worthy notions of the true God, whom he served; and for this “it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

3. The faith of Abraham was not a speculation or mere credulity, but a principle of obedience and true holiness.

4. The faith of Abraham is opposed in Scripture, just as the faith of Christians is, not to the works of virtue, but to the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses. “They that are of faith,” saith St. Paul (Gal_3:7)—that is, they who, believing in Christ, expect salvation through the real holiness of the gospel, and not by such outward forms and ceremonies as the Jews observed—“the same,” saith he, “are the children of Abraham”; “even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Rom_4:6).

II. The second thing I proposed to speak of is, what it is that is particularly required of us when we likewise are in Scripture commanded to “believe in God.”—And this evidently implies:

1. Believing His being—that is, not only in a speculative manner believing that there is an infinitely perfect Being in the notional way wherein philosophers describe Him, which may easily be separate from any religious affection, but it is having upon our minds a constant sense of His being in the moral sense the supreme Governor and righteous Judge of the world. This belief of the being of God is that only which, because it will certainly produce the fruits of virtue, shall therefore certainly be “accounted unto us for righteousness.”

2. The duty of believing in God implies not only our believing His being, and His being governor and judge of the world, but also that we have worthy and honourable apprehensions of His nature and attributes; for when any man thinks he believes in God, without attending at the same time to those perfections and excellences which constitute the true and real notion of God, he deceives himself with that empty fallacy of putting words for things, and, instead of placing his religion in obeying the commands of the true Governor of the universe by the practice of all holiness, righteousness, and virtue, he will be apt to content himself with worshipping he knows not what, and he knows not how, with a blind superstition, without understanding, and without any real improvement in goodness. This is naturally the effect of ascribing absurdities to God, as those of the Church of Rome do in the matter of transubstantiation; or of teaching things concerning Him contrary to the common and obvious notions of righteousness and goodness, as those have done who contend for the doctrine of absolute and unconditional predestination. The religion of such men usually consists more in a useless amazement of mind than in any real practise of virtue, than which nothing can be more dishonourable to God or more injurious to religion.

3. Believing in God signifies believing His revelations also, as well as what nature teaches concerning Him. The obligations of revealed religion are founded upon the same ground as the obligations of natural religion, and they mutually strengthen and confirm each other. By the dictates of nature it was reasonable to expect that God would vouchsafe to make more clear to men His will by revelation; and in all true revelation is contained a fuller enforcement and more strong confirmation of the law of nature. Men, therefore, who in Christian countries, where the gospel is preached, pretend to believe in the God of nature, and yet at the same time reject the revelation of the gospel, which is so agreeable to and perfective of the law of nature, do, generally speaking, in pretence only, and not in reality, show any more regard to natural than to revealed religion, falling for the most part into absolute atheism. Whereas they who seriously believe and practise the duties of natural religion are generally disposed to embrace also consequently the revelation of the gospel.

4. As believing in God signifies believing His revelations as well as His nature and attributes, so it always includes obedience to Him likewise, when it means that faith which shall be “counted to us for righteousness.” “Abraham’s faith,” saith St. James, “wrought with his works, and by works was his faith made perfect.” And concerning ours in like manner St. Paul declares, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom_10:10).—Clarke.

Rom_4:7. An uncommon conception.—St. Paul throws a new light on Old Testament utterances, a spiritual interpretation not received by the Jews. He likewise gives a conception of happiness not generally accepted. Let us examine it.

I. In order to taste joy we must feel sorrow.—Thus in a general way sorrow has its blessed uses. The sorrow of pain tastes the joy of release. Sorrow for sin prepares the way for the joy of its removal. No wonder men make light of sin when they do not feel the sorrow it inflicts. The sorrowful pathway of the sin-stricken soul leads to the blessedness of forgiveness.

II. In order to enjoy ease we must bear the burden.—The burden-bearers of time may seem to have a hard lot, but they can taste a rich enjoyment when the burden is removed which is unknown to the indolent. The burden of sin is a heavy load; but what joy when the Saviour’s invitation is accepted, the burden is removed, and the weary soul obtains infinite repose!

III. In order to welcome forgiveness we must realise our helplessness.—If a man fancies he is rich and increased in goods, he will be possessed of pride. Fancy plays fantastic tricks. Men fancy that they are morally rich. Why should they crave forgiveness? The sense of soul poverty must be antecedent to the reception of infinite riches. A man condemned will welcome the remission of sentence. Helpless, we rejoice in forgiveness.

IV. In order to rejoice in buried sins we must feel their loathsomeness.—We feel in no hurry to carry to the grave the beautiful child that sweetly sleeps in death. The sins that are not frowned upon by society, the sins that make us popular, we are in no haste to cover. But the sin which exposes us to the contempt of our fellows we would gladly bury many fathoms deep. All sin is hateful to God. He loves man, and yet man’s sin turns divine complacency into abhorrence. All sin is loathsome. Let us haste to have it covered. It can be covered beneath the propitiation. Let us pray for the divine Spirit to show us the evil of sin, to reveal to us our own sin, and then are we likely to know the high felicity of those whose sins are forgiven.

Rom_4:13. A vast heirship.—Is any single man heir of the world? He possesses only a part. One man possesses property, another fame, another power. Each man has his own dominion. Even of that he is not complete master. We possess in part as well as know in part. Abraham’s material world was small as compared with the world of the present, but he looked beyond and above the material to the moral sphere, to the wide expanding future. Abraham’s spiritual seed is heir of the world; and why? Because:—

I. It is a dominating force.—We may try to exalt the material, but we are being constantly confronted with the fact that the moral is mighty. Moral wisdom is mightier than weapons of war. Spiritual forces are more dominating than either material, social, or political forces. The spiritual seed is sovereign in time, as time’s advance will manifest.

II. It is a formative agency.—The spiritual seed is working silently, almost secretly, and yet surely. The great formative agency in the highest of modern civilisations is the spiritual seed. Christ and the Christ like—the true Abrahamic seed—are permeating all nationalities. The seed is germinating through the centuries; and when the harvest time of humanity and of God’s purpose has come, the golden grain will beautify the planet.

III. It works by means of an eternal principle.—The righteousness of faith is the principle of the Abrahamic seed. It is not a Pauline doctrine; it is a divine creed. Righteousness is eternal. God and righteousness are synonymous. Faith in God implies faith in righteousness—faith in righteousness as a divine attribute, as a divine bestowal to the human unrighteous one.

IV.—It conquers self, and thus conquers all.—The tendency of the earth seed is to obtain heirship by way of merit. The spiritual seed represses this erroneous tendency. Not by the works of the law, but through the righteousness of faith. The seed that masters its own false tendencies must master. True, individually, that he who conquers self conquers all. World slaves seek possession through works. World masters obtain possession through the righteousness of faith.

V. It marches in harmony with the divine order.—We may find fault with nature; but the man who moves in harmony with those laws by which nature is governed is most likely to prove nature’s master, and certainly most likely to secure the greatest good—if not to himself, to the race. The moral and the material order are connected. The seed that marches in harmony with the moral order will have the largest dominion. Man’s immorality has well-nigh made God’s kosmos into a chaos. Man’s morality, through the righteousness of faith, will turn back the chaos into a kosmos.

VI. It delights in the divine beauty.—Delight in moral and spiritual beauty should promote delight in material beauty. He is heir of the world who can delight in all things good, true, and beautiful. Possession is not by legal enactments, but by the imperial and absorbing soul. The peasant may possess more than the peer. How poor an heir is that peer who spends his days in a room of the tower, where he paces up and down like a caged lion mourning over his incapacity! How rich an heir is that peasant who can walk God’s earth singing, All things are ours!

VII. It moves to universal renovation.—The spiritual seed is not as the material seed. The latter seeks heirship for self-aggrandisement. Too often it heeds not that destruction and misery are in its ways, if by that destruction it can obtain spoils of enrichment. The former seeks heirship for universal enrichment, and thus it moves on to universal renovation. Let us seek the true heirship of the world. Let us pursue the right method. Let us contemplate ultimate results. Let us have faith in final triumph.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_4:1-17

Abraham’s greatness.—The name of Abraham, as we shall afterwards see more fully, is not confined to the sacred history. Over and above the book of Genesis there are two main sources of information. We have the fragments preserved to us by Josephus and Eusebius from Greek or Asiatic writers. We have also the Jewish and Mussulman traditions, as represented chiefly in the Talmud and the Koran. It is in the former class—those presented to us by the pagan historians—that the migration of Abraham assumes its most purely secular aspect. They describe him as a great man of the East well read in the stars, or as a conquering prince who swept all before him on his way to Palestine. These characteristics, remote as they are from our common view, have nevertheless their point of contact with the biblical account, which, simple as it is, implies more than it states. He was, in practice, the friend of God, in the noblest of all senses of the word—the friend who stood fast when others fell away. He was the first distinct historical witness, at least for his own race and country, to theism, to monotheism, to the unity of the Lord and Ruler of all against the primeval idolatries, the natural religion of the ancient world. In him was most distinctly manifested the gift of “faith.” In him long, long before Luther, long before Paul, was it proclaimed, in a sense far more universal and clear than the “paradox” of the reformer, not less clear and universal than the preaching of the apostle, that “man is justified by faith.” “Abraham believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Powerful as is the effect of these words when we read them in their first untarnished freshness, they gain immensely in their original language, to which neither Greek nor German, much less Latin or English, can furnish any full equivalent. “He supported himself, he built himself up, he reposed as a child in his mother’s arms,” in the strength of God—in God whom he did not see, more than in the giant empires of earth, and the bright lights of heaven, or the claims of tribe and kindred, which were always before him. It was counted to him for “righteousness.” This universality of Abraham’s faith—this elevation, this multitudinousness of the patriarchal, paternal character, which his name involves—has also found a response in those later traditions and feelings of which I have before spoken. When Mahomet attacks the idolatry of the Arabs, he justifies himself by arguing, almost in the language of St. Paul, that the faith which he proclaimed in one supreme God was no new belief, but was identical with the ancient religion of their first father, Abraham. When the emperor Alexander Severus placed in the chapel of his palace the statues of the choice spirits of all times, Abraham, rather than Moses, was selected as the centre doubtless of a more extended circle of sacred associations. When the author of Liberty of Prophesying ventured, before any other English divine, to lift up his voice in behalf of universal religious toleration, he was glad to shelter himself under the authority of the ancient Jewish or Persian apologue, of doubtful origin, but of most instructive wisdom, of almost scriptural simplicity, which may well be repeated here as an expression of the world-wide sympathies which attach to the father of the faithful.—Stanley.

Sins hid.—“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” Get your sins hid. There is a covering of sin which proves a curse. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper”; there is a covering it by not confessing it, or, which is worse, by denying it. Gehazi’s covering—a covering of sin by a lie; and there is also a covering of sin by justifying ourselves in it. I have not done this thing, or I did no evil in it. All these are evil coverings: he that thus covereth his sin shall not prosper. But there is a blessed covering of sin: forgiveness of sin is the hiding it out of sight, and that is the blessedness.—Richard Alleine.

“Whose transgression is forgiven.”—We may lull the soul asleep with carnal delights, but the virtue of that opium will be soon spent. All those joys are but stolen waters, and bread eaten in secret—a poor, sorry peace that dares not come to the light and endure the trial—a sorry peace that is soon disturbed by a few serious and sober thoughts of God and the world to come; but when once sin is pardoned, then you have true joy indeed. “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.”—Thomas Manton.

“Sin is covered.”—Every man that must be happy must have something to hide and cover his sins from God’s eyes, and nothing in the world can do it but Christ and His righteousness, typified in the ark of the covenant, whose cover was of gold, and called a propitiatory, that as it covered the tables that were within the ark, so God covers our sins against those tables. So the cloud covering the Israelites in the wilderness signified God’s covering us from the danger of our sins.—Thomas Taylor.

Sin covered by Christ.—This covering hath relation to some nakedness and filthiness which should be covered—even sin, which defileth us and maketh us naked. Why, saith Moses to Aaron, hast thou made the people naked? The garments of our merits are too short and cannot cover us; we have need therefore to borrow of Christ Jesus His merits and the mantle of His righteousness, that it may be unto us as a garment, and as those breeches of leather which God made unto Adam and Eve after their fall. Garments are ordained to cover our nakedness, defend us from the injury of the weather, and to adorn us. So the mediation of our Saviour serveth to cover our nakedness, that the wrath of God seize not upon us. He is that “white raiment” wherewith we should be clothed that our filthy nakedness may not appear—to defend us against Satan. He is “mighty to save,” etc., and to be an ornament to decorate us, for He is that “wedding garment.” “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.”—Archibald Symson.

Sweet is pardon.—The object of pardon, about which it is conversant, is set forth under divers expressions—“iniquity,” “transgression,” and “sin.” As in law, many words of like import and signification are heaped up and put together to make the deed and legal instrument more comprehensive and effectual. I observe it the rather, because when God proclaims His name the same words are used—“Taking away iniquity, transgression, and sin.” Well, we have seen the meaning of the expression. Why doth the holy man of God use such vigour and vehemency of inculcation, “Blessed is the man”? and again, “Blessed is the man”? Partly with respect to his own case. David knew how sweet it was to have sin pardoned; he had felt the bitterness of sin in his own soul to the drying up of his blood, and therefore he doth express his sense of pardon in the most lively terms. And then partly, too, with respect to those for whose use this instruction was written, that they might not look upon it as a light and trivial thing, but be thoroughly apprehensive of the worth of so great a privilege. Blessed, happy, thrice happy, they who have obtained pardon of their sins, and justification by Jesus Christ.—Thomas Manton.

Sin not reckoned.—“Unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” Aben-Ezra paraphrases it, of whose sins God does not think, does not regard them, so as to bring them into judgment, reckoning them as if they were not; οὐ μὴ λογίζεται, does not count or calculate them, does not require for them the debt of punishment. To us the remission is entirely free, our Sponsor having taken upon Him the whole business of paying the ransom. His suffering is our impunity, His bond our freedom, and His chastisement our peace; and therefore the prophet says, “The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.”—Robert Leighton.

Legality.—He to whom thou wast sent for ease, being by name Legality, is the son of the bond-woman which now is, and is in bondage with her children, and is, in a mystery, this Mount Sinai, which thou hast feared will fall on thy head. Now, if she with her children are in bondage, how canst thou expect by them to be made free? This Legality, therefore, is not able to set thee free from thy burden. No man was as yet ever rid of his burden by him; no, nor ever is like to be. Ye cannot be justified by the works of the law; for by the deeds of the law no man living can be rid of his burden. Therefore Mr. Worldly-Wiseman is an alien, and Mr. Legality is a cheat; and for his son Civility, notwithstanding his simpering looks, he is but a hypocrite, and cannot help thee. Believe me, there is nothing in all this noise that thou hast heard of these sottish men, but a design to beguile thee of thy salvation, by turning thee from the way in which I had set thee. By laws and ordinances you will not be saved, since you came not in by the door. And as for this coat that is on my back, it was given me by the lord of the place whither I go; and that, as you say, to cover my nakedness with. And I take it as a token of his kindness to me; for I had nothing but rags before. And besides, thus I comfort myself as I go: Surely, think I, when I come to the gate of the city, the Lord thereof will know me for good, since I have His coat on my back, a coat that He gave me freely in the day that He stripped me of my rags. I have, moreover, a mark on my forehead, of which, perhaps, you have taken no notice, which one of my Lord’s most intimate associates fixed there in the day that my burden fell off my shoulders. I will tell you, moreover, that I had then given me a roll, sealed, to comfort me by reading as I go on the way. I was also bid to give it in at the celestial gate, in token of my certain going in after it; all which things, I doubt, you want, and want them because you came not in at the gate.—Bunyan.

Reason and will joined in faith.—The prerogative of God extendeth as well to the reason as to the will of man; so that we are to obey His law, though we find a reluctation in our will—we are to believe His word, though we find a reluctation in our reason. For if we believe only what is agreeable to our sense, we give consent to the matter and not to the author. But that faith which was accounted unto Abraham for righteousness was of such a point as whereat Sarah laughed, who therein was an image of natural reason.—Lord Bacon.

Abraham’s constant trust.—Though this be the only instance mentioned in Scripture of the patriarch’s faith being counted to him for righteousness, yet we know that this unhesitating trust in God was the habitual temper of his mind, as it must be that of every man who would imitate the example of the father of the faithful. The Lord had communed with him previous to this period, accompanied with the same implicit reliance on the part of the patriarch. It is this immutable trust in God which communicates its whole value to the act of obeying the divine commands; for were the command obeyed without any reference to God or any reliance on Him, this would not be an act of moral obedience, as not proceeding from the proper motive. And this implicit reliance, without any external act of obedience, was counted to Abraham for righteousness. The event on which Moses remarks that Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness took place when the patriarch must have been under eighty-six years of age. He received the seal of the covenant by which he and his family were constituted the Church of God when he was ninety-nine years old. Hence the reckoning of his faith for righteousness took place at least thirteen years before he and his descendants were constituted the Church of God. Now if Abraham’s faith was counted for righteousness when he was not a member of the outward community of God’s Church, why may not the same mark of divine favour be extended to others who, like him, place their confidence in God, and study to obey His law, though they too belong not to the visible Church of God? With all who admitted the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, the apostle’s argument must have appeared absolutely conclusive; for when Abraham had his faith reckoned to him for righteousness he was in the situation of the pious Gentiles of every age who have lived and died out of God’s visible Church. No person, then, can be entitled to maintain that the pious heathen may not, in virtue of the redemption that is in Christ, have their faith counted to them for righteousness, when we have the example of the father of the faithful himself obtaining justification while precisely in this situation. The term “father” is applied to Abraham in this passage metaphorically, to signify that he was constituted the type or example to all mankind of obtaining justification. This method of justification was revealed to him, not as a special instance of divine favour to himself as an individual, but as a pattern or example of the manner in which all men may obtain this blessing, an instance of the principle on which alone any of the fallen race of mankind can be justified. In the first instance the covenant, as the divine promise is often called, was made with Abraham. But it having been declared in the covenant itself that Abraham in this transaction was the father or type of all believers, the promise extends to all men, and is as immutably certain to every human creature who walks in the steps of Abraham’s faith as it was to the patriarch himself. “Now this promise,” says the apostle, “was not given to Abraham and to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” The expression “the law” is apt to suggest the law of Moses. But this cannot be the meaning, for the law of Moses did not then exist. Therefore by “the law” the apostle means generally “the law of God,” both moral and ceremonial, whether made known by revelation or written on the heart; and the force of his observation is, that the reward was not promised to Abraham and his seed in consequence of their meriting it by obedience to the divine law, but because God of His own free will was pleased to count their faith to them as righteousness, or to accept the imperfect righteousness of faith as if it were an unsinning fulfilment of His law.—Ritchie.

Canaan typical.—We know that the earthly Canaan was, in express terms, promised to Abraham and his seed. And that the promise of the heavenly Canaan was couched under this is scarcely less plain, from the two following simple considerations. First: Abraham himself, and the other believing patriarchs, so understood it; for, on the footing of this promise, they looked for the heavenly country—“for the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (see Heb_11:8-10; Heb_11:13-16). This country was the object of their hope, as being the subject of divine promise. But no promise of it is to be found, unless it was couched under that of the earthly Canaan, as a type; connected with the declaration, “I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed”; which also includes the promise of eternal inheritance; and, indeed, considered as the glorious sum of the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant. The whole of the gospel revelation was then, and for many ages afterwards, under the veil of figurative language, and of typical rites, objects, and events. To have given, in clear and explicit terms, the full promise of the eternal inheritance, would not have been consistent with the divine scheme of gradual development, nor with the fact of “life and immortality being brought to light” by Jesus Christ. But that the promise was given is manifest from the apostle’s manner of expressing himself in the passages above alluded to, and from his saying of the patriarchs, who had gone to the “better country,” that “through faith and patience they inherited the promises” (Heb_6:12). Secondly: This is still further evident, from believers in all ages and countries being called heirs, according to the promise of inheritance given to Abraham. So they are spoken of in Gal_3:18; Gal_3:29. “If ye be Christ’s,” says the apostle in Gal_3:29, “then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”—i.e., the promise of the inheritance mentioned in Rom_4:18 : “If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” So also, in Heb_6:17-20, “the heirs of promise,” who derive “strong consolation” from the word and oath of God to Abraham, are those “who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them: which hope … entereth within the veil; whither the forerunner is entered, even Jesus.” But as the word here rendered world is one which usually, if not uniformly, when it occurs without any restrictive noun, is used to denote the whole inhabited earth, I cannot help thinking that there is here a reference to the whole earth becoming the possession of Abraham’s seed, of which the possession of Canaan was but a small prelude. There is an obvious difference between a right and actual possession. The whole earth may be, by the gift or promise of God, the property of this seed, although they are not yet, and may not be for a good while to come, invested with the actual possession of it. When promises are made to a seed which is to come into existence in the successive ages of the world, it is not necessary to their fulfilment that they should be enjoyed in the same manner and in the same degree, by all, from the first period to the last; for with this, in the present instance, facts do not accord. We certainly possess the blessings contained in the divine promises in a more eminent degree than the saints of old: “God having provided better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect” (Heb_11:40). Both temporal and spiritual blessings will be possessed, in a much higher degree of perfection than even now, during the period of the millennial glory of the Church. And as to these who shall be alive on the earth at the coming of Christ, they shall escape the sentence of mortality. But such differences in the enjoyment of the promises, at different periods, do not render them void of effect to any. All the seed have “the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” All being finally put in possession of the “heavenly country” may be said then to inherit the promises in their full extent—this being their grand sum, their glorious completion. Moses and Aaron “inherited the promises,” although, as a judgment for failing to sanctify the name of the Lord at the waters of Meribah, they were sentenced to finish their course short of the earthly Canaan.—Wardlaw.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 4

Rom_4:3. A lantern refused.—If, then, we have a light for our souls, and we will not use it, who can wonder if we suffer injury? This reminds me that something of this kind actually happened. It was not so long ago that I happened to be visiting in a great castle situated on the top of a hill, near which there was a very steep cliff and a rapid river running at the bottom. A person, anxious to get home from the castle, late one night, in the midst of a violent thunderstorm, when it was blackness itself, was asked to stop till the storm was over. She declined. She was begged to take a lantern, that she might be kept in the road; but she said she could very well do without it. She left, and, perhaps frightened by the storm, she wandered from the road, and got upon the top of the cliff; she tumbled, and the next day the lifeless body of that foolish woman was found washed ashore from the swollen stream. How many such foolish ones are there, who, when the light is offered, and they have only to say, “What saith the Scripture?” are prepared to say, “I have no need of that book; I know right from wrong; I am not afraid; I fear not the end!” Oh, how many souls will be found in the last day who have tumbled over the cliff in the darkness of ignorance and unbelief, and who have perished because they have refused the light of God’s truth, which would have guided them on the road to heaven!

Rom_4:3. Influence of the Bible.—It is hazarding nothing to say that, other things being equal, the political power and promise of nations is in direct ratio with their fidelity to the word of God. When a pagan ambassador asked Queen Victoria the secret of England’s national greatness she gave him a Bible, and said, “That is the secret of the greatness of England.” In the Centennial letter which the President of the United States addressed to the American Sunday Schools, he said “To the influence of the Bible we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilisation.” Froude says, in his essay on Calvinism, “All that we call modern civilisation, in a sense which deserves the name, is the visible expression of the transforming power of the gospel.”

Rom_4:3. Boy would not part with his Bible.—Let me just mention a story. I remember once hearing of a little lad in a town in Lancashire, where I first began my work of preaching. He lay upon the steps of a door, in the middle of the night, in the great town of Warrington, and the policeman, or rather watchman, coming up to him, said, “What are you doing here?” The boy replied, “I am without father and mother; I have travelled thus far, and I have no food, no money, no place to lie down in.” There was something in the boy’s jacket which attracted the watchman’s eye, and when he touched it he thought he had found a thief. “What have you here?” he asked. The boy then put his hand into his pocket, and brought out a small pocket Bible. “Well,” said the watchman, “if you are so badly off, I will give you a few pence for your Bible; I will take it home to my children, and you will be able to get your bed and food for the night.” But the lad, young as he was, knew that the Bible was true; he had an experimental knowledge of the Bible, and he was ready at once with his reply. “Thank you, sir,” he said, “but I won’t give it up.” “Why, you are starving,” said the watchman. “Yes; but this is the word of God, and it tells me, ‘When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up.’ ” Here was the experimental knowledge of the power of the promises. The watchman showed his humanity, his kindness, and gentleness towards the fatherless boy. He took him home and fed him, and God prospered that boy who relied on the promises. And, believe me, that is just the experience of hundreds and thousands who have found their extremity to be God’s opportunity—who had found when they were very low that God could extend to them His everlasting arms, could lift them up, and bless them and preserve them.

Rom_4:3. There is no fear now.—Lord Shaftesbury, speaking on behalf of the South American Missionary Society, said, “I remember a missionary from Fiji telling me an anecdote. You have all heard how the Fijians were raised in the scale of social life when Christianity had been introduced among them. Well, a missionary told me that this came under his observation. A ship having been wrecked off one of the islands of Fiji, a boat’s crew that had got ashore from the wreck were in the greatest possible terror lest they should be devoured by the Fijians. On reaching land they dispersed in different directions. Two of them found a hut, and crept into it; and as they lay there wondering what would become of them, one suddenly called out to his companion, ‘All right, Jack, there is a Bible on this chair; there’s no fear now.’ This poor, despised book, which this man would probably have scorned to look at, and which he didn’t believe could do any one any good, be was glad enough now to hail as a proof that his life was safe. He was sure that those who cared to have and to read a Bible would not wish to eat him. I remember reading a somewhat similar story of a traveller who came to a rough hut which was owned by a very rough-looking man. The owner of the hut gave him a meal, and prepared such a bed for him as he could, but the traveler’s only idea of spending the night was to keep his eyes open and his pistol near. But when the rough owner of the hut took down a Bible from its resting-place, and read a chapter, and then offered a short prayer, and then went to bed himself, the traveller knew that no danger was to be apprehended there, and quietly went to sleep.”

Rom_4:4. Gentleness of Charles V.—We are told that on one occasion a swallow having built its nest on the tent of Charles V., he generously commanded that the tent should not be taken down until the young birds were ready to fly. Truly, if he, a rough soldier, could have such gentleness in his heart towards a little bird, how much more will the Lord have it to all those who flee to Him for shelter in loving trustfulness. “He that builds his nest upon a divine promise,” says one, “shall find it abide and remain until he shall fly away to the land where promises are lost in fulfilments.” Believers should be the more emboldened to do this from the fact that what God has already done for them is designed to be a sure and blessed earnest of all the grander things to be done for them in the future. He never lifts any from the pit only to cast them in again. Men may do such a thing, but the Lord never does.

Rom_4:4. Mr. Hewitson’s advice to Dr. Macdonald.—In one of his prized letters his friend Mr. Hewitson once said to Robert Macdonald, D.D., “Have faith in God. Faith will be staggered by loose stones in the way if we look manward; if we look Godward faith will not be staggered even by seemingly inaccessible mountains stretching across and obstructing our progress. ‘Go forward!’ is the voice from heaven; and faith, obeying, finds the mountains before it flat as plains.”

Rom_4:9. Christian happiness.—In this verse there is a declaration of the Christian’s blessedness. The New Testament use of the word μακάριος throws light upon Christian happiness, and will help us to understand such songs of trust as that which closes thus:—

“There are briars besetting every path

That call for patient care;

There is a cross in every lot,

And an earnest need for prayer.

But a lowly heart that leans on Thee

Is happy everywhere.”

Rom_4:16-17. Brave negro lad.—Courage is not confined to race or colour. A negro lad of nineteen will be remembered as the hero of the Washington disaster a short time ago. When the floors of the Government offices fell in, burying some hundreds of clerks in the ruins, this brave youth climbed to the top of a lofty telegraph pole which stood near. He drew up a ladder, one end of which he lashed to the pole, and holding the other end to the third-story window of the tottering building, saved the lives of fifteen young men. Certainly faith is not confined to race or colour. Members of Abraham’s family are found everywhere. The colour of the skin is no barrier to faith. The inward spirit triumphs over the mere external.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eighth Section.—Second proof of the righteousness of faith: from the Scriptures, and particularly from the history of the faith of Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews. Abraham is the father of faith to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, because he was justified in uncircumcision as a Gentile, and because he received circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of faith. David is also a witness of the righteousness of faith. (He is particularly so, since his justification was that of a great sinner.) Abraham, by his faith in the word of the personal God of revelation, and particularly in the promise of Isaac, is a type of believers in the saving miracle of the resurrection.

Rom_4:1-25

1What [, then,] shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found [found according to the flesh]?1 2For if Abraham were [was] justified by works [as is assumed by the Jews], he hath whereof to glory [he hath ground of boasting];2 but not before God. 3For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted [reckoned] unto [to] him for righteousness 4[Gen_15:6]. Now to him that worketh [to the workman]3 is the reward not reckoned of [according to, or, as a matter of] grace, but of 5[according to, as a] debt. But to him that worketh not,4 but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted [reckoned] for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness [happiness]5 of the man, unto whom God 7imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed [Happy] are they whose 8iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered [atoned for]. Blessed [Happy] is the man to whom the Lord will not impute [reckon] sin [Psa_32:1-2].6

9Cometh this blessedness [happiness] then upon the circumcision only, or [also] upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received [Gen_17:2] the [a] sign of circumcision,7 [as?] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised [of the faith in the uncircumcision, τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀχροβυστίᾳ, or, of the faith which he had while in uncircumcision]: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised [while yet in uncircumcision]; that righteousness might be imputed [reckoned also] unto them also:8 12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised [which he had while in uncircumcision].9

13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law [For not through (the) law is the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world], but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if they which [who] are of the law [οἱ ἐχ νόμου] be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none [no] effect [rendered powerless]: 15Because the law worketh wrath: for where10 no law is, there 16is no transgression [but where there is no law, neither is there transgression of the law]. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end [in order that] the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations [A father of many nations have I set thee; Gen_17:5],) before him whom he believed,11 even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be [are] not as though they were:

18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the [omit the] father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be 19[Gen_15:5]. And being not weak in faith, he considered not12 his own body now [already]13 dead, when he was [being] about a hundred years old, neither 20yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief [But with regard to the promise of God he wavered, or, doubted not in unbelief]; but was [made] strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And14 being fully persuaded, that what he had [hath] promised, he was [is] 22able also to perform. And therefore [Wherefore also]15 it was imputed [reckoned] to him for righteousness.

23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed [reckoned] to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed [reckoned], if we believe on him that [who] raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered [up] for our offences, and was raised again [omit again] for our justification.16

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

General Remarks.—The theocratical Scripture proof for the righteousness of faith promised to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Enlargement of the Mosaic economy of particularism by the development of the germ-like universality of the Abrahamic religion. Survey: 1. Abraham’s justification was a justification by faith, and excluded justification by works. It was therefore only a justification of the sinner, as is shown by the beatitude prononuced by David (Rom_4:1-8). The opposite is the Jewish righteousness of works. 2. It was independent of circumcision and the law. Abraham did not obtain the blessedness of justifying faith in circumcision, but in uncircumcision; circumcision was then added to it as a seal of justification. Abraham was thereby set forth to be the father of the faithful, as well of the uncircumcised as of the circumcised (Rom_4:9-12). The opposite is Jewish particularism. 3. Justification is as universal as the promise, which constitutes even an antithesis to the law. Abraham’s justification is to him and to his seed a promise of the inheritance of the world. This promise is not limited by the law. Such a limitation would make the promise void; for the law produces that wrath (ὀργή), which looks rather to the destruction than the inheritance of the world. The promise is both conditioned and established by faith and grace (Rom_4:13-17). The opposite is Jewish legalism. 4. Abraham and Christians have in reality the same righteousness of faith. The analogy between Abraham’s faith and that of his believing children,—Christians: a. In relation to the same wonder-working God (Rom_4:17). b. In relation to the same conduct of faith: looking away from the contradiction of the natural life; strong confidence in the Divine word of revelation and promise (Rom_4:18-21). c. In reference to the same operation (Rom_4:22-25). The opposite is the external and superficial contemplation of the worldly sense.—Or also: a. The faith of Abraham (Rom_4:17-22); b. Application to the faith of Christians (Rom_4:23-25). The opposite, in general, is the hierarchical formalism and ceremonialism.

First Paragraph, Rom_4:1-8

[Paul exhibits Abraham as a truly evangelical character, as a man of faith, in order to confirm the doctrine that the ground of our salvation lies not in us, but outside of us in the free grace of God, and that this must be apprehended first by faith, before we can do any good works. James, on the other hand (Rom_2:21 ff.), in opposition to a barren orthodoxy and mere notional belief, represents Abraham as a man of holy obedience, who proved his faith by works. In the one case he appears as the champion of the righteousness of faith, in the other as the champion of the righteousness of life. Both views are right. Paul goes to the root of the matter, the vital principle, which animated Abraham; James looks at the fruit produced thereby. Faith and works, righteousness and holiness, are as inseperable as light and heat, as the tree and the fruit, as cause and effect. Paul himself, after laying the only true foundation, as strongly insists upon a holy life as James. There is, in the Old Testament, an evangelical as well as a legal element; and the gospel, or promise, precedes the law which came in between the promise and the fulfilment (Rom_4:20). Abraham represents the evangelical element, as Moses does the legal. Abraham’s faith differs from the Christian faith, as the promise differs from the fulfilment of the gospel salvation, and as hope differs from fruition; but the essential element, the ethical keynote, in both is unconditional confidence and trust in God’s truth and God’s mercy.—P. S.]

Rom_4:1. What, then, shall we say. The οὖν announces an inference from the previous statement (Rom_3:29), that God is the God of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles, considered in relation to Abraham’s history and its significance. But our inference is not a corroboration (Meyer), or confirmatio ab exemplo (Calvin). We have here rather a new proof, as deduced from the foregoing, namely, the explanation of Abraham’s history and of David’s words of faith. Likewise Tholuck observes, the οὖν cannot be explained if, in accordance with the view of recent expositors, this verse be connected immediately with Rom_3:31 of the previous chapter.—The construction: It may be asked, first, whether the question should be read as one question, or two? Grotius and others have placed an interrogation mark after ἐροῦμεν, and thus made two questions out of the sentence. Then διχαιοσύνην is supplied to εὑρηχέναι.—If the εὑρηχέναι be taken absolutely in the sense of the Grecian philosophy, this division could be made more easily. Yet the chief question here is not, what should be said, but what is Abraham’s advantage?—It may further be asked, whether χατὰ σάρχα relates to προπάτορα (πατέρα) or to εὑρ η̣ χέναι. Lachmann’s reading: τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηχέναι ̓ Αβρ, &c., [see Textual Note1], is the one most favored by the Codd. (A. C. D., &c., and also the Sin.). “The suspicion that the transposition of the χατὰ σάρχα [of εὑρηχέναι rather.—P. S.] is to be laid to the charge of the copyist, is strengthened when we see that such expositors as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Gennadius in Œcumenius, who read εὑρηχέναι χατὰ σάρχα, nevertheless connect the latter with πατὴρἡμῶν” (Tholuck, p. 167). De Wette, Meyer [Tholuck, Alford, Wordsworth, Hodge], and most commentators, with the Peshito, connect χατὰ σάρχα, with εὑρηχέναι, and not (according to Origen, Ambrose, Calvin,17 &c.) with πατέρα ἡμῶν. But in Rom_4:9 ff., the subject is circumcision; while in Rom_4:1-8, it is only the contrast between righteousness by works and righteousness by faith. Therefore, according to Meyer’s construction, χατὰ σάρχα should correspond to the ἐξ ἔργων, yet not so that the two ideas should be identical, but that works should be embraced in the more general idea of χατὰ σάρχα. The σάρξ, in antithesis to the divine πνεῦμα, should then denote humanity given up to itself. Pelagius, Ambrose, and others, refer χατὰ σάρχα to circumcision. Rückert understands the word as embracing both circumcision and ἔργα. While Tholuck consents to the now customary connection of the χατὰ σάρχα with εὑρηχέναι, he does not grant that the works of faithful Abraham were ἔργα χατὰ σάρχα; although Flacius would include likewise the opera renati, as performed by men and not imputed by God, in the opera carnis; and Bullinger and others would make σάρξ equal to ἔργα. Tholuck therefore arrives at the conclusion, that Paul did not design to apply Christian justification in all its consequences to the patriarch. But how could he represent him here as the father of the faithful, if he would belittle or limit his justification? We go upon the supposition that, in accordance with the best Codd.,” ̓́ Αβράμ ὁ προπάτωρ ἡμῶν χατὰ σάρχα (Rom_4:1) is an antithesis to αὐτός πατὴρ πάντων τῶν πιστεύοντων, &c. (Rom_4:11), and to ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν (Rom_4:16). The principal subject is, therefore, Abraham, the natural ancestor of the Jews; and if it be asked, What hath he found? the emphasis rests on τί, and this refers to the διχαιοῦσθαι πίστει χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (Rom_3:28), and especially to Rom_3:29 also. As God is a God of the Jews and Gentiles, Abraham, the προπάτωρ of the Jews, has become a πατήρ of Jews and Gentiles.

Rom_4:2. For if Abraham was justified [ἐδιχαιώθη] by works [in the opinion of the Jews]. The answer assumes that the view that Abraham was justified by the works of the law, was already denied in the question. Yet this very thing was believed by the legalistic Jew. “In the Talmud it was even deduced from Gen_26:5, that Abraham observed the whole Mosaic law” (Meyer).18 The answer does not therefore assume an οὐδέν [omitted before εἰ γάρ] or an οὐδοτιοῦν (Tholuck), because χατὰ σάρχα [Rom_4:1] does not stand in connection with εὑρηχἑναι, [? comp. Textual Note1.—P. S.] To the question, Which of the two kinds of righteousness? it assumes the conclusion, that it was not the imaginary righteousness of works, but the true righteousness of faith. The supposition is so plain, that the Apostle proceeds at once to the proof.—Was justified by works. The sense can be: if he should be so justified, it could only be at a human tribunal, and not at the tribunal of God—as has been already described. But it can also be understood thus: if Abraham, according to the national prejudice of the Jews, has been really justified by works. This is the more obvious view. Conceding this kind of justification, Abraham has a χαύχημα (materiam gloriandi), but not before God. Not before God, first, because no flesh is justified by works in His sight (Rom_3:20); second, because we know definitely from the Scriptures that Abraham was justified in God’s sight, or at His tribunal, by faith. The ἐδιχαιώθη is made by Beza, Grotius, and others, to refer to a general opinion pronounced on Abraham; but by Calvin, Calov., and others, to an imaginary opinion, under the supposition of an incomplete conclusion (the major: he who is justified by works hath whereof to glory. The minor: but not before God. The necessary concluding statement: therefore Abraham is not justified by works).19 Tholuck thinks, with Meyer, that reference to God cannot disappear from ἐδιχαιώθη, and he follows him, with Theodoret, in explaining thus: “For if Abraham has been justified by God through works, he has certainly received—the perfect fulfilment of the law being granted,—glory, but not a divine glory, so far as such glory could not be traced back to God’s grace.” This explanation contradicts the previous suppositions: 1. That no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law (Rom_3:20); 2. That no external fulfilment of the law in the sense of νόμος ἔργων is conceivable, but only in the sense of νόμος πίστεως. A plain remark may aid in the understanding of this difficult passage: that διχαιοῦσθαι, always refers to a definite tribunal, but that this tribunal may be very different according to the different relations of διχαιοῦσθαι. Thus the tribunal of Jewish national prejudice already mentioned was very different from that of the theocratical communion of faith itself, which the passage in Jam_2:23 has in view (see the Commentary on James, chap. 2. Also, Psa_106:31, on the justification of Phinehas). It has been counted to him for righteousness—from generation to generation, see Tholuck, p. 172, thereon. What Theodoret says is certainly true: that true justification before God must glorify the love of God; but for this very reason no other mode of justification before God is conceivable. (Singular explanation of Semler and others: Has he glory? No; before God, not! Protestation.)

Rom_4:3. For what saith the Scripture? Paul makes a true representation of Abraham in accordance with the Scriptures, in opposition to the false representation of the Jews.20—[But Abraham believed God, and it (viz., the believing, τὸ πιστεῦσαι, which must be supplied from ἐπὶστευσεν) was reckoned to him for righteousness, ̓ Επίστευσεν δὲ ̓ Αβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ, χαὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς διχαιοσύνην. Gen_15:6, Sept. The emphasis lies on ἐπίστευσεν, placed first, or the faith of Abraham as distinct from works and as excluding merit on the part of man. Αογιζεσθαι εἰς διχαιοσύνην, to reckon, or count, or impute to any one as righteousness, and consequently to treat him as righteous, is identical with διχαιόω (see p. 130). On the controversy whether Abraham was justified per fidem (through the instrumentality of faith), as the Protestants rightly teach, or propter fidem (on account of the merit of his faith), as the Romanists assert; compare the remarks of Tholuck, p. 173 ff.; also the note of Alford in loc. Hodge enters here into a lengthy discussion of the doctrine of imputation, pp. 164–175, partly polemical against Olshausen.—P. S.] The quotation of Gen_15:6, is from the Seputagint which has changed the active verb וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ into the passive ἐλογίσθη. Paul uses the more prominent expression δέ instead of the χαί of the Septuagint. Different explanations: 1. Rückert: Paul incorrectly used the passage for his purpose. 2. Roman Catholic expositors (and Bucer): Abraham submitted to the authority of God’s word, and that gave value to his faith. 3. Faith in the promise of a large posterity was, in view of its object, faith in the promise of the Messiah who was to come forth from his posterity (A Lapide, Calvin, Gerhard, Calov., and others). 4. Implicit faith in the Divine promise (Bullinger, and others). Tholuck adopts this view, though with hesitation. “Delitzsch, on Gen_15:5, having more regard for the historical interpretation, says: ‘Every thing was contained in the person of Jehovah and in the promise of a numerous posterity to Abraham, which was separately disclosed and fulfilled in the New Testament time of redemption.’ But faith in a numerous posterity cannot effect the same nova obedientia as faith in a Christus satispatiens and satisfaciens can effect.” [Tholuck, p. 173.] Further particulars on the nova obedientia of Abraham may be read in Genesis 22. According to Tholuck, we should not introduce into the faith of Abraham the faith in the Messiah. But yet we must not reject it. According to the promise in Gen_12:3, the question in Gen_15:5—the passage here in mind—could not be the promise of a merely natural posterity. It is certainly consistent with the principles of historical interpretation, when we are considering later decisions, to look back at the earlier ones which lie at their root. Meyer [p. 161] more appropriately remarks: “In the πιστείειν τῷ θεῷ on the part of Abraham, Paul has perceived nothing really different from Christian πίστις; since Abraham’s faith referred to the Divine promise, and Indeed to the promise which he—one who was the friend of God, and illuminated by Him—has perceived to be the promise which embraced the future Messiah (Joh_8:56).”

Yet, under the supposition of the substantial identity between the faith of Abraham and that of Christians, we shall need to lay stress on the difference in form: The faith of Abraham is the essential beginning of the specific faith of salvation in the Old Testament; the faith of Paul and his companions is the completion of the same in the New. Faith in general, as well as in each of its particular parts, undergoes a great metamorphosis in its passage from that initial point to this terminal point.

But it remains the same faith in substance. And the peculiarity of this substance is, that the Divine object, and its human organic reception, constitute an indissoluble christological synthesis. The objective parts are: a. The personal God of revelation in His revelation; and especially as the creative, wonder-working God, who can call forth new salvation and life; b. His word of promise; c. The import of His word of promise—the future salvation of the nations with the seed of Abraham. Corresponding with these, are the subjective parts: a. The living knowledge, perception, and reception of the revealed God; b. Confident submission to the words of promise, against all the contradiction of sense and worldly appearance; c. The appropriation of the object of the promise as the principle and energy of the renewed life.

The operations correspond to this harmony of object and subject: 1. Justification. Freedom of conscience before God, according to the measure of the condemnation of conscience. The peace of God, Gen_15:2. The sacramental, symbolical seal, Genesis 17, see Rom_4:11. 3. Confidence, and acquirement of new life from condemnation to death, or even from death itself—internal death.

All these separate parts exist as germs in Abraham’s faith. De Wette, after an ill-founded remark on the Apostle’s arbitrary dialectics and scriptural application, admirably says: “When the Apostle in this way unites the climax of religious development with the historical point of connection—for the developing series commenced with Abraham—he gives evidence of great historical penetration.” Comp. the Commentary on Genesis , 1 Gen_5:1-12.

Rom_4:4. Now to the workman [τῷ δὲἐργαζομένῳ, Lange: Dem aber, welcher den Werkdienst treibt]. The statements of Rom_4:6-7 are two sentences, which establish the doctrine of justification by faith, as well in its divine as in its human character. The work does not reach up to God, His grace, or His heaven; but it belongs to the sphere of gain, and makes the remunerator the debtor—which cannot be said of God without impiety. But as God’s grace is exalted above the claims of merit, so is man’s faith exalted. The believer does not rely on merit, but on the gracious strength of Him who justifies the ungodly, and he receives the righteousness in proportion to his faith. The first sentence establishes negatively, that Abraham, according to his relation to God, could not be justified by works; the second sentence establishes positively, that justification presupposes a relation of God’s grace to the sinner. It is therefore clearly intimated that Abraham was a sinner; besides, the introduction of David and his testimony proves conclusively that the justification is that of the sinner. But the root of the antithesis is in the ἐργαζόμενος and the μὴ έργαζόμενος; it is the continuation of the contrast in Rom_2:7-8. Those who strive untiringly, seek God as their only end; but partisans oppose God by their claims. The ἐργαζόμενος is not “the active man, whose characteristic is works” (Meyer), but he whose righteousness consists only of works, who relies on the merit of his works, and whose basis of confidence and pride are works. Therefore, his counterpart is not an οὐχ ἐργαζόμενος, but a μὴ ἐργ.

Is the reward (ὁμισθός) not reckoned according to (as a matter of) grace (χατὰ χάριν). That is, the earned reward, in accordance with the law of wages and labor. The λογίζεσθαι is a very flexible idea; in the case of works, denoting a literal settling up, a payment, according to the external quantitative relations; and in the case of faith, a respectful valuation or reward, according to the internal qualitative relations. But even in the latter case, there is no fiction, no untruth, but a decision in strict conformity with the actual condition. He who makes God his debtor for service rendered, reverses the poles of spiritual life; he conceits that God exists for his sake, and for the sake of his external work. Therefore, the mere worker becomes a culpable debtor in the judgment of God. Faith is the return to the normal relation with God. Here God is the absolute majesty, the justifier, the source, the giver of all things, the infinitely merciful; and before Him the believer stands in the sense of absolute need, dependence, poverty, impurity, and guilt. But when the believer commits himself to the burning and delivering arms of God’s love, his guilt vanishes as the cloud before the sun.—Not according to grace, but according to (as a) debt. The ἐργαζόμενος really declines grace; he claims a reward for his merit. And in the same way will his reward be reckoned according to his debt. Ὀφείλημ , the debitum, according to the relations of reward.—It is plain that such a relation did not apply to Abraham, from the fact that, according to Rom_4:3, he obtained God’s grace; and this in a definite case, where the question could not be one of merit (Genesis 15.).

Rom_4:5. But to him that worketh not (for hire), &c. Meyer properly remarks, in opposition to Reiche, who refers the statement directly to Abraham,21 that the sentence is a locus communis, and that it is left to the reader whether he will include Abraham in it or not. But, according to Paul, Abraham has certainly included himself. In the same way, Meyer properly observes that ἀσεβής, ungodly, must not be diluted into ἄδιχος, unrighteous. Faith perceives that the foundation of the ἀδιχία is the ἀσέβεια (Rom_1:21), alienation from God; and, because of its deeper knowledge of sin, applies to the grace of God. The πιστεύειν επί τινα cannot merely denote a faith in the direction toward some one, but a believing self-surrender on the ground of God’s grace (Act_16:31, &c).

Rom_4:6. Even as David. The introduction of David completely establishes the fact that the justification of man is a justification of the sinner, and that the believer perceives his sins; for, in relation to David, both his guilt and pardon were conceded by the Jews. And now David must also testify to this truth. Even as (χαθάπερ) indicates that David is quoted for the elucidation and proof of what has been said already in Rom_4:4-5. He is quoted, not as a universal example of justification in general, but in special proof that it is such a justification of the sinner as excludes the merit of works. [Rom_4:7-8 prove clearly that the forgiveness of sins belongs to justification; but this is only the negative part, with which is inseparably connected the positive part, namely, the imputation and application of the righteousness of Christ, and this contains the germ and power of sanctification.—P. S.] Tholuck: “By the negative statement, Calvin was led to insist that the idea of the justificatio is exhausted with the condonatio peccatorum (Inst. iii. 11). The same thing is done by the Protestant doctrinal theology before the Formula Concordiœ—which first expressly added the υἱοθεσία, which is really included therein.” Compare, however, the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 60.22 The beatitude from Psa_32:1-2 is quoted from the Septuagint. [See Textual Note6] The choice of verbs in Rom_4:7 corresponds to the substantives. The ἀνομία is a debt doomed to prison; it is released, and thus abolished; the ἁμαρτία is the ground of it, and is covered from God’s eye (כָּסָה ,כָּפַר)—that is, abolished by Him.

Second Paragraph (Rom_4:9-12)

Justification applies also to the Gentiles. It is a justification for all.

Rom_4:9. (Is) this blessedness [ὁ μαχαρισμός, the pronouncing happy, congratulation, Seligpreisung], then, upon the circumcision. The question now is, whether the beatitude described by David applies only to the Jews. The expositors have supplied different words: Tholuck [Stuart, Philippi, Meyer, ed. 4.], and others, ἐστί; Meyer23 [Fritzsche, De Wette, Alford, Hodge], λέγεται [comp. Heb_7:13; Mar_9:12], with reference to Rom_4:6 (others, πίπτει [Theophylact], ἦλθεν [Œcumenius], ἔρχεται [Olshausen], γέγονε). The λέγεται has less foundation than ἐστί. [It is always safer to supply the simplest word.—P. S.]—Or also upon the uncircumcision? The also shows that the previous clause is to be understood in the exclusive sense: upon the circumcision only. [Some MSS. add, μόνον.—P. S.]—For we say. The γάρ presupposes that the Apostle has already mentally expected an affirmative reply to the question, Or upon the uncircumcision also? [The form of the question, too, with ἤ χαί, presupposes an affirmative answer to the second clause, and this implied affirmation is made the ground of the argumentation, Rom_4:10-12. De Wette and Alford.—P. S.] The τῷ ̓ Αβρ. is certainly emphatic, as Fritzsche, De Wette [Alford], and others, maintain, though Meyer denies it; for the whole of the following argument proceeds from the person of Abraham. [For we say that to Abraham faith was reckoned for righteousness.—P. S.]

Rom_4:10. Not in circumcision, but. According to Genesis 15, Abraham was justified about fourteen years before his circumcision, Genesis 17 [Consequently his circumcision was not the effective cause and condition, but the Divine ratification of grace already received.—P. S.]

Rom_4:11. And he received a sign of circumcision [χαὶ σημεῖονἔλαβεν περιτομῆσ24]. Genitive of apposition [i.e., a sign which consisted in circumcision. Van Hengel and Hofmann, preferring the reading περιτομὴν to περιτομῆς, explain: As a sign he receiver circumcision, as a seal (σφραγῖδα in apposition to σημεῖον). Meyer objects that in the first case, σημεῖον, in the second, περιτομήυ, ought to have the article, and explains: Ein Zeichen mit welchem er durch die Beschneidung versehen ward, cmpfing er als Siegel—i.e., a sign, with which he was provided in circumcision, he received as seal. But the article is sometimes omitted where the reference is specific, and where there is no danger of mistake; comp. Winer, p. 118 f. σημεῖον, sign, token, symbol, אוֹת. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, Gen_17:11; God, on His part, promising the Messianic κληρονομία (Gen_15:5; Gen_15:18), and Abraham, on his part, exercising the obedience of faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness (Gen_15:6). Hence Paul represents it as a seal of the righteousness of faith. This was not only a “legitimate dogmatic inference” (Meyer), but, as Tholuck remarks, a historical necessity, since the sign of the covenant was granted in consequence of the faith previously shown.—P. S.]—The seal. The seal denotes here the symbolical and sacramental sealing; from this, the real sealing of Abraham, which was given him after the offering of Isaac, Gen_22:1, is still to be distinguished (see the Biblework on Genesis 22.). “It is also represented in the Talmud as the sign and seal of the covenant. See Schöttgen and Wetstein in loc. These words belonged to the formula of circumcision: ‘Benedictus sit, qui sanctificavit dilectum ab utero, et signum (אוֹת) posuit in carne, et filios suos sigillavit (חָהַם) signo fœderis sancti;’ Beracoth, f. Rom_13:1.” Meyer [foot-note]. Christian writers [Acta Thomœ, § 26; Grabe, Spicileg. Patr. i., p. 333] speak in the same way of the water of baptism as a seal [ἡ σφραγὶς τοῦ λουτροῦ. A seal here means a mark of Divine ratification of a justification already received, a “signaculum rei actœ, ” not a “pignus rei agendœ;” comp. 1Co_9:2; 2Ti_2:19. We have here an intimation of the true idea of sacraments: they are signs, seals, and means of grace, but not the grace itself. Circumcision is not the covenant, neither is baptism regeneration. A sign and seal can never be the substitute for the thing signed and sealed, nor should it be made a ground of confidence and hope; but it is all-important as a Divine ratification, and gives, so to say, legal validity to our claims, as the governmental seal to a written instrument. Without the seal of circumcision, Abraham would have had no certain guarantee of the Divine favor; and if justification by faith is abstractly separated from the church and the means of grace, it becomes a subjective fiction of man.—P. S.]—That he might be the father. The spiritual father is meant here. Abraham is the father of faith. ”The conception of author, founder, is also contained in that of father; comp. Job_38:28; Gen_4:21; 1Ma_2:54;” Tholuck.—On the idea of Abraham’s spiritual children, see Mat_3:9; Joh_8:37-38. Gal_3:8; Gal_3:29. is a parallel.—That righteousness might be reckoned also to them. This means the sense in which Abraham, as a believing Gentile, has become the father of believing Gentiles.

Rom_4:12. And the father of circumcision. Prominence is here given to the life of faith, the proof of faith, in connection with circumcision for faith. We remark on the language: 1. εἰς τὸ εἶναιαὐτόν must be mentally repeated after καὶ. 2. τοῖς, the dative commodi [for those], comes in the place of faith. 3. Instead of ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοικοῠσι, we should expect ἀλλὰ καὶ στοικοῦσι without the article. Tholuck: “The καὶ τοῖς is an unexampled solecism in the Apostle’s language.” Theodoret, Hervæus, Luther, and others, have assumed a transposition: τοῖς οὐκ, instead of οὐ τοῖς. Meyer and Tholuck reject this. Rückert defends the supposition of a transposition; Fritzsche excuses the article; Reiche defends it [so does Stuart; both regard it as a resumption of the sentence begun with the preceding τοῖς, and interrupted by the οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καί.—P. S.] It may be asked, whether οἱ οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καἰ οἱ στοικοῦντες could be said. And this would certainly be practicable, if we could place ὄντες after μόνον. They are not only the people of the circumcision, but also those who walk, &c. The faith of the real Jews is not only here made prominent, but also their life of faith; no doubt with reference to the fact that these believing Jews, like Abraham, should be the humane publishers of salvation to the Gentiles. [τοῖς ἴχνεσι, the dative after στοικεῖν is not local, but normative; comp. Gal_5:16; Gal_5:25; Gal_6:16; Php_3:16; Meyer.—P. S.]

Third Paragraph (Rom_4:13-17)

Rom_4:13. For not through (the) law is the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should he the heir of the world. (See Galatians 3.) Rom_4:13 does not simply establish the preceding (Meyer), since that is established of itself. The foregoing statement is indeed strengthened by the discussion which now follows (therefore: for); but the latter also sets forth a new privilege of the righteousness of faith, namely, its release from the law. See De Wette.—Not through the law. The law declared only the possession of Canaan by the Jews; but the promise which Abraham received pledged to him and his believing children the whole earth as an inheritance.—Through the law; that is, not per justitiam legis (Pareus, and others), but with the Mosaic legislation. [De Wette and Afford: “διὰ νόμου, not, ‘under the law,’ nor, ‘by works of the law,’ nor, ‘by the righteousness of the law;’ but, through the law, so that the law should be the ground, or efficient cause, or medium, of the promise.”—P. S.]—The promise (sc. ἐστί) to Abraham, or to his seed. This is the great Messianic ἐπαγγελία κατ̓ ἐξοκήν. The ἤ, or, expresses the indivisibility of the promise to Abraham and his seed—that is, his believing seed (Gal_3:9)—and cannot be replaced by καὶ, or be divided thus: neither to Abraham nor his seed (Meyer). Abraham inherits with his seed, and his seed inherits with Abraham (see Mat_8:11; Hebrews 11). According to Estius, Olshausen, and others, the seed is Christ, conformably to Gal_3:16. Meyer says: “Not Christ;” which is just as incorrect as the limitation of the seed to Christ.—That he should be the heir of the world [τὀ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου]. The τό introduces an explanatory declaration of the import of the promise. The αὐτός refers to Abraham, because he, in his person, represents also his seed. “In the promises, Gen_13:15; Gen_17:8; Gen_22:17-18, the blessing bestowed on Abraham in chap. 11. is expressly transferred to his seed;” Tholuck. It may be asked now, Where has this promise of the possession of the world been given to Abraham? The promises which the Old Testament furnishes in reference to the hereditary possession of Abraham seem to include only the land of Canaan; Gen_12:7 : “Unto thy seed will I give this land” (Canaan); Gen_13:14-15 : “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever;” Gen_15:18 : “From the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates;” Gen_17:8; “All the land of Canaan;” Gen_22:17 : ”Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (comp. Gen_26:3, the repetition of the promise to Isaac; and Exo_6:4, the legal establishment). In all these there is no promise of the inheritance of the world. It is not correct to consider κόσμος and γῆ as identical. Thus Meyer says: “The hereditary possession of the land of Canaan, which was promised to Abraham and his posterity (Gen_12:7, &c.), was regarded in the Jewish christology as the government of the world by the Messianic theocracy, which was supposed to be typically indicated in Genesis 22. ‘Abrahamo patri meo Deus possidendum dedit cœlum et terram;’ Tanchuma, p. 163, 1; see also Wetstein. The idea of the Messianic sovereignty of the world, which underlies this Jewish particularistic view, is not set aside in the New Testament, but it is brought out by Christ Himself (Mat_5:5) in allegorical form (Mat_19:28 ff.; Luk_22:30; Mat_25:21), divested of its Judaistic notion, and elevated to christological truth. It is necessary, because of the universal sovereignty to which Christ Himself is exalted (Mat_28:18; Joh_17:5; Php_2:9; Eph_4:10, &c.); and because of the necessary communion between His disciples and Himself.” But we can hardly suppose that the Apostle would here apply against the Jews the promise of the land of Canaan to the Jews, in its higher signification. We must keep in view the significant passage, Gen_22:17-18 : “Blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemy. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Here we have the germ of the same promise (Origen, Chrysostom, Bengel, and others). Superiority is declared by the very position of the one who blesses, and the earth itself is meant by the nations of the earth. Tholuck remarks, on the contrary, that by κόσμος we must then understand the σπέρμα itself, so far as it is led to faith, and that this cannot be regarded at once as κληρονόμος and κληρονομία. But the σπέρμα, as the organ of the world’s conversion, must be distinguished from the σπέρμα, as the converted world. God is the inheritance of believers, as believers are the inheritance of God. De Wette, in summing up the different explanations, says: “ἡ κληρονομία τοῦ κόσμον is not an indefinite allegorical blessedness (Flatt); not the reception of all nations into the theocracy (Melanchthon, Beza, Bengel, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c.); not the possession of Canaan and some adjacent countries, ‘quœ felicitas arcanam gerebat imaginem œternœ felicitatis’ (Grotius); nor of the earth (Rosenmüller, Koppe, Köllner, Rückert), in the sense of the political sovereignty of the world; nor is it a possession of the future world (Calov.25); still less of the beneficia spiritualia (Bald.), or sub typo terrœ Canaan non modo spes cœlestis vitœ, sed plena et solida Dei benedictio (Calvin); but it is the dominion over the world, which, with all its opposing forces, shall be subjected to Christ and the Christians (Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche).” Obviously too many negations!—We must bear in mind, that in the Messianic promise given to Abraham the struggle and the dominion are indicated only finally; the chief idea is the blessing. If all the nations of the earth were to be really blessed by Abraham’s seed, then his seed must be able to dispose of a world of blessing. [The promise will be literally fulfilled when the kingdoms of the world are given to the people of the Most High, and Christ will rule with His saints forever and ever; Dan_7:27; Rev_11:15; Rev_12:10; Mat_5:5; 2Ti_2:12.—P. S.]—By the righteousness of faith. This was the fundamental gift by which the promise of the world was conditioned. Meyer thinks that, because of the date of the justification, Genesis 15. [i.e., after the promise had been given; Gen_12:3; Gen_12:7; Gen_13:15-16.—P. S.], Paul must have here in mind only later passages [Rom_15:18; Gen_17:8, where the promise is repeated.—P. S.]. But, according to Genesis 12., Abraham’s life of faith had begun at the time of his emigration. [The faith of Abraham covered the whole period of the promise, which was made and repeatedly confirmed to his faith.—P. S.]

Rom_4:14. For if they who are of the law. Proof that Abraham’s believing children, but not they who, in contrast with them, rely on the law and its deeds, shall inherit the world. The νόμος, according to Flatt, the moral law; according to Meyer, the Mosaic law; both, according to Tholuck. The Apostle is certainly not concerned here exclusively with the idea of the Mosaic νόμος, as such, but rather with the idea of the legal standpoint, or of the law, considered abstractly in itself, and in contrast with the promise. And it may be said of the natural moral law, too, that it worketh wrath. ()ἱ ἐκ νόμου are not people who are still under the law as such, but whose life-principle is the law, and who wish to be justified by the law. [οἱ ἐκ νόμου, those of law = adherents of the law, legalists. This periphrase is of frequent occurrence; comp. οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας, those of self-seeking = self-seeking partisans; Rom_2:8; οἱ ἐκ περντομῆς, the circumcised; Rom_4:12; Tit_1:10; Act_10:45; Act_11:2; οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, the believers; Gal_3:7; Gal_3:9; Rom_4:16; οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, the Israelites; Rom_9:6; &c.; comp. Xenoph., Anab. Rom_1:2; Rom_1:18, οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἀγορᾶς, the market people. The preposition ἐκ (out of) indicates here the origin and character.—P. S.]—Be heirs, faith is made void. At the time when this decisive word was uttered, it had not only a great spiritual, but also a great prophetical meaning. Judging from external signs, it was more probable that the Jews, rather than the Christians, would inherit the earth. They had a powerful prominence, wide dissemination, and synagogues all over the world. But the Apostle was sure of his cause, and wished clearly to distinguish the future of faith from the future of that darkened legalism. Yet his thought is not; if the legalists are heirs, believers cannot be; but if the legalists are heirs, there will be no inheritance of the promise at all. Faith is made void—that is, it loses its import, the righteousness of faith—by wrath in the conscience; the promise is made powerless by the wrath of historical judgments, because it was only intended for faith.

Rom_4:15. Because the law worketh wrath. The operation of the law is to reveal sin and to represent it as transgression, as well in the conscience as in the life itself. Therefore it produces wrath, which, according to the Divine sentence and government, bursts forth from the internal and external life as the severe judgment of dissolution and of death. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression (of the law); and where there is no transgression, there is no wrath. But inversely, the law fully reveals transgression, and, with transgression, wrath and condemnation to death. The proof that the law worketh wrath, is therefore negative. This operation is meant to apply first of all to the Mosaic law, as is proved by Rom_5:13-14, particularly by the distinction between ἁμαρτία and παράβασις (see 1Ti_2:14; Gal_3:19). Tholuck quotes Augustine: “Sine lege potest esse quis iniquus, sed non prœvaricator,” and says that “ this difference has generally been observed ever since. But where it has not been observed, such παρερμηνεῖαι have arisen, as with Luther (on Gal_3:19), who introduces, from Rom_7:5; Rom_5:20, the thought that the lust of sin is dormant without the law.” Tholuck also properly remarks, that the axiom of Rom_5:13, ἁμαρτία δἐ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται μὴ ὄντος νόμου, can be understood only relatively of a less quantity of guilt, as is proved by the judgment of the Deluge, and other judgments. He quotes Thomas Aquinas: “Et tamen omne peccatum potest dici prœvaricatio, in quantum legem naturalem transgreditur.” [But Thomas adds: “Gravius tamen est transgredi simul legem naturalem et legem scriptam, quam solam legem naturœ. Et ideo lege data crevit prœvaricatio et majorem iram promeruit.”] Yet the ἐλλογεῖται of Rom_5:13 is to be emphasized so as to denote God’s real reckoning with the sinner by His law, which first causes the natural punishment of the sinner to assume the clear blaze of wrath. Man can obtain salvation only by this passage through the judgment of death. For this reason the Apostle does not deny the necessity of the law; but with him it is a means for an end, and constitutes the pedagogic point of transition for the pious under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον, Rom_6:14-15). But people of the law (οἱ ἐκ νόμου), who seek justification ἐξ ἔργων (Rom_4:2) because they are in feeling ἐξ ἐριθείας (Rom_2:8), make the means an end. They seek their life in the single precepts and observance of the law, in pride in the possession of the law, and in the settlement of their account with God; and by this course they find their existence in the fire of wrath, but, unlike the salamander, they find no comfort in the fire. They do not make the law their preparation for faith, but the antithesis of faith; and they endeavor, by the fire of their fanaticism, to entice from a joyous and bright life those who are happy in faith, and to draw them into their own gloomy heat. For other explanations of ὀργή, see Tholuck. Cocceius: The ceremonial law is the emanation of wrath; J. Müller: ὀργή must be understood subjectively—the consciousness of wrath; Melanchthon: The ὀργή is the sinner’s wrath toward the avenging God.

Rom_4:16. Therefore it is of faith. The inference from Rom_4:14-15. That cannot be; therefore this must stand true. ̓Εκ πίστεως. Supply: ἡ κληρονομία γίνεται (Beza, Bengel); ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῶ Αβρ. ἐστι καί τῶ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ (Grotius, Fritzsche, Tholuck in earlier editions, and others); δικαιοσύνη (Luther); or, better, οί κληρονόμοι εἰσί (Meyer, De Wette, and Tholuck, referring to Rom_4:14, where ἐκ πίστεως and ἐκ νόμου appear as antitheses). This last seems the most appropriate; yet in Rom_4:14 we read not οἱ κληρονόμοι, but οἱ ἐκνόμου—κληρονόμοι; and further on it is οἱ ἐκ πίστεως. Therefore, we must merely supply either κληρονόμοι οr ἔστω.—That it might be by grace. Faith is here plainly denoted the homogeneous organ of grace. It is grace, and not man’s faith, that is the source of that general surety of God’s promise; but grace makes faith the organ, just as wrath manifests itself in the work of the law. ἵνα denotes here the consistency of the principle of faith, which certainly rests upon a Divine determination. Tholuck supplies ὦσιν.

In order that the promise might be sure to all the seed [εἰς τὸ εἰναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι]. The εἰς denotes the result designed by God—that the promise of His grace be communicated to faith. By this determination the fact is secured, that the promise holds good for his collective seed—that is, for his entire spiritual posterity.—Not to that only which is of the law, &c. The τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νύμου denotes here the historical origin of the whole body of faithful Jews. The τῷ ἐκ πίστεως,as antithesis, denotes the faithful Gentiles. They form a totality by which Abraham is the father of all (see Rom_4:11-12).

Rom_4:17. As it is written. Gen_17:5; where a natural posterity of many nations is promised to Abraham in relation to his name.26 Yet this promise has its ground in his faith (Rom_4:18-19), and hence Paul very properly regarded it as the type of his spiritual posterity. The spiritual relation is also implied in the Divine appointment, τἐθεικά σε.—[It was] in the sight of him whom he believed [κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ27]. On account of the connection with what has preceded, the difficult word κατέναντι must be here explained [as far as the construction is concerned]. 1. Luther follows the reading ἐπίστενσας [before God, whom thou hast believed] of the Codd. F. G., It., and others, and finds here a continuation of God’s words. An attempt to explain the connection. 2. Bretschneider: “in view of which word,” οὗ sc. εἰρημένου. 3. Meyer, Tholuck [Alford, Hodge], and others: The quotation, καθώς—σε, is parenthetical [so also in the E. V.], and κατέναντι must be connected with ὅς ἐστι πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν [i.e., Abraham is the father of us all, not physically, but spiritually, in the sight and estimation of God, with whom there are no obstacles of nature or time.—P. S.] Meyer [and also Winer, Gramm., p. 156, 7th ed.] thus resolves the attraction: κατέναντι τοῦ θεοῦ, κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσε [i.e., before God, before whom, or, in whose sight he believed], according to the analogous attraction of Luk_1:4; and rejects the more common resolution [adopted also by Fritzsche] of the attraction κατέςαντι θεοῦ, ᾧ ἐπίστευσε [before God, whom he believed—a form of attraction with the dative, which is very unusual; see Winer, p. 156, and Meyer in loc.—P. S.]. See Meyer, for other attempts at construction. But what are we to understand by the expression: he is the father of us all before God? The idea of a substitution by Abraham, which might easily be inferred from the language, would be foreign to the Apostle. 4. We supply ἐγένετο [before κατέναντι], and explain thus: As it is written, ”I have made thee a father of many nations;” it took place in the presence of God, or, it came to pass there, in the place where he stood believing before God, that he was made the father of many nations; before Him, namely, God, &c. He who is justified, who receives God’s promise, stands before God. [Philippi, without parenthesizing καθῶς—σε, supplies after this quotation: And as such—viz., as father of nations—he stands in the sight of God, &c—P. S.]

Fourth Paragraph (Rom_4:17-25)

A.—Abraham’s Faith (Rom_4:17-22)

Rom_4:17. Before him whom he believed, even God. Explanations of coram [κατέναντι, literally, down over against, opposite to, like the classical κατεναντιον; then = κατενώπιον, coram, so here, and often in the LXX., for לִפְנֵי—P. S.]: 1. According to the will (Reiche). 2. According to the decision (Rückert, and others). 3. Vi atque potestate divina (Koppe). 4. Before God’s omniscience (Olshausen). 5. Meyer [p. 173, footnote]: “We must leave it without explanation. Abraham is represented as standing before God who has appeared to him.” But it denotes the first element of the Abrahamic faith. Abraham, as the friend of God, stands in the view of the living God of revelation, the speaking God, who is at the same time the God of miracles and new creations; and it is while Abraham is there, that he is appointed the father of many nations. (Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, have explained κατέναντι as equal to ὁμοίως τῷ θεῷ; Grotius has divided the sentence into question and answer; see Meyer).—Κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν, standing before Him, he believed the promise on the spot.

Who quickeneth the dead. [The present tense ζωοποιοῦντος and καλοῦντος is used to indicate the continued manifestation of God’s creative power in every physical and in every spiritual birth.—P. S.] ”The ζωοποιεῖν τούς νεκρούς is the solemn characteristic of the omnipotent God,” says Meyer. The doctrine of the omnipotence of God, as the wonder-working power of the God of revelation, has been directed from the beginning to the consummation of the revelation in the resurrection of Christ, and subsequently to the special and general resurrection (Eph_1:19 ff.). This is evident from those passages of the Old Testament which represent the wonder-working power of God as a power to bring the dead to life, produced by it (Deu_32:39; 1Sa_2:6; Isa_26:19; Isa_53:10; Eze_37:1 ff.; Hos_13:14; Dan_12:1-2; comp. Book of Wis_16:13; Tob_13:2; Joh_5:21; 2Co_1:9; 1Ti_6:13). The Apostle, with profound penetration, sees this miraculous power which raises the dead to life, foreshadowed already in the promise of Isaac. For he does not have in view the offering of Isaac (according to Erasmus, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), although the stronger expression seems to have been selected also with reference to that last believing act of Abraham. Neither is the awakening of the spiritually dead chiefly meant (according to Origen, Anselm, and others). Nevertheless, we would not, with Meyer, altogether reject these explanations as false; for the external awakenings stand in the most intimate reciprocal relation with the internal. In fact, the former are generally conditioned by the latter; as we see that Abraham had to believe first in the promise given to him.

And calleth those things, which are not, as though they were [literally, calling things not being, as being, καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄνταὡς ὄντα. Τὰ μὴ ὄντα differs from τὰ οὺκ ὄντα in that it presents the non-existence as conditional: if they are not; or as relative only, inasmuch as all things preëxist ideally and subjectively in the Divine mind before they are created and set forth objectively.—P. S.]. Two explanations:28 1. Reference to the creative agency of God (Tholuck, and most expositors). Καλεῖν often denotes God’s creative call, to summon into being, into existence (Isa_41:4; Isa_48:13; 2Ki_8:1; Book of Wis_11:25; comp. Psa_33:9). Philo [De creat. princ., p. 728 B.]: τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσενεἰς τὸ εἶναι. This explanation admits of several modifications: a. The first creative act is thought of (Estius). b. God’s continued creation is in mind (Köllner; reference to the particip. prœs.). c. A constant attribute of God is denoted (Tholuck). Meyer holds that this whole interpretation is destroyed by the ὡς ὄντα; for, in the New Testament, ὡς is nowhere the same as εἰς. Yet Tholuck adduces proof in favor of the signification εἰς τὸ εἶναι ὡςὄντα. [He refers to 1Co_1:8; 2Co_3:6; 1Th_5:23; Jude 24. Comp. Php_3:21, where the accusative σύμμορφον, like unto his glorious body, is the accusative of effect = so as to be like.—P. S.] De Wette: ὥς ὄντα can indeed not be a substitute for εἰς ὄντα = εἰς τὸ εἶναι, but it can be a substitute for ὡς ἐσόμἁνα, or for εἰς τὸ εἷναι ὡς ὄντα (Reiche, and others). 2. Meyer, and others (Rückert, Philippi): Who pronounces his enacting command over what does not exist, as over what does exist.29 It is not necessary to prove that, even in reference to the creation, this is the full sense (see Heb_11:3); the ideal preëxistence of things in the mind of God is therewith intimated. Nevertheless, the idea of the καλεῖν—to call into existence, or into appearance—must be retained. Meyer holds that the things which are not, that God called into existence, are, according to Genesis 15, the posterity of Abraham. But Abraham’s faith undoubtedly presupposed earlier deeds of omnipotence. The elements of God’s creative power, and of His renewing power, are comprehended together in the conception of His miraculous power. The creative word is a symbol and pledge of every new creative word which is spoken subsequently.

Rom_4:18. Who against hope believed in hope [ὃς παῤ ἐλπίδα επ’ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν]. Faith in miracles, which is itself a miracle, corresponds to the gracious God who worketh miracles. Established on the ground of hope, he believed against the appearance of hope. Meyer solves the oxymoron incorrectly: Abraham’s faith was against hope in an objective relation, and yet it was established on hope in a subjective relation. Tholuck’s view is better: His faith is a ”Yea” established on the word of God, in opposition to the “No” in the sphere of finite causes. ̓ Επ ̓ ἐλπίδι, 1Co_9:10. [ἐπ ̓̓ ἐλπίδι is not adverbial = confidently, but ἐπι signifies the subjective ground of his faith. Faith is the organ of the supernatural, and holds fast to the Invisible as if it saw Him. Hope is faith itself, as directed to the future.—P. S.].

That he might become. Three explanations of εἰς: 1. Of the result—so that he might become (Flatt, Fritzsche, and others). 2. He believed that he should be. That is, εἰς τὸ γεν. is the object of ἐπιστ. (Beza, Reiche, and others). 3. It contains the purpose of the ἐπιστ. ordained by God (Meyer, and others). This is favored by the following κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον. [So also Alford, Hodge: He believed, in order that, agreeably to the purpose of God, he might become the father of many nations.]—According to that which was spoken. See, in Gen_15:5, the reference to the stars of heaven. Codd. F. and G. insert the comparison: as the stars of heaven, and as the sand upon the sea-shore (the latter from Gen_22:17).

Rom_4:19. And being not weak in faith. A meiosis [μείωσις, diminution], according to Theophylact and Beza [i.e., the negative form for the positive: being strong. So also Tholuck and Meyer.] The sense is rather that, in the long trial, his faith did not grow weary, but stronger, in spite of the difficulties in his path.—He considered [not, οὐ], κατενοήσεν. Tholuck says: “The omission of the οὐ in important MSS., such as A. C. [to which must be added Cod. Sin. and B.—P. S.], the Syriac Version, and others, was occasioned by having regard to Gen_17:17, where Abraham does certainly reflect upon finite causes. For this reason the sense was thought to be, that he reflected without being weak in faith. But Paul had in view only Gen_15:5-6, according to which Abraham accepted the promise at once without hesitation.” [So also Meyer.] But Paul means plainly a steadfast faith, which became more vigorous by the trial of many years of waiting, and whose strength was augmented by the temptations occurring in the meantime.30—His own body now dead. Abraham was more than ninety-nine years old when the promise was fulfilled (after the circumcision, Gen_17:24), and Sarah was more than ninety years old. The terms νενεκρωμένον and νέκρωσις, in reference to generative death (Heb_11:12), must not be taken absolutely, but be considered according to the measure of experience and the usual course of nature. Bengel: “Post Semum (Shem) nemo centum annorum generasse Genesis 11 legitur.” [The difficulty concerning the later children of Abraham and Keturah, Gen_25:1-2, Augustin (De civit. Dei, 16:28) and Bengel removed, by assuming that the generative power miraculously conferred upon Abraham continued to his death. Bengel: Novus corporis vigor etiam mansit in matrimonio cum Ketura. So also Philippi and Meyer.—P. S.]

Rom_4:20. He staggered not at the promise of God. The δέ, which is an expression of antithesis, appears at first sight to favor κατενόησε, the reading of the Codd. A. C., instead of οὐ κατενόησε. But it constitutes another antithesis. Rom_4:19 says, that he continued steadfast in faith, in spite of the contradiction of sensuous experience; that he did not regard natural appearance. Rom_4:20, on the contrary, expresses the idea: Neither was he doubtful by unbelief concerning the promise itself. For unbelief is not produced merely by reflecting doubtfully on the contradiction of sensuous experience, but also by an immediate want of confidence in the miraculous promise itself which belongs to the sphere of invisible life. He was not only not weak in faith in his disregard of sensuous improbability, but, while looking at the promise, he grew even stronger in faith; for he overcame the temptation of a subtle misinterpretation of the promise. According to Meyer, the δέ is only explanatory; but Tholuck, and most expositors, regard it as expressing an antithesis. According to Rückert, the article in τῇ ἀπιστία denotes the unbelief common to man; but it denotes unbelief as such, whose nature is to doubt the promise of God. Therefore other explanations are superfluous (Meyer: in consequence of the unbelief which he would have had in this case).31 The passive form, ἐνεδυναμώθη, arises from his undoubting aim toward the promise. The promise has the effect of always strengthening the faith of him who looks at it. Therefore Grotius disturbs the real meaning of the word, when he takes it in the middle voice, he strengthened himself. Even the intransitive meaning which Tholuck accepts, “to grow strong,” fails in the same way to satisfy the relation between the promise and the steadfast gaze of faith.

Rom_4:20. Giving glory to God. To give God the glory (נָתַז כִּבוֹר לַיהוָֹה or, שׂוּם); a mark of faith which God, as the revealed God, can demand. Joh_9:24 was spoken hypocritically; Joh_12:43 is indirectly expressed. Comp. also Luk_17:18-19; Rom_1:21; 1Jn_5:10; Rev_19:7; comp. Philippi and Meyer on this passage, both of whom amplify the meaning. Tholuck says better: ”Then unbelief is a robbery of God’s glory. It does not easily occur except in a state of trial (?), but it does so occur in such a state. Therefore Calvin says” ‘Extra certamen quidem nemo Deum omnia posse negat; verum simulac objicitur aliquid, quod cursum promissionum Dei impediat, Dei virtutem e suo gradu dejicimus.’ ”

Rom_4:21. And being fully persuaded. According to Lachmann (contrary to Tischendorf), the καί before πληροφορηθείς is strongly attested by the Codd. A. B. C., &c. If the καί is omitted, we have here the reason for the fact that he gave God the glory. With the καί, the words suitably explain the manner in which he gave God the glory; for he was fully convinced that He was the El Shaddai, and that, by virtue of His omnipotence, He was able to fulfil what He in His truthfulness had promised. It was by this confident looking at the El Shaddai’s word of promise that he was made strong (“heroic;” Meyer) in faith. The πληροφ. denotes intellectual activity, knowledge in living faith.32

Rom_4:22. Wherefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness. We must retain καί, as authorized by the Codd. A. C. [א.], and others. But we must not overlook the fact that we have here a justification of justification in its essential adaptation. The διδόναι δόξαν τῶ θεῷ in faith is a return to the paradisaical or angelic (Isa_6:3) attitude to God (Rom_1:21). Since man gives God the glory, he again participates in the δόξα θεοῦ which he had lost as a sinner (Rom_3:23). In justification, believers embrace in their hearts the righteousness of Christ as the principle of the δόξα (Rom_8:30; comp. Rom_4:18). Therefore the spirit of δόξα rests upon them (1Pe_4:14) until the revelation of the δόξα of the Lord (1Pe_4:13).

B.—The Faith of Christians (Rom_4:23-25)

[Application of the Scripture testimony of Abraham, the father of the faithful, to the believers in Christ. His method of justification is our method of justification. Calvin: ”Abrahœ persona specimen communis justitiœ, quœ ad omnes spectat.” This completes the argument for the vindication of the law through faith; Rom_3:31.—P. S.]

Rom_4:23. Now it was not written for his sake alone. Explanations: 1. Not to his praise, non in ipsius gloriam (Beza, Tholuck). 2. To explain the manner of his justification (Meyer). The sense is this: not only for the purpose of a historical appreciation of Abraham (Rom_15:4; 1Co_10:11; Gal_3:8.), but also to represent him as the type of believers. In the same way the entire Bible has a universal destination for the believers of all times. Meyer quotes Beresh R. 40. Romans 8 : Quidquid scriptum est de Abrahamo, scriptum est de filiis ejus. [The aorist ἐγράφη, it was written, denotes the past historical act of writing, and is used here in order to emphasize the design of God’s Spirit at the time of composition: while the more usual perf. γέγραπται, it is written, is used in quotations of Scripture passages as we now find them, and as valid for present purposes. Comp. Philippi.—P. S.]

Rom_4:24. But for us also, to whom it [viz., the faith in God, or Christ, τὁ πιστεν́ειν τῶ θεῷ] shall be reckoned [supply: for righteousness, δικαιοσύνην, as Rom_4:22]. The μέλλλει refers to the divine determination of Christianity as righteousness by faith in all time to come; but, contrary to Fritzsche, it does not refer to justification at the general judgment.

If we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. [τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ”specifies the ἡμᾶς; and the belief is not a mere historical, but a fiducial belief;” Alford.—P. S.] Christian faith is specifically a faith in the risen Christ, or also in the living God of resurrection who raised Him from the dead. It is in this its central point that the finished faith of the New Testament is perfectly in harmony with the central point of Abraham’s faith. The germ and fruit of this faith are identical in substance, though they differ very much in form and development. The nearest formal analogy to Abraham’s faith is the birth of Christ from the Virgin. The highest exhibition of omnipotence was at the same time the highest exhibition of grace. [Christ’s resurrection was a triumph of God’s almighty power, similar, though much higher, than the generation of Isaac from the dead body of Abraham; by faith in the miracle of the resurrection, the resurrection is spiritually repeated in us, as we become new creatures in Christ, and walk with Him in newness of life; comp. Rom_6:3; Eph_1:19-20; Col_3:1.—P. S.]

Rom_4:25. Who was delivered up, &c. [“In these words the Apostle introduces the great subject of chaps. 5–8, Death, as connected with Sin, and Life as connected with Righteousness;” Alford and Forbes. ”Rom_4:25 is a comprehensive statement of the gospel;” Hodge. The διά means in both clauses, on account of, for the reason of, but with this difference, that it is retrospective in the first, prospective in the second: διὰ τὰ παραπτώ ματα, because we had sinned, or, in order to secure the remission of our transgressions; διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν, not because we had been, but that we might be justified.33 To the first διά we must supply: for the atonement, or, for the destruction of; to the second: for the procurement of. De Wette: zur Büssung—zur Bestätigung. παρεδόθη, a frequent designation of the self-surrender of Christ to death; Isa_53:12; Rom_8:32; Gal_2:20; Eph_5:25 : παρέσωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. δικαίωσις, from δικαιόω, (only here and Rom_5:18, in opposition to κατάκριμα,) justification, i.e., the effective declaratory act of putting a man right with the law, or into the status of δικαιοσύνη, righteousness.—P. S.] The antithesis in Rom_4:25 [παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶνἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ᾑμῶν, the negative ἀφεσις and the positive δικαίωσις] is difficult. Tholuck [p. 194]: ”This separation, as also that in Rom_10:10, is generally taken as a rhetorical μερισμός, separating that which is in substance indivisible. Yet, in the contemplation of the Apostle, the δικαίωσις certainly is more nearly related to the resurrection of Christ than to His death, as is shown by the climax of Rom_8:34, and by the πολλῶμᾶλλον of Rom_5:10; comp. 2Co_13:4.” But the passages cited do not contain the same antithesis. According to Roman Catholic interpretation, δικαίωσις refers to sanctification (Thomas Aquinas, and others). The old Protestant explanation, on the contrary, referred the first clause to the destruction of sin, and the second to the ratification of the atonement secured thereby (Calvin). Meyer refers the first part to the expiation of our sins, and the second to our justification; with reference to 1Co_15:17. Tholuck distinguishes between the negative and positive abolition of guilt. In the latter—the δικαίωσις—Christ’s intercession is also included; for the Lutheran theology (Quenstedt) denotes the applicatio acquisitœ salutis as the purpose of the intercessio [the Reformed theology: patrocinium perpetuum coram Patre adversus Satanœ criminationes]. Melanchthon also remarks in this sense: “Quamquam enim Præcessit meritum, tamen ita ordinatum fuit ab initio, ut tunc signalis Applicaretur, cum fide acciperent.” We must bear in mind, however, that the antithesis is not: Christ’s death and resurrection, but the deliverance of Christ for our offences, and his resurrection on God’s part. The principal weight of the antithesis therefore rests upon the Divine deed of Christ’s resurrection; with which justifying faith was first called into living existence. This justifying faith is analogous to Abraham’s faith in the God of miracles, who calls new life into being. To this, the deliverance of Christ to death for our sins (transgressions, falls, παραπτώματα) forms a complete antithesis; and to this corresponds, in the single work of redemption, the antithesis: the abolishment of our guilt, and the imputation of His righteousness. Yet, in reality, these two cannot be separated from each other, and the δικαίωσις here means the general and potential justification which is embraced in the atonement itself, and which, in individual justification by faith, is appropriated by individuals only by virtue of its eternal operation through the intercessio, the gospel, and the spirit of Christ. [See Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 10.—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. As Paul has proved from the Old Testament the truth of the New Testament, and especially the doctrine of righteousness by faith, so can the evangelical Church confirm the truth of its confession by the best testimonies of the best fathers of the Catholic Church. The evangelical confession of sin and grace is defended against the Romanists by Augustine, and others, in the same way that Abraham defended the believing Gentiles against the Jews. [On Augustine’s doctrine of sin and grace, comp. my Church History, vol. iii. pp. 783–865. Augustine differs in form from the Protestant doctrine of justification, since he confounded the term with sanctification; but he agrees with it in spirit, inasmuch as he derived the new life of the believer exclusively from the free grace of God in Christ, and left no room for human boasting. The same may be said of Anselm, St. Bernard, and the forerunners of the Reformation.—P. S.]

2. Here, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, and especially in chap. 3, the Apostle characterizes the Old Testament according to its real fundamental thought—the promise of God, which was revealed in Abraham’s faith, and perfectly fulfilled in the New Testament covenant of faith. Accordingly, the Mosaic legislation is only a more definite Old Testament signature; but, as a stage of development, it is subordinate to Abraham’s faith (see Rom_5:20; Gal_3:17).

Some errors of the present day concerning the Old Testament have in many ways obscured its true relation by the following declarations: (1) “The Old Testament is essentially Mosaism.” In this way the patriarchal system in the past, and the prophetic system in the future, are abolished. (2) “Mosaism is legal and statutory stationariness.” But, on the contrary, the Old Testament is a continuous and living development. (3) “This stationariness is theocratical despotism; the Jew is absolutely enslaved under the law.” This is contradicted by Moses’ account of the repeated federal dealings between Jehovah and His people, by the introduction to the Decalogue, as well as by the whole spirit of the Old Testament. It is particularly contradicted by the fact that Jehovah abandons the people to their apostasy, in order to visit them in justice.

3. The signification of Abraham for the doctrine of justification by faith is supplemented by David’s example and testimony. Abraham was justified by faith, notwithstanding his many good works; David was likewise justified by faith, notwithstanding his great offence. The righteousness of faith is therefore thus defined: (1) It does not presuppose any good works; but, (2) It presupposes a knowledge of sin. On the signification of the passage, Rom_4:3-5, for justification by faith, see Tholuck, p. 175.

4. As Abraham became the natural father of many nations, so did he become the spiritual father of the believing people of all nations, both Jews and Gentiles.

5. The designation of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith, is important for the doctrine of the sacraments. See the Exeg. Notes.

6. The great promise of faith (Rom_4:13). Its development (chap. 8.; Isaiah 65, 66; Revelation 20-22). There is a grand view in the reasoning of Rom_4:14. The men who are ἐκ νόμου, of the law, cannot be the heirs of the world: (1) Because they are particularists. But also, (2) Because the legal, human ὀργή, provokes the historical, divine wrath—the destruction of the world. Thus did legalistic fanaticism bring on the destruction of Jerusalem, the fall of Byzantium, the exhaustion of Germany by the Thirty Years’ War, the disorders in Spain, Italy, Poland, and other countries (see Mat_5:5).

7. The identity of the faith of Abraham with that of Paul. We must define: (1) Its object; (2) Its subject; (3) Its operations. The difference, on the contrary, must be determined according to the developing forms of the revelation of salvation, and in such a way that the initial point will appear in the faith of Abraham, and the concluding or completing point shall appear in the saving faith of the New Testament. But it is a mistake to suppose that faith can be the same thing in a subjective view, and another in an objective. The objective and subjective relations will always thoroughly correspond to each other here; and the operations of faith will be shaped in accordance with them. For historical information on the question under consideration, see Tholuck, p. 173.

8. On the nature of saving faith, see the Exeg. Notes on Rom_4:19. Likewise, on the signification of the resurrection for faith, those on Rom_4:25.

9. The importance of the sentiment, ”He gave God the glory.” See the Exeg. Notes on Rom_4:20.

[10. On Rom_4:25. This important and comprehensive passage clearly shows the inseparable connection between Christ’s death and Christ’s resurrection, as also the connection between the remission of sins and justification to a new life (comp. Rom_5:10; Rom_6:4). By His atoning death Christ has abolished the guilt of sin (Rom_3:25), and secured our pardon and peace; and hence it is generally represented as the ground of our justification (δικαίωσις)—i.e., the non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of Christ’s merits; comp. Rom_3:24-25; Rom_5:9; 2Co_5:21; Eph_1:7; 1Jn_1:7. But, without the resurrection, the death of Christ would be of no avail, and His grave would be the grave of all our hopes, as the Apostle clearly says, 1Co_15:17. A gospel of a dead Saviour would be a miserable failure and delusion. The resurrection is the victory of righteousness and life over sin and death. It is by the fact of the resurrection that Christ’s death was shown to be the death of the innocent and righteous One for foreign guilt, and that it was accepted by God as a full satisfaction for the sins of the world. If man had not sinned, Christ would not have died; if Christ had sinned, He would not have been raised again. In the next place, as the resurrection is the actual triumph of Christ, so it is also the necessary condition of the appropriation of the benefits of His death. It is only the risen Saviour who could plead our cause at the mercy-seat, and send the Holy Spirit to reveal Him, and to apply the benefits of the atonement to believers. Just as little as the death and the resurrection, can we separate the effects of both—the remission of sins and the new life of Christ. The sinner cannot be buried with Christ, without rising with Him as a new creature; the death of the old Adam is the birth of the new, and the life of the new presupposes the death of the old.—P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Rom_4:1-8. Abraham and David as examples of the righteousness of faith: 1. Abraham; 2. David.—What hath father Abraham found? 1. No reward by works; but, 2. Righteousness by faith (Rom_4:1-5).—Abraham not only the natural, but also the spiritual father of his people (Rom_4:1-5).—Glory before God is better than the glory of works (Rom_4:2).—If the reward is reckoned of debt, man loses; but if it is reckoned of grace; he gains (Rom_4:4-5).—How blessed is the man to whom God imputeth not sin, but righteousness! (Rom_4:6-8).—Two beatitudes from the mouth of David (Rom_4:6-8).

Rom_4:9-12. Why must even the Jews acknowledge the Gentiles’ righteousness of faith? Answer: Because, 1. Faith was not counted to Abraham for righteousness while in circumcision; but, 2. His faith had already been counted to him for righteousness.—As the sign of circumcision was to the Jews a seal of the righteousness of faith, so are the signs of Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper seals to Christians of the righteousness of faith.—Abraham, a father of all believers: 1. From among the Gentiles; 2. From among the Jews (Rom_4:11-12).—Walking in the footsteps of Abraham (Rom_4:12).—The promise to Abraham of the inheritance of the world is, first, obscure, as a germ-like word. But, second, it is of infinitely rich meaning; for, in addition to the redemption of the world, it also embraces the renewal of the world and the heavenly inheritance.—To what extent does the law work wrath? (Rom_4:15).—It is only by faith that the promise holds good for all (Rom_4:16).

Rom_4:18-22. The strength of Abraham’s faith. It is shown: 1. In his believing in hope, where there was nothing to hope; 2. In holding fast to this hope against external evidence; 3. He did not doubt, but trusted unconditionally in the words of promise.—Believing in hope, when there is nothing to hope (Rom_4:18).—We must not grow weak in faith, even if it be long before our hopes are realized (Rom_4:19).—The worst doubt is doubting the promises of God (Rom_4:20).—How precious it is to know to a perfect certainty that God can perform what He has promised (Rom_4:21).

Rom_4:23-25. As Abraham believed that life would come from death, so do we believe in the same miracle: 1. Because God has given us a pledge in the resurrection of Christ; 2. Because this God is a living and true God, who will keep His promises for ever.—Our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is a faith in the Redeemer, who: 1. Was delivered for our offences; and, 2. Was raised for our justification (Rom_4:24-25).

Luther: Faith fulfils all laws; but works cannot fulfil a tittle of the law (Jam_2:10). A passage from the preface to the Epistle to the Romans is in place here: “Faith is not the human delusion and dream which some mistake for faith. … But faith is a Divine work in us, which changes us, and gives us the new birth from God (Joh_1:13); which slays the old Adam, and makes us altogether different men in heart, spirit, feeling, and strength; and which brings with it the Holy Spirit. Oh, faith is a living, creative, active power, which of necessity is incessantly doing good! It also does not ask whether there are good works to perform; but, before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is continually doing them,” &c.—He who believes God, will give Him the glory, that He is truthful, omnipotent, wise, and good. Therefore faith fulfils the first three (four) commandments, and justifies man before God. It is, then, the true worship of God (Rom_4:20).

Starke: The Holy Scriptures must not be read superficially, but with deliberation, and with careful reference to their order and chronology (Rom_4:10).—The holy sacraments assure believers of God’s grace, and forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation (Rom_4:11).—It is vain to boast of pious ancestry, if you do not walk in the footsteps of their faith (Rom_4:12).—God has His special gracious gifts and rewards, which He communicates to one of His believers instead of another (Rom_4:17).—We should rely on and believe in God’s word, more than in all the arguments in the world. It should be enough for us to know, “Thus saith the Lord” (Rom_4:18).—The heart can be established by no other means than by grace. But there can be no grace in the heart except by faith, which brings in Christ, the source of all grace (Rom_4:21).—Blessed are they who only believe, though they see not (Rom_4:22).—The Epistle to the Romans was also written for us, and it has been preserved until our day, and given to us as a precious treasure by Divine Providence.—If Christ has been raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, His death is truly a sufficient offering and ransom for our sins (Rom_4:25).—Hedinger: Away with the leaven of Pharisaic delusion, that our own righteousness must build a ladder to heaven! God will glorify His compassion to publicans and sinners, but not to proud saints.—Faith is in its highest degree, strength, and adornment, when it beholds nothing but heaven and water, God and despair, and yet believes that all will be well, glorious, and happy (Rom_4:18).

Quesnel: The more faith in a soul, the less pride there is in it (Rom_3:27).—Ye magistrates, fathers, and mothers, if you set an example of faith, fear of God, love, righteousness, and other virtues, before those committed to you, you will truly become their fathers, just as Abraham became the father of the faithful by his faith (Rom_4:11).—He who makes a parade of himself, may easily despair afterwards because of his insufficiency in every respect; but he who trusts in the omnipotent God, gets strength and consolation from his own nothingness (Rom_4:18).—Cramer: The sacraments do not help for the work’s sake; otherwise Abraham would have been immediately justified and saved on account of circumcision (Rom_4:10).—All promises spring from the fountain of eternal grace (Rom_4:13).—Nova Bibl. Tub.: The laws of nature are set by God for nature, but they are not binding on God Himself. Faith looks beyond them (Rom_4:19).—Lange: As sin, because of its magnitude and multiplicity, is denoted by different words, so is justification, as something great and important, explained by three words: to forgive, to cover, and not to impute (Rom_4:7).—The creation and resurrection of the dead are those great works of God which confirm and explain each other. Therefore he who believes in creation will find it easy to believe in the resurrection of the dead (Rom_4:17).

Bengel: The divine promise is always the best support of faith and confidence (Rom_4:20).—Why do we believe in God? Because He has raised Christ (Rom_4:25).

Gerlach: Abraham only received the promise that his seed should possess the land of Canaan; but beyond the earthly, there lies the heavenly Canaan—the renewed world—which he and his real children, the believers, shall possess in Christ, his seed. The earthly Canaan was the prophetic type of this heavenly Canaan; it was the external shell which enclosed the kernel—the bud which bore and enclosed the still tender flower (Rom_4:13).—By the clearer knowledge of the commandment sin becomes more sinful, destruction appears more prominently, lust is not subdued but becomes more violently inflamed; therefore transgression increases (Rom_4:15).—If Abraham’s clear eye of faith could penetrate the veil with so much certainty of God’s majesty, how powerfully should we—to whom God has spoken by His own Son—be kindled by this love to raise our idle hands and to strengthen our weary knees (Rom_4:23).

Lisco: Abraham’s faith is an example worthy of our imitation by faith in Christ (Rom_4:18-25).—The resurrection of Jesus was a testimony and proof of what His death has accomplished for us (for, without the resurrection, He could not have been considered the Messiah, and His death could not have been deemed a propitiatory sacrifice for the blotting out of our sins), Isa_53:10 ff.; Rom_4:25.

Heubner: The appeal to Abraham’s example is: 1. Right in itself; 2. Was important for the Jews (Rom_4:1-6).—Why does Paul cite Abraham’s circumcision, and not father the offering of Isaac? Answer: 1. Circumcision was the real sign which Abraham received by the command of God Himself; 2. It was that which all the Jews, equally with Abraham, bore in their own person, and on which they founded their likeness to Abraham and their glory (Rom_4:1).—David’s feeling in the Psalms is humble, and was exalted only by grace.—The universal confession of God’s children is, We are saved by grace (Rom_4:6-8).—In the historical statement of Rom_4:10 there is an application to us; namely, that justification by faith must precede all good works, because no good work is possible without the attainment of grace.—The preaching of the law alone with the threatened penalty repels our heart from God; and when carried to excess, it makes man angry with God, because he is driven to despair (Rom_4:15).—Yea, if every thing were brought to us ante oculos pedesque, there would be no room for faith (Rom_4:18).—Abraham is an example of a holy paternal blessing, of holy paternal hopes, and the founder of the most blessed family among men (Rom_4:18).

Dräseke: Easter: the Amen of God, the Hallelujah of men.—Our faith must be preserved, and grow amid temptations (Rom_4:20).—The object of his faith is just as certain to the believer, as a demonstration is to the mathematician (Rom_4:21-22).—All the history of the Old Testament is applicable to us. The circumstances are different, but there are the same conflicts, and it is internally and fundamentally the same faith which is engaged in the struggle (Rom_4:23-24).—Similarity of the Christian’s faith to that of Abraham.

Besser: Luther calls Rom_4:25 a little covenant in which all Christianity is comprehended.

J. P. Lange: Abraham, the original, but ever-new witness of faith: 1. As witness of the living God of revelation and miracle; 2. As witness of the perfect confidence and divine strength of a believing reliance on God’s word; 3. As witness to the blessed operation of faith—righteousness through grace.—The life of faith not dependent: 1. On natural ancestry; 2. On works of the law; 3. On visible natural appearances.—Justification and sealing.—All faith, in its inmost nature, is similar to that of Abraham: 1. As faith before God in His word; 2. As faith in miracles; 3. As faith in the renewal of youth; 4. As faith in the rejuvenation of life from righteousness as the root.—The glorious operation of Christ’s resurrection.

[Burkitt: We must bring credentials from our sanctification to bear witness to the truth of our justification.—On the sacraments in general, and circumcision in particular. There is a fourfold word requisite to a sacrament—a word of institution, command, promise, and blessing. The elements are ciphers; it is the institution that makes them figures. Circumcision was a sign: 1. Representative of Abraham’s faith; 2. Demonstrative of original sin; 3. Discriminating and distinguishing of the true church; 4. Initiating for admission to the commonwealth of Israel; and 5. Prefigurative of baptism.—On faith. It has a threefold excellency: 1. Absenting to the truths of God, though never so improbable; 2. Putting men on duties though seemingly unreasonable; and 3. Enabling to endure sufferings, be they never so afflictive.—Doddridge: We are saved by a scheme that allows us not to mention any works of our own, as if we had whereof to glory before God, but teaches us to ascribe our salvation to believing on Him who justifieth the ungodly. He who has promised, is able to perform; for with Him all things are possible. Already He hath done for us that for which we had much less reason to expect, than we now have to hope for any thing that remains. He delivered His own Son Jesus for our offences.—Henry: It is the holy wisdom and policy of faith to fasten particularly on that in God which is accommodated to the difficulties wherewith it is to wrestle, and will most effectually answer the objections. It is faith indeed to build upon the all-sufficiency of God for the accomplishment of that which is impossible to any thing but that all-sufficiency.—Clarke: Rom_4:18. The faith of Abraham bore an exact correspondence to the power and never-failing faithfulness of God.

Hodge: 1. The renunciation of a legal self-righteous spirit is the first requisite of the gospel; 2. The more intimately we are acquainted with our own hearts, and with the character of God, the more ready shall we be to renounce our own righteousness, and to trust in His mercy; 3. Only those are happy and secure who, under a sense of helplessness, cast themselves on the mercy of God; 4. A means of grace should never be a ground of dependence; 5. There is no hope for those who take refuge in a law, and forsake God’s mercy; 6. All things are ours, if we are Christ’s; 7. The way to get your faith strengthened, is, not covers the difficulties in the way of the thing promised, but the character and resources of God who has made the promise; 8. It is as possible for faith to be strong when the thing promised is most improbable, as when it is probable; 9. Unbelief is a very great sin, as it implies a doubt of the veracity and power of God; 10. The two great truths of the gospel are, that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins, and that He rose again for our justification; 11. The denial of the propitiatory death of Christ, or of His resurrection from the dead, is a denial of the gospel.—Barnes: On the resurrection of Christ (Rom_4:25). If it be asked how it contributes to our acceptance with God, we may answer: 1. It rendered Christ’s work complete; 2. It was a proof that His work was accepted by the Father; 3. It is the mainspring of all our hopes, and of all our efforts to be saved. There is no higher motive that can be presented to induce man to seek salvation, than the fact that he may be raised up from death and the grave, and made immortal. There is no satisfactory proof that man can be thus raised up, but by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.—J. F. H.]

Footnotes:

[1]Rom_4:1.—The reading in Lachmann, εὑρηκέναι Ἀβ ρ. τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν, is not only mostly authenticated (A. B. C., &c.), but, if well understood, it also gives the best sense; and we regard the opposite reading, which is now generally favored, as an explanatory transposition. See the Exeg. Notes. [The text. rec. puts Ἀβραὰμ τ ὸν πατέρα (not προπάτορα) ὴμῶν before εὑρηκέναι. Cod. Sin. sustains the reading of Lachmann, which is also adopted by Alford, who, however, brackets εὑρηκέναι as being of doubtful authority, since it is omitted by the Vatican Cod. (see Tischendorf’s edition, p. 1448). But it is indispensable, and abundantly sustained by the other uncial MSS. Meyer admits the weight of external authority in favor of Lachmann’s reading, but is disposed, nevertheless, to regard it as a later transposition to suit the connection of κατὰ σάρκα with τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν. The E. V., following the text. rec., adopts this connection, and Dr. Lange defends it in the Exeg. Notes. But with the majority of modern commentators, including Meyer, Alford, Hodge, I prefer to join κατὰ σάρκα with εὑρηκέναι. This is indeed necessary, if we follow the lectio recepta, and it is perfectly allowable, though not so natural, if we adopt the reading of Lachmann. In this case we must translate: What, then, shall we say that Abraham our father (forefather) found (or, gained, attained) according to (the) flesh (or, in the way of the flesh)—i.e., through his own natural efforts as distinct from the grace of God. Grotius: propriis viribus; De Wette, and others: nach rein menschlicher Weise. Meyer takes σάρξ here as the weak, unspiritual, sinful human nature. Abraham did indeed attain righteousness, but by faith, not by works. Codd. א. A. B. C*. sustain προπάτορα for the πατέρα of the Rec.—P. S.]

[2]Rom_4:2.—[Lange translates: er hat Ruhm, glory. καύχημα (as also καύχησις) in the N. T., and in the LXX., means generally (not always, as Meyer says, p. 160) the object or ground of boasting, materia gloriandi; Rom_4:2; 1Co_9:15-16; 2Co_1:14; Gal_6:4; Php_1:26; Php_2:16; and sometimes, as in the classics, the act of boasting or exulting, gloriatio; 1Co_5:6; 2Co_5:12; 2Co_9:3.—P. S.]

[3]Rom_4:4.—[τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ is well rendered by Luther: dem der mit Werken umgeht. Lange: dem welcher den Werkdienst treibl. Meyer: dem Werkthätigen. The word is frequent, and signifies a workman who works for pay. Conybeare and Howson, too freely: if a man earns his pay by his work. Young: too literally: to him who is working.—P. S.]

[4]Rom_4:5.—[τῷ μὴ ἐργαζομἐνῳ, to him who worketh not for hire—der nicht Werkdienst treibt.—P. S.]

[5]Rom_4:6.—[μακαρισμόν, in allusion to the Hebrew form אֲטְרְי, Oh, the blessedness, or, happiness of. The N. T. of the Amer. Bible Union, and Robert Young, render μακάριος, here and elsewhere, even in the Sermon on the Mount, by happy, instead of blessed, which properly corresponds to εὐλογητός. There is the same difference between the German grücklich and selig. In a popular English Bible, I would retain blessed and blessedness where religious or eternal happiness is spoken of. The E. V. is inconsistent, and, without a fixed rule, alternates between happy and blessed.—P. S.]

[6] Rom_4:7-8.—[From Psalms 32 :, which describes the happiness and the condition of the forgiveness of sins. The following is a literal version of Rom_4:1-2 :

Blessed (Happy) is he whose transgression is forgiven,

Whose sin is covered.

Blessed (Happy) is the man

To whom Jehovah imputeth not iniquity,

And in whose spirit there is no guile.

Ewald (Die Psalmen, 3d ed., 1866, p. 65) renders the passage thus:

Selig dessen Missethat vergeben,

Dessen Sünde ist verziehn!

Seliger Mensch dem Jahve nicht anrechnet Schuld,

Und in dessen Geiste keine Täuschung!—P. S.]

[7]Rom_4:11.—The accusative περιτομήν [A. C*. Syr.] does not really change the thought, but rather strengthens it. It is probably an alteration or oversight [caused by the surrounding accusatives. The genitive περιτομῆς is attested by א. B. C2. D. F. K. L., &c.—P. S.]

[8]Rom_4:12.—καὶ αὐτοῖς must be retained, contrary to Lachmann. [καί is wanting in א. B. Meyer defends it.—P. S.]

[9]Rom_4:13.—Τῆς ἐν (τῆ) ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως [א. A. B. C. D1., &c., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford]. The opposite reading is τῆς πίστ. τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβ. [Recommended by Griesbach, adopted by Scholz—contrary to the majority of the uncial MSS. It looks like a mechanical adjustment to Rom_4:11. τῇ is also to be omitted.—P. S.]

[10]Rom_4:15.—οὖδέ is probably an exegetical correction; though strongly attested by A. B. C., Griesbach, Lachmann. [The text. rec. reads οὗ γάρ, for where, which is supported by א3. D. F. K. L., while א1. favors οὖδέ, But where.—P. S.]

[11]Rom_4:17.—ἐπίστευσας, Codd. F. G., Luther [credidisti, dem du geglaubt hast, as if it was part of the Scripture quotation, instead of ἐπίστευσεν, credidit, which is sustained by Cod. Sin.—P. S.]

[12]Rom_4:19.—The οὐ is wanting in the celebrated Codd. A. B. C. [and Sin.]. Also in Lachmann. According to Meyer, this omission arose from regard to Gen_17:17. It could also have been occasioned by the antithesis in Rom_4:20. [The οὐ is inserted in D. F. K. L., Lat., Syr., &c. Alford brackets it. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

[13]Rom_4:19.—The ἥδη is wanting in B. F. G., &c. [and thrown out by Fritzsche and Tischendorf, but sustained by א. A. C. D. K. L. Lachmann and Alford bracket it.—P. S.]

[14]Rom_4:21.—The καί is sustained by A. B. C., &c., Lachmann. [Cod. Sin. likewise favors καί, and Alford retains it.—P. S.]

[15]Rom_4:22.—[The καί after διό is omitted by B. D1. F., but inserted by א. A. C. D3. K. L. Lachmann and Alford bracket it.—P. S.]

[16]Rom_4:25.—[Luther, to whom above all others the Christian world is indebted for a lucid and forcible exposition of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, has made a strange mistake here by translating δικαίωσιν: Gerechtigkeit (righteousness), instead of: Rechtfertigung (justification). δικαίωσις is the divine act of setting a man right, or putting him into the state and possession of δικαιοσύνη.—P. S.]

[17][Hodge quotes Calvin for the opposite view, explaining κατὰ σάρκα in the sense naturaliter, ex seipso. But Calvin goes on to say: “Probabile tamen est epitheti loco Patri conjungi,” and gives the preference to the construction with πατέρα.—P. S.]

[18][Meyer quotas Kiddush, f. 82, 1; Ioma, f. 28, 2; Beresh. rabba, f. 57, 4. Tholuck says: “The justification of Abraham before God was a locus communis of Jewish theology.” P.S.]

[19][Calvin’s interpretation is given by him (ad Rom_4:2) in these words: “Epicherema [ἐπιχείρημα, an attempted proof, an incomplete syllogism] est, i. e., imperficta ratiotinatio, quæ in hanc formam colligi debet: Si Abraham operibus justificatus est, potest suo merito gloriari; sed non habet unde glorietur apud Deum; ergo non ex operibus justificatus est. Ita membrum illud, ‘Sed non opud Deum,’ est minor propositio syllogismi. Huic attexi debet conclusio quam posui, tametsi a Paulo non exprimitur.” Similarly Fritzsche: “Si suis bene factis Dei favorem nactus est, habet, quod apud Deum glorietur ?; sed non habet, quod apud Deum glorietur, quum libri s. propter fidem, non propter pulchre facta eum Deo probatum esse doceant ?; non est igitur Abr. ob bene facta Deo probatus.” So also Kraussold, Baur, Köstlin, Hodge. This interpretation would have been more clearly expressed thus: ἔχει καύχημα (πρὸς τὸν θεὸν) ἀλλ̓οὐκ ἕχει καύχημα πρὸς τὸν θεόν. But it certainly gives good sense and falls in best with the γάρ in Rom_4:3. We explain thus: If Abraham, as the Jews suppose, was justified by works, he has reason to glory before God (for then he can claim justification as a just reward for his merits, leaving no room for the display of God’s mercy); but, according to the Scripture, he has no ground to glory before God, for (Rom_4:3) the Scripture derives his justification from faith in God or from something outside of him, and not from works of his own. Meyer, in his former editions, defended the untenable view that ἐι ... ἐδικαιώθη was a question, and ἔχει ... θεόν the negative answer; but, in his last editions, he returns, with Tholuck and Wordsworth, to the interpretation of the Greek fathers (Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact), which would require in Rom_4:3, ἀλλά, instead of γάρ.—P. S.]

[20][If Rom_4:3 contained the refutation of the inference, Rom_4:2, we would rather expect ἀλλὰ τί, instead of τί γάρ. But if the refutation is contained in ἀλλ̓ οὐ πρὸς θεὸν (ἔχει καύχημα, the γάρ is in its place and gives the proof for the answer from Gen_15:6, showing that justification proceeded not from any work which Abraham performed, but from God in whom he put his trust. See note on p. Meyer, holding the old Greek interpretation of Rom_4:2, thus tries to explain the γάρ: “Mit Recht sage ich: οὐπρὸς τὀν θεόν, denn vom Glauben, nicht von den Werken Abraham’s leitet die Schrift ausdrücklich seine Rechtfertigung her, und zwar als etwas durch Zurechnung Empfangenes.”—P. S.]

[21]According to Reiche, Abraham is the μὴ ἐργαζόμενος, the ἀσεβής; and this word alludes to the early idolatry of Abraham, which is described by Philo, Josephus, and Maimonides. Grotius, and others, have adopted the same opinion.

[22][This question of the Heidelberg Catechism, which was first published in 1563, contains one of the best statements of the evangelical doctrine of justification, and clearly brings out the positive element, which Tholuck wrongly dates from the Form of Concord of the year 1577. It reads thus: “How art thou righteous before God? Answer: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. That is: although my conscience accuse me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and that I am still prone always to all evil, yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me, if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.”—P. S.]

[23][This must refer to a former edition; for, in the 4th ed. of 1865, Meyer gives the preference to ἐστί: “Als das sich von selbst verstchende. Verbum wird am einfachsten ἐστί gedacht (vergl. Rom_2:9; Act_4:33, al.); weniger naheliegend: λέγεται aus Rom_5:6.—P. S.]

[24][The order of the words is simply rhetorical and euphonic, and gives no emphasis to σημεῖον. See Tholuck and Philippi.—P. S.]

[25][By a typographical mistake, the original, in the second as well as the first edition, reads Calvin, instead of Calovius, who was a fierce Lutheran polemic of the seventeenth century, and author of the Biblia illustrata, in refutation of the commentaries of Grotius.—P. S.]

[26][Abraham, אַכ הֲמוֹן גּויִם = אַכְרָהָם, father of a multitude, the new significant name given to Abram, אַבְרָם, i.e., father of elevation, high father, Gen_17:5; Gen_18:18.—P. S.]

[27][Lange makes a period after the quotation from Gen_17:5, and then translates: Angesichts [war’s] des Gottes, dem er Glauben hielt. He supplies ἐγένετο, and commences here a new paragraph. See his interpretation below.—P. S.]

[28][Or three, rather; but the third, which refers καγε͂ν to the effectual calling of unborn men by the Holy Spirit, and explains: “God calls to be His children those who were not children,” is entirely foreign to the context. It is strange that even the rationalistic Fritzsche explains: “homines nondum in lucem editos tamquam editos ad vitam æternam invitat.” Theἐκλογή and πρόγνωσις of God precedes the birth, but the κλῆσις only refers to living men.—P. S.]

[29] [Tholuck doubts that καλεῖν, קָרָא, ever means, to command, to dispose of; but comp. Psa_50:1; Isa_40:26; Isa_45:3; Isa_48:3. Meyer and Philippi quote two striking parallel passages from Philo, De Jos., p. 544, C., where he speaks of the imagination as forming τὰ μὴ ὅντα ὡς ὅντα, and Artemidor, i. 53, where it is said of the painter that he represents τὰ μὴ ὅντα ὡς ὅντα. To these quotations I may add the famous lines of Shakespeare on the creative power of the poet’s genius (Midsummer-Night’s Dream, Act v. Scene 1):

“The poet’s eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,

Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;

And, as imagination bodies forth

The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen

Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing

A local habitation and a name.”—P. S.]

[30][Stuart, Hodge, and Wordsworth take no notice of this important difference of reading. Alford brackets οὐ, but prefers it as being better suited to the context; the object being to extol Abraham’s faith. Omitting οὐ, the sense will be: “And not being weak in the faith, he was indeed well aware of,” &c., “but (δέ) did not stagger at the promise,” &c.; or, “although he was aware of,” &c., “yet did he not.” This agrees better with δέ in Rom_4:20; but we miss in this case μέν after κατενόησε. The dogmatic idea of the passage is well brought out by Calvin, who is followed by Philippi and Hodge. A similar obstruction of faith, as the one recorded of Abraham, Gen_17:17, occurred in the life of John the Baptist; Mat_11:2 ff.—P. S.]

[31][Meyer and Philippi take τῆ ἀπιοτία as an instrumental dative; τῆ πίστει as a dative of reference: “Er schwankle nicht Vermöge des Unglaubens (den er in diesem Fulle gehabt haben würde), sondern wurde stark am Glauben (den er hatte).—P. S.]

[32][Dr. Hodge, after quoting from Calvin, makes the following excellent remarks on πληροφορηθείς: “It is a very great error for men to suppose that to doubt is an evidence of humility. On the contrary, to doubt God’s promise, or His love, is to dishonor Him, because it is to question His word. Multitudes refuse to accept His grace, because they do not regard themselves as worthy, as though their worthiness were the ground on which that grace is offered. The thing to be believed, is, that God accepts the unworthy; that, for Christ’s sake, He justifies the unjust. Many find it far harder to believe that God can love them, notwithstanding their sinfulness, than the hundred-years-old patriarch did to believe that he should be the father of many nations. Confidence in God’s word, a full persuasion that He can do what seems to us impossible, is as necessary in the one case as in the other. The sinner honors God, in trusting His grace, as much as Abraham did, in trusting His power.”—P. S.]

[33][Bishop Horsley, as quoted by Alford and Wordsworth, takes διά, in the second clause, in the sense that Christ was raised because our justification had already been effected by the sacrifice of His death. But this is inconsistent with 1Co_15:17. Newman explains: because our justification is by the Second Comforter, whom the resurrection brought down from heaven.”—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 4

1. The Witness of Abraham to Justification. (Rom 4:1-5.)

2. As Confirmed also by David. (Rom 4:6-8.)

3. Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant. (Rom 4:9-12.)

4. Faith in Him Who Raiseth the Dead. (Rom 4:13-25.)

Rom 4:1-5

Two witnesses are summoned next in whose lives the truth of justification by faith is illustrated. The Jews boasted of Abraham as the father of their nation. “Abraham our father” is still the common phrase used by all orthodox Jews as it was in the days of John the Baptist, as he declared, “Say not within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father.” How then was Abraham counted righteous before God? Was he justified by keeping the law? That was impossible, for the law was 430 years after Abraham. He was not justified by works. He was a sinner like every other human being. He had no works to justify him. But what saith the Scripture? “Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Abraham simply believed God when He gave him a promise (Gen 15:5-6) and God said, you have no righteousness, but I take your faith instead of righteousness. Faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. There is then a difference between the righteousness of God in the previous chapter and the righteousness imputed in this chapter. And a blessed statement it is “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.” Abraham did not work. To him that worketh not, God reckons a reward. And what a reward. What God puts on the side of him, who believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, will only be fully known when redeemed sinners are in His presence. “The glory which Thou has given me I have given Them” (Joh 17:22). This wonderful utterance of our Lord tells us of the great reward in store for him that worketh not, who, as ungodly, believes on Christ, who died for the ungodly. Thus faith is reckoned for righteousness and has its reward of glory through grace. The statement in Gal 3:6-9 must be studied in connection with these verses. “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.” (In Galatians analyzed and annotated this statement is more fully explained.)

Rom 4:6-8

And David is the second witness. David and Abraham are mentioned in the first verse of the New Testament. The covenant God made with Abraham and with David make these two men the leading men of the nation. Now Abraham had no law, but David was under the law. David describeth the blessedness of the man (whosoever he may be) to whom God imputes the righteousness without works. The beautiful 32nd Psalm is quoted. The blessedness of the believer is there described. Iniquities forgiven; sins covered; sin no longer imputed. He does not impute sin, but imputes righteousness. Forgiveness takes the place of sin, and everlasting righteousness has covered the believer’s iniquity, hiding it alike from the eyes of Divine glory, and from the conscience of the justified vessel of His grace; and significantly it is stated in that Psalm “for this cause shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee in the time when Thou mayest be found.” This is the way to be godly, confessing ourself a sinner, confessing sin and believing on Him, who justifieth the ungodly.

Rom 4:9-12

The question of circumcision is raised again. The Jew boasted in circumcision as placing him into a position of favor and blessing before God. Is this blessedness, justification by faith, sins put away, righteousness imputed, for the circumcision, the Jews, only, or does it come also upon the uncircumcision, the Gentiles? When Abraham was declared righteous he was still in uncircumcision. The historical account in Genesis shows that circumcision followed the declaration “he believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness;” circumcision did not precede his faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness. He was in uncircumcision, practically a Gentile, and circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. All this manifests the wisdom of God. It was divinely arranged so that Abraham “might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised (Gentiles) that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which he had being uncircumcised.” Here we have the best possible argument that ordinances, or sacraments so called by man, have no part in bestowing salvation upon man. Baptism is called “a sacrament” and ritualistic Christians hold that it is necessary to receive the blessing of forgiveness. Others who do not hold to corrupt ritualism, also teach that Baptism as an ordinance is necessary for salvation. This portion of the Epistle answers completely these unscriptural claims. “For by Grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9).

Rom 4:13-25

This section is of deep interest and must be carefully studied. While we had the atoning death of Christ so far before us, resurrection is now brought to the foreground as another important fact of the Gospel. The faith of Abraham is defined. How did he believe? When the promise was given that he should have a son and numerous offspring (Gen 15:4-5), he believed God, who quickeneth the dead (resurrection) and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Abraham was an old man and Sarah was far beyond the time of childbirth; their case was humanly impossible. But Abraham believed that God could bring life from the dead, that He had the power to touch a grave and bring life out of it. “Against hope he believed in hope--and being not weak in faith he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb; he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that what He had promised, He was able to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” From Genesis we know that he was also weak in faith and that he acted in unbelief. But this is graciously passed by. God, so to speak, had forgotten his unbelief and remembered it no more.

The application of all this is found in Rom 4:23-25. The promised seed was more than Isaac, it was Christ; so that Abraham believed the God who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. And we believe on Him also. Our Lord was delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification. His resurrection is the blessed and positive proof that our sins are completely put away. For this reason the resurrection of Jesus, our Lord, is the justification of the believer. We have then a threefold justification of the believer. We are justified by His blood; He bore our guilt and penalty. We are justified by His resurrection, because this assures us that the work is done and we are accepted, and we are justified by faith, which is reckoned for righteousness.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 3:31; Romans 4

A Crucial Case.

I. It was by his faith Abraham was justified, not by his works of obedience. Paul’s proof of this is very simple. He finds a remarkable proof-text ready to his hand in Gen 15:16. On God’s side there was simply a word announcing the promises of His grace; on the man’s side simply a devout and childlike reliance upon that word. God asked no more; and the man had no more to give. His mere trust in God the Promiser was held to be adequate as a ground for that sinful man’s acceptance into favour, friendship, and league with the eternal Jehovah.

II. Abraham was justified by his faith, not as a circumcised man, but as an uncircumcised. It lies in the very idea of acceptance through faith, that wherever faith is present there God will accept the sinner apart from every other circumstance, such as nationality, or an external rite, or Church privilege, or the like. If faith saves a man, then faith must save every man who has it. Abraham was a justified man as soon as he was a believer, not as soon as he was circumcised. And the design of such an arrangement was to make him the true type and spiritual progenitor of all believers. The only people whom his experience fails to embrace are those Jews who are circumcised but not believing, who trust in their lineage and in their covenant badge and their keeping of the law, expecting to be saved for their meritorious observance of prescribed rules, but who in the free and gracious promises of Abraham’s God put no trust at all.

III. It turns out now that, instead of St. Paul being an apostate or disloyal Jew for admitting believing Gentiles to an equal place in the favour of Israel’s God, it is his self-righteous countryman, who monopolises Divine grace, and will have no Gentile to be saved unless he has first become a circumcised observer of Moses’ law, that is really false to the original idea of the Abrahamic covenant. All who have faith, whatever their race, are blessed with faithful Abraham; and he, says Paul, writing to a Gentile Church, is the father of us all.

J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 99.

References: Rom 3:31.—Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 25. 3—Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 215. Rom 4:1-9.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 249. Rom 4:3.—J. G. Rogers, Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 121. Rom 4:6-9.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 248. Rom 4:7.—Ibid., p. 248. Rom 4:9.—Ibid., p. 258. Rom 4:9-11.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. vi., p. 10.

Rom 4:11

The Call of Abraham.

Mark some characteristics of the faith of Abraham.

I. It is the faith not which conceives great things and works for them, but which places itself as an instrument in God’s hands and lets Him work through it. It is the faith of martyrs, of men who have not seen that they were doing anything heroic, anything that would change the course of history, only that they were doing their duty, doing it as they could not choose but do. The greatest movers of mankind have felt and delighted to feel that they were being used; that they spoke and acted because they must; that they were working out another’s purpose—a purpose larger than their own.

II. It was the faith which was specially suited to him who was to be the father of the chosen people—the father in a yet larger sense of all that believe. It was the faith which could wait through long generations, clinging still to the promise, though so dimly understood, of great blessing for the race, and through it for mankind, content in the meantime to suffer if it must be, to wander in the wilderness, to be as a little flock among wolves, to be trampled down, carried into captivity, the faith growing ever brighter in times of darkest calamity, and more assured, more spiritual. It was the faith which could receive God’s gradual revelation of Himself and of His purposes; the open ear which in each age would meet God’s voice as Samuel met it—"Speak, Lord, for Thy servant heareth"; for ever learning, seeing one interpretation after another of ancient prophecies fail and pass away, yet waiting, listening, receiving, till the full satisfaction came, till the consolation of Israel dawned on it. Remember that the call of Abraham was the beginning of true religion in the world—of religion with a hope, a progress. Every new book of the Bible marks an onward movement.

III. This faith of Abraham—the faith which acts upon a trusted voice, which does not need to see its way even with the eye of imagination, which takes God at His word and waits His time—is the faith which is not beyond our imitation, and which, if we will, may be the hope and stay of our own lives.

E. C. Wickham, Wellington College Sermons, p. 15.

References: Rom 4:13.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 84. Rom 4:16.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1347; Homilist, new series, vol. iii., p. 177; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ix., p. 338. Rom 4:17.—Fraser, Ibid., vol. vii., p. 105. Rom 4:18, Rom 4:19.—Expositor, 1st series, vol. ix., pp. 215, 392. Rom 4:19-21.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 733. Rom 4:19-22.—W. Hubbard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 26. Rom 4:20.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1367; Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 79; R. S. Candlish, Sermons, p. 105.

Rom 4:20-21

Religious faith Rational.

To hear some men speak (I mean men who scoff at religion), it might be thought we never acted on faith and trust except in religious matters, whereas we are acting on trust every hour of our lives. When faith is said to be a religious principle it is the things believed, not the act of believing them, which is peculiar to religion.

I. It is obvious that we trust to our memory. We do not now witness what we saw yesterday, yet we have no doubt it took place in the way we remember. Again, when we use reasoning, and are convinced of anything by reasoning, what is it but that we trust the general soundness of our reasoning powers? And observe that we continually trust our memories and our reasoning powers in this way, though they often deceive us. This is worth observing, because it is sometimes said that we cannot be certain that our faith in religion is not a mistake. In all practical matters we are obliged to dwell upon not what may be possibly, but what is likely to be. When we come to examine the subject, it will be found that, strictly speaking, we know little more than that we exist, and that there is an unseen power whom we are bound to obey. Beyond this we must trust; and first our senses, memory, and reasoning powers; then other authorities; so that, in fact, almost all we do every day of our lives is on trust, i.e., faith.

II. It is easy to show that, even considering faith in the sense of reliance on the words of another, it is no irrational or strange principle of conduct in the concerns of this life. For when we consider the subject attentively, how few things there are which we can ascertain for ourselves by our own senses and reason! After all, what do we know without trusting others? The world could not go on without trust. Distrust, want of faith, breaks the very bonds of human society. Now then, shall we account it only rational for a man, when he is ignorant, to believe his fellow-man, nay, to yield to another’s judgment as better than his own, and yet think it against reason when one, like Abraham, gives ear to the word of God, and sets the promise of God above his own short-sighted expectation? If we but obey God strictly, in time faith will become like sight: we shall have no more difficulty in finding what will please God than in moving our limbs, or in understanding the conversation of our familiar friends. This is the blessedness of confirmed obedience.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. i., p. 190.

References: Rom 4:21.—Silver, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 397. Rom 4:22.—J. Irons, Ibid., vol. xi., p. 161. Rom 4:23-25.—W. Hubbard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 42.

Rom 4:25

Christ Risen our Justification.

I. These two gifts of our Lord, Atonement and Justification, are laid down by St. Paul distinctly as the fruits of His death and His resurrection. "Who was delivered for our offences," to atone for them; "was raised again for our justification," to justify us. What Christ purchased for us by His death He giveth us through His life. It is our living Lord who imparts to us the fruits of His own death. He hath the keys of death and hell by virtue of His life from death. As truly, then, as the death of Christ was the true remission of our sins, though not yet imparted to us, so truly was His resurrection our true justification, imparting to us the efficacy of His death and justifying us, or making us righteous in the sight of God.

II. The joy and gift of our Easter festival is our risen Lord Himself. To the Church it is yearly true, "The Lord hath risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." Before, all was laid up for us, but we had it not. By the resurrection is the gift of the Spirit and engrafting into Him; by it is forgiveness of sin, and removal of punishment, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, and adoption as sons and brotherhood with Christ, yea, oneness with Him, and eternal inheritance, because all these are in Him, and by it we become partakers of Him and of all which is His. Yea, this is the bliss of our festivals, that they not only shadow out a likeness and conformity between the Head and the members, our Redeemer and us on whom His name is called, but there is through the power of His Cross and resurrection a real inworked conformity, a substance and reality. "Whatever," says St. Augustine, "was wrought in the Cross of Christ, in His burial, in His resurrection on the third day, in His ascension into heaven and sitting down at the right hand of the Father, was so wrought, that by these actions, not words only, of mystical meaning, should be figured out the Christian life enacted here below. We have been made partakers of His precious death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, for where He is, there are we, in pledge and earnest, if we be His; thence He looks down upon us, fixing our failing eyes to look up to Him; thence, by the secret sympathy between the Head and the members, He draws us upward with longing to be like Him: the firstfruits of our spirit are already there; and He is with us, raising what yet lingereth here; we are with Him there, since, if we be His, we are in Him; He is with us here, for by His Spirit He dwelleth in us, if we love Him."

E. B. Pusey, Sermons, vol. i., p. 214.

Rom 4:25

These words are the answer to the question which would naturally arise from the perusal of the history of the death and passion of Jesus Christ. "He was delivered on account of our offences." Men’s sins were the cause of the sufferings and death of the sinless Son of God.

I. We read the history of those awful hours during which was transacted the mighty work of a world’s redemption, and we are moved with indignation against the various actors in the melancholy scene. But, after all, and without at all extenuating their guilt, these were not the real crucifiers of the Lord of life, or, if they were, it was but as instruments, free indeed, and therefore responsible instruments, but only instruments by whom a death was inflicted, whose cause lay far deeper than their malice or their fears. Without this course the rage of His enemies would have been impotent against the Son of God. For each one of us, for our own individual sins, that sacrifice was offered on the cross. Our waywardness, our rebellion, our acts of injustice, or dishonesty, our false, profane, angry, and slanderous words, these were the crucifiers of the Son of God.

II. If our sins were the cause of Christ’s suffering, the emotions which should be awakened in our breast should surely be: (1) A fear of sin. With the awful and mysterious declaration of the text before our eyes, what possible hope of escape can we have if we continue in sin? (2) Another habitual feeling which the great truth of the text should leave in our hearts is a hatred for sin. Many reasons have we, indeed, to hate sin, for it is the degradation of our race, the cause of all our sufferings, and the peril of our everlasting future; and the more we are taught by God’s Spirit to see the beauty of holiness, and to love the just and the pure and the true, the more we shall hate sin for its own sake, its moral deformity, and its enmity to God and to good. (3) But while fear and hatred of sin should accompany a belief in the atonement, the truth should be embraced by a trusting and cheerful faith. The mysterious greatness of the sacrifice offered when Christ suffered magnifies the Divine justice and the guilt of sin. It also demonstrates the infinitude of God’s mercy. (4) The atonement thus embraced by faith should be the root and spring of a loving obedience. The highest conceivable instance of God’s love, it should enkindle in our hearts the love of God.

Bishop Jackson, Penny Pulpit, No. 354.

I. How was it possible to make men feel that they are something quite different from brute beasts, that they were not animals, clever and more cunning than all other animals, that might is not right, self-control not a folly? Or how is it possible to prove that man is not a mere perishing animal that dies, and then there is an end of him? The world of Greece and Rome had come to the blank conclusion that there was no hope, no life worth living. There are plenty of people living now who have inherited instincts from centuries of Christian forefathers, and who are still influenced by Christian customs and traditions, and thus go on as they have been used to do, but who live in blank hopelessness as to the future. How shall it be possible to prove to them now that in every soul of man is the imperishableness of the Divine? Philosophy cannot do it—it is simply silent. Science cannot do it—it is outside her province. Read the philosophies of the would-be philosophers, and you will despair, as centuries ago men despaired. They do not touch the greater hope. And so there sets in the struggle of the day between all the now long-inherited Christian instincts of the race, all the unsuppressed divinely given instincts of the man, against the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

II. In this struggle we need a reinforcement of power. It is to be found in the truths of which Good Friday and Easter are the witnesses. Christ died that there might be no part of our experience peculiar to ourselves, that He might show that He was very man. He rose to show that death was not the end of all things; and He went into heaven that He might show by His visible rising what will in some form happen also to us. And all for this reason, and to teach us for ever that the interval is bridged over completely from man to God. This vast interval He traversed twice: He came down from God to man, He went up from man to God. He was Himself and is Himself, God and man. The chain is complete from heaven to earth. Since Christ came man knows that he is not a mere animal—he is by his affinities Divine. He walks the earth a new creature. See, says the history of Jesus Christ, the chain is already complete that connects man with God. If the chain reaches down till its lower end is lost in molecular forces, it reaches up till its upper end is lost in the glory of the throne of God, and in the Divine person of Jesus Christ, who has shown us the perfection of God.

J. M. Wilson, Sermons in Clifton College Chapel, p. 155.

References: Rom 4:25.—Clergyman’s Magazine, new series, vol. ii., p. 213; Bishop Moorhouse, Church of England Pulpit, vol. i., p. 108.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 2. (Rom 4:1-12.)

Witness of the Old Testament to justification by faith.

The apostle, not satisfied with this, turns round upon the Jew, and asks, Has he read carefully those precious books which God has given him? Of whose history ought he to know more than that of Abraham his father? With whose writings ought he to be more familiar than with those of David, Israel’s sweet psalmist? Yet God has given His testimony as to that principle of faith to which he demurs, right there where the eyes of His people would be most constantly directed! What a reproof of legality, coming from such a quarter! For us also, what a warning as to truths which nay be under our eyes in the pages of Scripture, which yet we have never seen there! not because they are not plainly to be read, but because our eyes have been dimmed by unbelief and worldly prejudice and pride of heart, as Israel’s were! May we seek to have all films of this sort purged away. Were every veil removed, how would the glory of Scripture break upon us!

1. The first witness which the apostle brings from the Old Testament books is complete in itself: it is in fact that of God Himself, and in connection with him whom they all acknowledged as under God the head of blessing for them. Were they to be blessed in another way than Abraham? Forefather he was according to the flesh, and the claim they had to him in this way they pressed to its full extent. Be it so: to them then, above all, should the lessons of his history have significance. How then was Abraham justified before God? They might plead perhaps his separation of himself from all that had natural claim upon him, in order to walk as a stranger in a land which, though God had promised it to him, he never got in possession. Was he then justified by works whose merit the rabbinical teachers so constantly brought forward? It is in fact just here that God had interposed with a remarkable and precise statement. If Abraham were indeed justified by works, then plainly he has something in which to glory; but, adds the apostle, "not before God." He has told us already that "by works of law shall no flesh be justified before Him;" Abraham cannot therefore be an exception: but in his case Scripture itself can be appealed to; the head of the people to whom the law was given was in the wisdom of God chosen to have a specific testimony, not merely of his being righteous before God, but also as to the ground of it: it is distinctly declared that "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness." This then was his justification; but it was not work of any kind that was reckoned to him for this: it was his faith; the principle of his justification is distinctly recorded for us in the Word to have been faith, not works.

This is the only example explicitly announced in the Old Testament of a person justified by faith; but here it takes precedence, as the apostle reminds us in Galatians, of any legal announcement whatever. Faith being reckoned for righteousness is clearly the same as being justified (or declared righteous) by faith. Faith is the ground upon which he is reckoned righteous. There being no actual righteousness to be found among men, God declares what he can accept as putting one among the righteous. He does not and cannot say that it is actual righteousness; which yet He must have indeed, but which man cannot furnish. For this He must look elsewhere, and we know, thank God, where He has found it. But here He simply declares what on man’s part He can take as evincing that. How beautiful an announcement it is, at so early a time, and in relation to such a person! How completely is law set aside in this, although it is not a general announcement as yet, but only as to an individual. Still how easy for one realizing his need, one might think, to make the inference. For those to whom Abraham was to be a covenant head of promise, how striking a figure should he be! But the apostle goes on to enforce still further the contrast between the principles which he has been comparing: "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt." And the greatness of the reward does not alter the principle involved: if you buy heaven cheap, still you buy it. "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."

Here the meaning of grace is brought out in the clearest way: God justifieth the ungodly; if it be through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus -through the Cross -then it is plain that the Cross is penalty for sin; it is not even for the comparatively righteous. But if God justifieth the ungodly, what work have I to do to be "ungodly?" And further, if I believe that He justifieth the ungodly, it will be part of the evidence that I believe this, that I drop all working to find justification at His hands. Here is the man whose faith is reckoned for righteousness.

There can be no possible mixture of contradictory things. The character and the quantity of work are not at all in question. "Worketh not" suits exactly, and only suits, a justification of the ungodly. And here also the grace of God acquires its power to subdue the soul to God, and win the feet from every evil way.

It is faith that is the true worker for God, as it is grace that breaks the dominion of sin. To modify grace is to destroy its power; to balance faith with works is to make men workers for themselves instead of God, and thus destroy that very fruitfulness of faith which it is desired to secure. The law-gospel is neither law nor gospel.

2. The apostle passes for the moment from Abraham to David. David also speaks of "the blessedness of him to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works;" and Paul quotes as to this what is significantly the first "maskil" psalm or "psalm of instruction." The blessedness is of them whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord will in no wise reckon sin. This is indeed the beginning of instruction when we have learned this lesson. And the psalmist gives it us as the personal experience which we know it was for him: while he kept silence, his bones waxed old through his roaring all the day long; he confessed his sin to God, and did not bide his iniquities; nay, but said, "I will confess my transgression to the Lord;" and divine grace anticipated even the confession (Psa 32:1-11, see notes).

This is not all; for presently we find that this is no exceptional mercy to a David; nor again is there any who has no need of such a confession, and such mercy as is here shown. Nay, for "for this cause shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee in a time when Thou mayest be found." He therefore who has never known this way of drawing near to God is not the godly but the ungodly! such is the need of grace on the part of all!

3. The apostle turns back again to Abraham, to raise another question very important to the Jew. This blessedness then, which is of grace and to sinners, can circumcision give a claim to it which the uncircumcised have not? Well, look once more at the history: faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness; when was it reckoned then? in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? How overwhelming an answer in the simple fact to all the high and exclusive claims made by the Jew! His own father Abraham was an uncircumcised man when he possessed the faith by which he was justified, and of that faith circumcision, the sign of God’s covenant with him, was the seal! As to Abraham none could deny that circumcision could not contribute to that righteousness which was his before it, and that to get his argument, the Jew must invert the facts of history. Standing as they do, Abraham appears as the father of all that believe, although uncircumcised, that God may consistently reckon righteousness to them also, and the father of circumcision (the one in whom began that separation to God implied in it) to those who not merely had the mark in the flesh, but who also walked in the steps of that faith of their father Abraham which he had while yet uncircumcised.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 10

ABRAHAM AND DAVID

Rom_4:1-12

THE Jewish disputant is present still to the Apostles thought. It could not be otherwise in this argument. No question was more pressing on the Jewish mind than that of Acceptance; thus far, truly, the teaching and discipline of the Old Testament had not been in vain. And St. Paul had not only, in his Christian Apostleship, debated that problem countless times with Rabbinic combatants; he had been himself a Rabbi, and knew by experience alike the misgivings of the Rabbinists conscience, and the subterfuges of his reasoning.

So now there rises before him the great name of Abraham, as a familiar watchword of the controversy of Acceptance. He has been contending for an absolutely inclusive verdict of "guilty" against man, against every man. He has been shutting with all his might the doors of thought against human "boasting," against the least claim of man to have merited his acceptance. Can he carry this principle into quite impartial issues? Can he, a Jew in presence of Jews, apply it without apology, without reserve, to "the Friend of God" himself? What will he say to that majestic Example of man? His name itself sounds like a claim to almost worship. As he moves across the scene of Genesis, we-even we Gentiles-rise up as it were in reverent homage, honouring this figure at once so real and so near to the ideal; marked by innumerable lines of individuality, totally unlike the composed picture of legend or poem, yet walking with God Himself in a personal intercourse so habitual, so tranquil, so congenial. Is this a name to becloud with the assertion that here, as everywhere, acceptance was hopeless but for the clemency of God "gift-wise, without deeds of law"? Was not at least Abraham accepted because he was morally worthy of acceptance? And if Abraham, then surely, in abstract possibility, others also. There must be a group of men, small or large, there is at least one man, who can "boast" of his peace with God.

On the other hand, if with Abraham it was not thus, then the inference is easy to all other men. Who but he is called "the Friend?" {Isa_41:8} Moses himself, the almost deified Lawgiver, is but"the Servant," trusted, intimate, honoured in a sublime degree by his eternal Master. But he is never called "the Friend." That peculiar title seems to preclude altogether the question of a legal acceptance. Who thinks of his friend as one whose relation to him needs to be good in law at all? The friend stands as it were behind law, or above it, in respect of his fellow. He holds a relation implying personal sympathies, identity of interests, contact of thought and will, not an anxious previous settlement of claims, and remission of liabilities. If then the Friend of the Eternal Judge proves, nevertheless, to have needed Justification, and to have received it by the channel not of his personal worth but of the grace of God, there will be little hesitation about other mens need, and the way by which alone other men shall find it met.

In approaching this great example, for such it will prove to be, St. Paul is about to illustrate all the main points of his inspired argument. By the way, by implication, he gives us the all-important fact that even an Abraham, even "the Friend," did need justification somehow. Such is the Eternal Holy One that no man can walk by His side and live, no, not in the path of inmost "friendship," without an acceptance before His face as He is Judge. Then again, such is He, that even an Abraham found this acceptance, as a matter of fact, not by merit but by faith; not by presenting himself, but by renouncing himself, and taking God for all; by pleading not, "I am worthy," but, "Thou art faithful." It is to be shown that Abrahams justification was such that it gave him not the least ground for self-applause; it was not in the least degree based on merit. It was "of grace, not of debt." A promise of sovereign kindness. connected with the redemption of himself, and of the world, was made to him. He was not morally worthy of such a promise, if only because he was not morally perfect. And he was, humanly speaking, physically incapable of it. But God offered Himself freely to Abraham, in His promise; and Abraham opened the empty arms of personal reliance to receive the unearned gift. Had he stayed first to earn it he would have shut it out; he would have closed his arms. Rightly renouncing himself, because seeing and trusting his gracious God, the sight of whose holy glory annihilates the idea of mans claims. he opened his arms, and the God of peace filled the Void. The man received his Gods approval, because he interposed nothing of his own to intercept it.

From one point of view, the all-important viewpoint here, it mattered not what Abrahams conduct had been. As a fact, he was already devout when the incident of Gen. 15 occurred. But he was also actually a sinner; that is made quite plain by Gen. 12, the very chapter of the Call. And potentially, according to Scripture, he was a great sinner; for he was an instance of the human heart. But this, while it constituted Abrahams urgent need of acceptance, was not in the least a barrier to his acceptance, when he turned from himself, in the great crisis of absolute faith, and accepted God in His promise.

The principle of the acceptance of "the Friend" was identically that which underlies the acceptance of the most flagrant transgressor. As St. Paul will soon remind us, David in the guilt of his murderous adultery, and Abraham in the grave walk of his worshipping obedience, stand upon the same level here. Actually or potentially, each is a great sinner. Each turns from himself, unworthy, to God in His promise. And the promise is his, not because his hand is full of merit, but because it is empty of himself.

It is true that Abrahams justification, unlike Davids, is not explicitly connected in the narrative with a moral crisis of his soul. He is not depicted, in Gen. 15, as a conscious penitent, flying from justice to the Judge. But is there not a deep suggestion that something not unlike this did then pass over him, and through him? That short assertion, that "he trusted the Lord, and he counted it to Him for righteousness," is an anomaly in the story, if it has not a spiritual depth hidden in it. Why, just then and there, should we be told this about his acceptance with God? Is it not because the vastness of the promise had made the man see in contrast the absolute failure of a corresponding merit in himself? Job {Job_42:1-6} was brought to self-despairing penitence not by the fires of the Law but by the glories of Creation. Was not Abraham brought to the same consciousness, whatever form it may have taken in his character and period, by the greater glories of the Promise? Surely it was there and then that he learnt that secret of self-rejection in favour of God which is the other side of all true faith, and which came out long years afterwards, in its mighty issues of "work," when he laid Isaac on the altar.

It is true, again, that Abrahams faith, his justifying reliance, is not connected in the narrative with any articulate expectation of an atoning Sacrifice. But here first we dare to say, even at the risk of that formidable charge, an antique and obsolete theory of the Patriarchal creed, that probably Abraham knew much more about the Coming One than a modern critique will commonly allow. "He rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad". {Joh_8:56} And further, the faith which justifies, though what it touches in fact is the blessed Propitiation, or rather God in the Propitiation, does not always imply an articulate knowledge of the whole "reason of the hope." It assuredly implies a true submission to all that the believer knows of the revelation of that reason. But he may (by circumstances) know very little of it, and yet be a believer. The saint who prayed {Psa_143:2} "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, O Lord, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified," cast himself upon a God who, being absolutely holy, yet can somehow, just as He is, justify the sinner. Perhaps he knew much of the reason of Atonement, as it lies in Gods mind, and as it is explained, as it is demonstrated, in the Cross. But perhaps he did not. What he did was to cast himself up to the full light he had, "without one plea," upon his Judge, as a man awfully conscious of his need, and trusting only in a sovereign mercy, which must also be a righteous, a law honouring mercy, because it is the mercy of the Righteous Lord.

Let us not be mistaken, meanwhile, as if such words meant that a definite creed of the Atoning Work is not possible, or is not precious. This Epistle will help us to such a creed, and so will Galatians, and Hebrews, and Isaiah, and Leviticus, and the whole Scripture. "Prophets and kings desired to see the things we see, and did not see them". {Luk_10:24} But that is no reason why we should not adore the mercy that has unveiled to us the Cross and the blessed Lamb.

But it is time to come to the Apostles words as they stand.

What then shall we say that Abraham has found-"has found," the perfect tense of abiding and always significant fact-"has found," in his great discovery of divine peace-our forefather according to the flesh? "According to the flesh"; that is to say, (having regard to the prevailing moral use of the word "flesh" in this Epistle,) "in respect of self," "in the region of his own works and merits." For if Abraham was justified as a result of works, he has a boast; he has a right to self-applause. Yes, such is the principle indicated here; if man merits, man is entitled to self-applause. May we not say, in passing, that the common instinctive sense of the moral discord of self-applause, above all in spiritual things, is one among many witnesses to the truth of our justification by faith only? But St. Paul goes on; ah, but not towards God; not when even an Abraham looks Him in the face, and sees himself in that Light. As if to say, "If he earned justification, he might have boasted rightly; but rightful boasting, when man sees God, is a thing unthinkable; therefore his justification was given, not earned." For what says the Scripture, the passage, the great text? {Gen_15:6} "Now Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to the man who works, his reward, his earned requital, is not reckoned grace-wise, as a gift of generosity, but debt-wise; it is to the man who does not work, but believes, confides, in Him who justifies the ungodly one, that "his faith is reckoned as righteousness." "The ungodly one"; as if to bring out by an extreme case the glory of the wonderful paradox. "The ungodly" is undoubtedly a word intense and dark; it means not the sinner only, but the open, defiant sinner. Every human heart is capable of such sinfulness, for "the heart is deceitful above all things." In this respect, as we have seen, in the potential respect, even an Abraham is a great sinner. But there are indeed "sinners and sinners," in the experiences of life; and St. Paul is ready now with a conspicuous example of the justification of one who was truly, at one miserable period, by his own fault, "an ungodly one."

"Thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme". {2Sa_12:14} He had done so indeed. The faithful photography of the Scriptures shows us David, the chosen, the faithful, the man of spiritual experiences, acting out his lustful look in adultery, and half covering his adultery with the most base of constructive murders, and then, for long months, refusing to repent. Yet was David justified: "I have sinned against the Lord"; "The Lord also hath put away thy sin." He turned from his awfully ruined self to God, and at once he received remission. Then, and to the last, he was chastised. But then and there he was unreservedly justified, and with a justification which made him sing a loud beatitude.

Just as David too speaks his felicitation of the man (and it was himself) to whom God reckons righteousness irrespective of works, "Happy they whose iniquities have been remitted, and whose sins have been covered; happy the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin". {Psa_32:1-2} Wonderful words, in the context of the experience out of which they spring! A human soul which has greatly transgressed, and which knows it well, and knows too that to the end it will suffer a sore discipline because of it, for example and humiliation, nevertheless knows its pardon, and knows it as a happiness indescribable. The iniquity has been "lifted"; the sin has been "covered," has been struck out of the book of "reckoning," written by the Judge. The penitent will never forgive himself: in this very Psalm he tears from his sin all the covering woven by his own heart. But his God has given him remission, has reckoned him as one who has not sinned, so far as access to Him and peace with Him are in question. And so his song of shame and penitence begins with a beatitude, and ends with a cry of joy.

We pause to note the exposition implied here of the phrase, "to reckon righteousness." It is to treat the man as one whose account is clear. "Happy the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin." In the phrase itself, "to reckon righteousness" (as in its Latin equivalent, "to impute righteousness"), the question, what clears the account, is not answered. Suppose the impossible case of a record kept absolutely clear by the mans own sinless goodness; then the "reckoned," the "imputed, righteousness" would mean the Laws contentment with him on his own merits. But the context of human sin fixes the actual reference to an "imputation" which means that the awfully defective record is treated, for a divinely valid reason, as if it were, what it is not, good. The man is at peace with his Judge, though he has sinned, because the Judge has joined him to Himself, and taken up his liability, and answered for it to His own Law. The man is dealt with as righteous, being a sinner, for his glorious Redeemers sake. It is pardon, but more than pardon. It is no mere indulgent dismissal; it is a welcome as of the worthy to the embrace of the Holy One.

Such is the Justification of God. We shall need to remember it through the whole course of the Epistle. To make Justification a mere synonym for Pardon is always inadequate. Justification is the contemplation and treatment of the penitent sinner, found in Christ, as righteous, as satisfactory to the Law, not merely as one whom the Law lets go. Is this a fiction? Not at all. It is vitally linked to two great spiritual facts. One is, that the sinners Friend has Himself dealt, in the sinners interests, with the Law, honouring its holy claim to the uttermost under the human conditions which He freely undertook. The other is that he has mysteriously, but really, joined the sinner to Himself, in faith, by the Spirit; joined him to Himself as limb, as branch, as bride. Christ and His disciples are really One in the order of spiritual life. And so the community between Him and them is real, the community of their debt on the one side, of His merit on the other.

Now again comes up the question, never far distant in St. Pauls thought, and in his life, what these facts of Justification have to do with Gentile sinners. Here is David blessing God for his unmerited acceptance, an acceptance by the way wholly unconnected with the ritual of the altar. Here above all is Abraham, "justified in consequence of faith." But David was a child of the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham was the father of that covenant. Do not their justifications speak only to those who stand, with them, inside that charmed circle? Was not Abraham justified by faith plus circumcision? Did not the faith act only because he was already one of the privileged? This felicitation therefore, this cry of "Happy are the freely justified," is it upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision? For we say that to Abraham, with an emphasis on "Abraham," his faith was reckoned as righteousness. The question, he means, is legitimate, "for" Abraham is not at first sight a case in point for the justification of the outside world, the non-privileged races of man. But consider: How then was it reckoned? To Abraham in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision; fourteen years at least had to pass before the covenant rite came in. And he received the sign of circumcision (with a stress upon "sign," as if to say that the "thing," the reality signed, was his already), as a seal on the righteousness of the faith that was in his uncircumcision, a seal on the acceptance which he received, antecedent to all formal privilege, in that bare hand of faith. And all this was so, and was recorded so, with a purpose of far-reaching significance: that he might be father, exemplar, representative, of all who believe notwithstanding uncircumcision, that to them righteousness should be reckoned; and father of circumcision, exemplar and representative within its circle also, for those who do not merely belong to circumcision, but for those who also step in the track of the uncircumcision-faith of our father Abraham.

So privilege had nothing to do with acceptance, except to countersign the grant of a grace absolutely free. The Seal did nothing whatever to make the Covenant. It only verified the fact, and guaranteed the bona fides of the Giver. As the Christian Sacraments are, so was the Patriarchal Sacrament; it was "a sure testimony and effectual sign of Gods grace and good will." But the grace and the good will come not through the Sacrament as through a medium, but straight from God to the man who took God at His word. "The means whereby he received," the mouth with which he fed upon the celestial food, "was faith." The rite came not between the man and his accepting Lord, but as it were was present at the side to assure him with a physical concurrent fact that all was true. "Nothing between" was the law of the great transaction; nothing, not even a God-given ordinance; nothing but the empty arms receiving the Lord Himself; -and empty arms indeed put "nothing between."

The following is extracted from the Commentary on this Epistle in "The Cambridge Bible" (p. 261): "[What shall we say to] the verbal discrepancy between St. Pauls explicit teaching that a man is justified by faith without works, and St. James equally explicit teaching that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? With only the New Testament before us, it is hard not to assume that the one Apostle has in view some distortion of the doctrine of the other. But the fact (see Lightfoots Galatians, detached note to chap. 3) that Abrahams faith was a staple Rabbinic text alters the case, by making it perfectly possible that St. James (writing to members of the Jewish Dispersion) had not Apostolic but Rabbinic teaching in view. And the line such teaching took is indicated by Jam_2:19, where an example is given of the faith in question; and that example is concerned wholly with the grand point of strictly Jewish orthodoxy-GOD IS ONE. The persons addressed [were thus those whose] idea of faith was not trustful acceptance, a belief of the heart, but orthodox adherence, a belief of the head. And St. James [took] these persons strictly on their own ground, and assumed, for his argument, their own very faulty account of faith to be correct."

"He would thus be proving the point, equally dear to St. Paul, that mere theoretic orthodoxy, apart from effects on the will, is valueless. He would not, in the remotest degree, be disputing the Pauline doctrine that the guilty soul is put into a position of acceptance with the Father only by vital connection with the Son, and that this connection is effectuated, absolutely and alone, not by personal merit, but by trustful acceptance of the Propitiation and its all-sufficient vicarious merit. From such trustful acceptance works (in the profoundest sense) will inevitably follow; not as antecedents but as consequents of justification. And thus it is faith alone which justifies; but the faith which justifies can never be alone."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

4:1 Jews in Paul’s day revered Abraham as Israel’s founder. Some Jewish texts claim that Abraham never sinned (Prayer of Manasseh 8; Jubilees 23:10). Others emphasize his obedience to the law of Moses as the basis for his relationship with God (1 Maccabees 2:52; Sirach 44:19-20). However, Paul demonstrates that Abraham’s faith, not his obedience, established his status with God. Abraham’s position as the founder of God’s people demonstrates that justification by faith is central in God’s plan.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 4:1. Τί ʼοὖν, what then) He proves from the example of Abraham; 1, That justification is of grace [gratuitous]; 2, That it has been provided for the Gentiles also, Rom 4:9.—τὸν πατέρα ἠμῶν, our father) [This, viz., his being our father, constitutes] the foundation of the consequence derived from Abraham to us.—εὑρηκέναι, hath found) It is applied to something new Heb 9:12 [Engl. Vers., having obtained; but εὑράμενος, having found]; and Paul intimates, that the way of faith is older than Abraham; and that Abraham, in whom the separation from the Gentiles by circumcision took place, was the first from whom, if from any one, an example seemed capable of being adduced in favour of works; and yet he, at the same time shows, that this very example [instance] is much more decisive in favour of faith; and so he finally confirms by examples, what he had already established by arguments.—κατὰ σάρκα, according [as pertaining, Engl. Vers.] to the flesh. Abraham is nowhere called our father according to the flesh. Therefore, it [the clause, according to the flesh] is not construed with father; for the expression according to the flesh, is added in mentioning the fathers, only when the apostle is speaking of Christ, ch. Rom 9:5; and Abraham by and by, at Rom 4:11, is shown to be the father of believers, even of those of whom he is not the father according to the flesh. The construction then is, hath found according to [as pertaining to] the flesh. In the question itself, Paul inserts something which has the effect of an answer, in order that he may not leave even the smallest countenance for [or, a moment of time to] the maintaining of Jewish righteousness, and for their boasting before God.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_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 (Rom_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 Abrahams justification, in nowise receives establishment διὰ τῆς πίστεως (Rom_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 Rom_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 Gal_4:23) is the case. This exposition cannot be disputed on linguistic grounds, especially if, with Hofmann, we follow Lachmanns reading. But it is, viewed in reference to the context, erroneous. For the context, as Rom_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 Rom_4:2-3 he in the most definite manner represents him as the subject, whose action is spoken of. If we take Hofmanns 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, Rom_4:9 ff.

τ. πατέρα ἡμ.] fundamentum consequentiae ab Abrahamo ad nos, Bengel. Comp Rom_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 Rom_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 Hilgenfelds Zeitschr. 1862, p. 221 ff., follow, to τ. πατέρα ἡμ. (not even although Lachmanns 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 Rom_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 (Rom_1:9, Rom_7:18; Rom_7:25, and see on Eph_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 Joh_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, Rom_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 Rom_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 Rom_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 Rom_4:2.

[954] Observe, in reference to ch. 4 (with Rom_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 Herzogs 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Rom 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 Rom 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, Rom 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 Rom 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?

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4:1-5.] Abraham himself was justified by faith. The reading and punctuation of this verse present some difficulties. As to the first (see var. read.), the variation in the order of the words, and the reading προπάτορα seemed to me formerly, however strongly supported, to have sprung out of an idea that κατὰ σάρκα belonged to πατέρα. This being supposed, εὑρηκέναι appeared to have been transposed to throw πατέρα ἡμ. κατὰ σάρκα together,—and then, because Abraham is distinctly proved (ver. 11) to have been in another sense the father of the faithful, πατέρα to have been altered to the less ambiguous προπάτορα, ancestor, a word not found in the N. T., but frequent in the Fathers. I therefore in the 3rd edition of this vol., with De Wette, Tholuck, and Tischendorf (in his last [7th, not 8th] edn.), retained the rec. text. Being now however convinced that we are bound to follow the testimony of our best mss., and to distrust such subjective considerations as unsafe, and generally able to be turned both ways, I have adopted the reading of () &c., bracketing εὑρηκέναι as of doubtful authority, omitted as it is by B.

Grot., Le Clerc, and Wetst. punctuate, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; εὑρηκ.… σάρκα:—and Matthaï, τί οὖν; ἐροῦμ.… σάρκα; supplying δικαιοσύνην (or more rightly an indefinite τι) after εὑρηκέναι. But as Thol. well remarks, both these methods of punctuating would presuppose that Paul had given some reason in the preceding verses for imagining that Abraham had gained some advantage according to the flesh: which is not the case.

1. οὖν] The Apostle is here contending with those under the law from their own standing-point: and he follows up his νόμον ἱστάνομεν, by what therefore (‘hoc concesso,’ ‘seeing that you and I are both upholders of the law’) shall we say, &c. This verse, and the argument following, are not a proof, but a consequence, of νόμον ἱστ., and are therefore introduced, not with γάρ, but with οὖν.

εὑρηκέναι [if read]] viz. towards his justification, or more strictly, earned as his own, to boast of.

κατὰ σάρκα belongs to εὑρ., not (as Chrys., Theophyl., Erasm.) to προπάτορα ἡμ. For the course and spirit of the argument is not to limit the paternity of Abraham to a mere fleshly one, but to shew that he was the spiritual father of all believers. And the question is not one which requires any such distinction between his fleshly and spiritual paternity (as in ch. 9:3, 9:5). This being so, what does κατὰ σάρκα mean? It cannot allude to circumcision; for that is rendered improbable, not only by the parallel expression ἐξ ἔργων in the plural, but also by the consideration, that circumcision was no ἔργον at all, but a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith being yet uncircumcised (ver. 11),—and by the whole course of the argument in the present place, which is not to disprove the exclusive privilege of the Jew (that having been already done, chs. 2. 3.), but to shew that the father and head of the race himself was justified not by works, but by faith. Doubtless, in so far as circumcision was a mere work of obedience, it might be in a loose way considered as falling under that category: but it came after justification, and so is chronologically here excluded. κατὰ σάρκα then is in contrast to κατὰ πνεῦμα,—and refers to that department of our being from which spring works, in contrast with that in which is the exercise of faith: see ch. 8:4, 8:5.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM

4:1-8. Take the crucial case of Abraham. He, like the Christian, was declared righteous, not on account of his works—as something earned, but by the free gift of God in response to his faith. And David describes a similar state of things. The happiness of which he speaks is due, not to sinlessness but to God’s free forgiveness of sins.

1Objector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely he, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead privilege and merit. 2If we Jews are right in supposing that God accepted him as righteous for his works—those illustrious acts of his—he has something to boast of.

St. Paul. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. 3For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scripture, Gen 15:6. What do we find there? Nothing about works, but ‘Abraham put faith in God,’ and it (i. e. his faith) was credited to him as if it were righteousness.

4This proves that there was no question of works. For a workman claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of favour. 5But to one who is not concerned with works but puts faith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous (in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly—to such an one his faith is credited for righteousness.

6Just as again David in Psa_32 describes how God ‘pronounces happy’ (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes righteousness without any reference to works: 7‘Happy they,’ he says,—not ‘who have been guilty of no breaches of law,’ but ‘whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are veiled from sight. 8A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will not enter in His book.’

1 ff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets himself to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which St. Paul held to be ‘excluded.’ Hitherto these two points have been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case of Abraham. The case of Abraham was the centre and stronghold of the whole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown that this case made for the Christian conclusion and not for the Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul now undertakes to prove; but at the outset he glances at the two side issues—main issues in ch. 3 which become side issues in ch. 4—the claim of ‘advantage,’ or special privilege, and the pride which the Jewish system generated. For the sake of clearness we put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course still a supposed objector; St. Paul is really arguing with himself; but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met with in actual controversy (see on 3:1 ff.).

1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important variant turning upon the position or presence of εὑρηκέναι. (1) K L P, &c., Theodrt; and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν. It is then taken with κατὰ σάρκα: ‘What shall we say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace of God?’ So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. [Euthym.-Zig. however, even with this reading, takes κατὰ σάρκα with πατέρα: ὑπερβατὸν γὰρ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα]. But this is inconsistent with the context. The question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left him any gain or advantage at all. (2) א A C D E F G, some cursives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place after ἐροῦμεν. In that case κατὰ σάρκα goes not with εὑρηκέναι but with τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν which it simply defines, ‘our natural progenitor.’ (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it in his text, omit εὑρηκέναι altogether. Then the idea of ‘gain’ drops out and we translate simply ‘What shall we say as to Abraham our forefather?’ &c. The opponents of B will say that the sense thus given is suspiciously easy: it is certainly more satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his righteousness—by the method of works or by that of faith. Does the nature of A.’s righteousness agree better with the Jewish system, or with St. Paul’s? The idea of ‘gain’ was naturally imported from ch. 3:1, 9. There is no reason why a right reading should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We therefore regard the omission of εὑρηκέναι as probable with WH. text Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. Joh 1:15 οὗτος ἦν ὀ͂ν εἶπον.

1-5. One or two small questions of form may be noticed. In ver. 1 προπάτορα (א*etc A B C* al.) is decisively attested for πατέρα, which is found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. 3 the acute and sleepless critic Origen thinks that St. Paul wrote Ἀβράμ (with Heb. of Gen_15; cf. Gen 17:5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the text of Scripture substituted Ἀβραάμ. It is more probable that St. Paul had before his mind the established and significant name throughout: he quotes Gen 17:5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group (א D* F G) have ἀσεβἠν, on which form see WH. Introd. App. p. 157 f.; Win. Gr. Exo_8, § 9:8; Tisch. on Heb 6:19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, but not in others.

τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν. This description of Abraham as ‘our forefather’ is one of the arguments used by those who would make the majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such a matter. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles, he speaks cf ‘our fathers’ as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (1Co 10:1). There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike,—though it is true that he would have added ‘not after the flesh but after the spirit.’ Gif. notes the further point, that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips. he connects τὸν προπάτ. ἡμ. with κατὰ σάρκα. It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating εὑρηκέναι to the margin, still does not take κατὰ σάρκα with τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What shall we say? [τι ερουμεν] . See ch. Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14, 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 propatora 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 [κατα σαρκα] . Construe with found. The question is, Was Abraham justified by anything which pertained to the flesh ? Some construe with Abraham : our father humanly speaking.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Tenth Passage (4:1-25). Faith the Principle of Abraham’s Justification.

Abraham being for the Jews the embodiment of salvation, his case was of capital moment in the solution of the question here treated. This was a conviction which Paul shared with his adversaries. Was the patriarch justified, by faith and by faith alone, his thesis was proved. Was he justified by some work of his own added to his faith, there was an end of Paul’s doctrine.

In the first part of this chapter, Rom 4:1-12, he proves that Abraham owed his righteousness to his faith, and to his faith alone. In the second Rom 4:13-16, he supports his argument by the fact that the inheritance of the world, promised to the patriarch and his posterity, was conferred on him independently of his observance of the law. The third part, Rom 4:17-22, proves that that very posterity to whom this heritage was to belong was a fruit of faith. In the fourth and last part, Rom 4:23-25, this case is applied to believers of the present. Thus righteousness, inheritance, posterity, everything, Abraham received by faith; and it will be even so with us, if we believe like him.

1. Rom 4:1-12.

Abraham was justified by faith, Rom 4:1-8, and by faith alone, Rom 4:9-12.

Vv. 1, 2. “What shall we say then that Abraham our first father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not in relation to God.”

The question with which this exposition opens is connected with the preceding by then, because the negative answer anticipated is a logically necessary consequence of the demonstration given Rom 3:27-31. The particular case of Abraham is subordinate to the general principle which has just been established.

It is not proper to divide this verse, as some have done, into two questions: “What shall we say? That Abraham has found [something] according to the flesh?” For then it would be necessary to understand an object to the verb has found, righteousness, for example, which is extremely forced. Or it would be necessary to translate, with Hofmann: “What shall we say? That we have found Abraham as our father according to the flesh?” by understanding ἡμᾶς, we, as the subject of the infinitive verb to have found. But this ellipsis of the subject is more forced still than that of the object; and what Christian of Gentile origin—for the expression have found could not be applied to the Jewish-Christians—would have asked if he had become a child of Abraham in the way of the flesh? Rom 4:1 therefore contains only one question (see the translation). The apostle asks whether Abraham by his own action found some advantage in the matter of salvation. In the Received reading, which rests on the Byzs., the verb has found separates the words our father from the others: according to the flesh, so that this latter clause cannot apply to the substantive father, but necessarily qualifies the verb has found. It is otherwise in the Alex. and Greco-Latin readings, where the verb has found immediately follows the words: What shall we say? whereby the words our father and according to the flesh are found in juxtaposition, which might easily lead the reader to take the two terms as forming a single description: our father according to the flesh. But this meaning cannot be the true one; for the matter in question here is not yet the nature of Abraham’s paternity, which is reserved to a later point, but the manner in which Abraham became righteous (Rom 4:2-3). The reading was probably falsified by the recollection of the frequent phrases: father or child according to the flesh.

The flesh denotes here human activity in its state of isolation from the influence of God, and consequently in its natural helplessness so far as justification and salvation are concerned. The meaning is therefore: “What has Abraham found by his own labor?” The word flesh is probably chosen in reference to circumcision, which became the distinctive seal of the elect family.

The term προπάτωρ first father, which occurs here in the Alex. instead of the simple πατήρ (in the two other families), is strange to the language of the New Testament and of the LXX.; but this very circumstance speaks in favor of its authenticity. For the copyists would not have substituted so exceptional a term for the usual word. Paul probably used it to bring out the proto-typical character of everything which transpired in Abraham’s person.

Does the pronoun our imply, as is alleged by Baur, Volkmar, etc., the Jewish origin of the Christians of Rome? Yes, if the translation were: our father according to the flesh. But we have seen that this interpretation is false. It is not even right to say, with Meyer) who holds the Gentile origin of the church of Rome), that the pronoun our refers to the Judeo-Christian minority of that church. For the meaning of this pronoun is determined by the we, which is the subject of all the preceding verbs (make void, establish, shall say); now this refers to Christians in general. Is not the whole immediately following chapter intended to prove that Abraham is the father of believing Gentiles as well as of believing Jews (comp. the categorical declarations of Rom 4:12; Rom 4:16)? How, then, should the word our in this verse, which is as it were the theme of the whole chapter, be used in a sense directly opposed to the essential idea of the entire piece? Comp., besides, the use of the expression our fathers in 1Co 10:1. What is the understood reply which Paul expected to his question? Is it, as is often assumed: nothing at all? Perhaps he did not go so far. He meant rather to say (comp. Rom 4:2): nothing, so far as justification before God is concerned; which did not exclude the idea of the patriarch having from a human point of view found certain advantages, such as riches, reputation, etc.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Rom_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, Rom_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, Rom_4:2; second, because the Scriptures expressly declare that he was justified by faith, Rom_4:8. Rom_4:4, Rom_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 Psa_32:1, Psa_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, Rom_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, Rom_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, Rom_4:13, Rom_4:14.

5. And the fifth, from the nature of the law, Rom_4:15-17.

Commentary

Rom_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 Gal_3:3; Gal_6:12; Phi_3:3, Phi_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.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

By works, as appeareth in the next verse.

A new argument of great weight, taken from the example of Abraham the father of all believers: And this is the proposition: if Abraham be considered in himself by his works, he hath deserved nothing wherein to rejoice with God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Here the apostle proves that Abraham was justified not by works, but by faith. Those that of all men contended most vigorously for a share in righteousness by the privileges they enjoyed, and the works they performed, were the Jews, and therefore he appeals to the case of Abraham their father, and puts his own name to the relation, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews: Abraham our father. Now surely his prerogative must needs be as great as theirs who claim it as his seed according to the flesh. Now what has he found? All the world is seeking; but, while the most are wearying themselves for very vanity, none can be truly reckoned to have found, but those who are justified before God; and thus Abraham, like a wise merchant, seeking goodly pearls, found this one pearl of great price. What has he found, kata sarka - as pertaining to the flesh, that is, by circumcision and his external privileges and performances? These the apostle calls flesh, Phi 3:3. Now what did he get by these? Was he justified by them? Was it the merit of his works that recommended him to God's acceptance? No, by no means, which he proves by several arguments.

I. If he had been justified by works, room would have been left for boasting, which must for ever be excluded. If so, he hath whereof to glory (Rom 4:2), which is not to be allowed. "But," might the Jews say, "was not his name made great (Gen 12:2), and then might not he glory?" Yes, but not before God; he might deserve well of men, but he could never merit of God. Paul himself had whereof to glory before men, and we have him sometimes glorying in it, yet with humility; but nothing to glory in before God, Co1 4:4; Phi 3:8, Phi 3:9. So Abraham. Observe, He takes it for granted that man must not pretend to glory in any thing before God; no, not Abraham, as great and as good a man as he was; and therefore he fetches an argument from it: it would be absurd for him that glorieth to glory in any but the Lord.

II. It is expressly said that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness. What saith the scripture? Rom 4:3. In all controversies in religion this must be our question, What saith the scripture? It is not what this great man, and the other good man, say, but What saith the scripture? Ask counsel at this Abel, and so end the matter, Sa2 2:18. To the law, and to the testimony (Isa 8:20), thither is the last appeal. Now the scripture saith that Abraham believed, and this was counted to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6); therefore he had not whereof to glory before God, it being purely of free grace that it was so imputed, and having not in itself any of the formal nature of a righteousness, further than as God himself was graciously pleased so to count it to him. It is mentioned in Genesis, upon occasion of a very signal and remarkable act of faith concerning the promised seed, and is the more observable in that it followed upon a grievous conflict he had had with unbelief; his faith was now a victorious faith, newly returned from the battle. It is not the perfect faith that is required to justification (there may be acceptable faith where there are remainders of unbelief), but the prevailing faith, the faith that has the upper hand of unbelief.

III. If he had been justified by faith, the reward would have been of debt, and not of grace, which is not to be imagined. This is his argument (Rom 4:4, Rom 4:5): Abraham's reward was God himself; so he had told him but just before (Gen 15:1), I am thy exceeding great reward. Now, if Abraham had merited this by the perfection of his obedience, it had not been an act of grace in God, but Abraham might have demanded it with as much confidence as ever any labourer in the vineyard demanded the penny he had earned. But this cannot be; it is impossible for man, much more guilty man, to make God a debtor to him, Rom 11:35. No, God will have free grace to have all the glory, grace for grace's sake, Joh 1:16. And therefore to him that worketh not - that can pretend to no such merit, nor show any worth or value in his work, which may answer such a reward, but disclaiming any such pretension casts himself wholly upon the free grace of God in Christ, by a lively, active, obedient faith - to such a one faith is counted for righteousness, is accepted of God as the qualification required in all those that shall be pardoned and saved. Him that justifieth the ungodly, that is, him that was before ungodly. His former ungodliness was no bar to his justification upon his believing: ton asebē - that ungodly one, that is, Abraham, who, before his conversion, it should seem, was carried down the stream of the Chaldean idolatry, Jos 24:2. No room therefore is left for despair; though God clears not the impenitent guilty, yet through Christ he justifies the ungodly.

IV. He further illustrates this by a passage out of the Psalms, where David speaks of the remission of sins, the prime branch of justification, as constituting the happiness and blessedness of a man, pronouncing blessed, not the man who has no sin, or none which deserved death (for then, while man is so sinful, and God so righteous, where would be the blessed man?) but the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, who though he cannot plead, Not guilty, pleads the act of indemnity, and his plea is allowed. It is quoted from Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2, where observe, 1. The nature of forgiveness. It is the remission of a debt or a crime; it is the covering of sin, as a filthy thing, as the nakedness and shame of the soul. God is said to cast sin behind his back, to hide his face from it, which, and the like expressions, imply that the ground of our blessedness is not our innocency, or our not having sinned (a thing is, and is filthy, though covered; justification does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin), but God's not laying it to our charge, as it follows here: it is God's not imputing sin (Rom 4:8), which makes it wholly a gracious act of God, not dealing with us in strict justice as we have deserved, not entering into judgment, not marking iniquities, all which being purely acts of grace, the acceptance and the reward cannot be expected as debts; and therefore Paul infers (Rom 4:6) that it is the imputing of righteousness without works. 2. The blessedness of it: Blessed are they. When it is said, Blessed are the undefiled in the way, blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, etc., the design is to show the characters of those that are blessed; but when it is said, Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, the design is to show what that blessedness is, and what the ground and foundation of it. Pardoned people are the only blessed people. The sentiments of the world are, Those are happy that have a clear estate, and are out of debt to man; but the sentence of the word is, Those are happy that have their debts to God discharged. O how much therefore is it our interest to make it sure to ourselves that our sins are pardoned! For this is the foundation of all other benefits. So and so I will do for them; for I will be merciful, Heb 8:12.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 ἑυρηκέναι, 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. 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(1) To come back to the question of Rom_3:1, repeated in Rom_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 Rom_1:3.

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

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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Ver. 1. As pertaining to the flesh] That is, As touching his works, Rom 4:2, called also the letter, Rom 2:27, and the law a carnal commandment, Heb 7:16.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What shall we say then? - See Rom 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 Mat 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 Rom 3:1.

Hath found - Hath obtained. What advantage has he derived from it?

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The apostle proves what he had advanced in the last chapter, that the Jews cannot be justified by the works of the written law, nor by any works, unless joined with faith in the Messias, their Redeemer. This he shews by the example of Abraham, who is said to have been justified by believing; 2. and this was before he was circumcised; 3. and long before the law of Moses. Justification was then given without the works of that law. --- What advantage shall we say, then, that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh? This seems the true construction and sense: rather than what did he find according to the flesh, as some expound it. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The apostle proceeds to prove his main conclusion, Rom 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, Rom 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 Phi 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 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.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father according to the flesh hath found? The connection, denoted by oun , with the preceding argument is rather with vers. 27, 28 of Ro 3, than with its concluding winds, nomon istanomen . This appears, not only from the drift of Ro 4, but also from the word kauchma in ver. 2, connecting the thought with pou oun h kauchsiv ; in Rom_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 verso as to whether "according to the flesh" (kata sarka ) is to be connected with "our father" or with "hath found." Readings vary in their arrangement of the words. The Textus Receptus has Ti oun eroumen Abraara hmwn eurhkenai kata sarka . But the great preponderance of authority is in favour of eurhkenai Abraatora hmwn kata sarka . The first of these readings requires the connection of kata sarka with eurhkenai ; the second allows it, but suggests the other connection. Theodoret, among the ancients, connecting with eurhkenai , explains kata sarka thus: "What righteousness, of Abraham"s, wrought before he be- lieved God, did we ever hear of?" Calvin suggests, as the meaning of the phrase (though himself inclining to the connection with propatora)," 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 kata sarka is in contrast to kata pneuma , 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 kata sarka in connection with patera or propatora , 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. (cf. Rom_1:3 Rom_9:3, Rom_9:5, 8 1Co_10:18) Among the ancients Chrysostom and Theophylact take this view. For the import of eurhkenai , cf. Luk_1:30 (eurev carin para tw Yew) and Heb_9:12 (aiwnian lutrwsin euramenov).

HOMILIES BY C.H IRWIN. Vers. 1-25. Abraham"s faith.

We have already seen how the apostle has prepared the way for the great doctrine of justification by faith. He showed in the first two chapters that man has no righteousness of his own, that he could not justify himself, but, on the contrary, that both Jew and Gentile are all under sin. "There is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Now, in this fourth chapter, he shows that this great fact the necessity for justification by faith has already been recognized by Abraham and David. He is writing to Jews, and he takes the case of two men of God with whose lives they were familiar, and whom they held in high respect. He shows that neither Abraham nor David rested in his own righteousness. They rested entirely in the sovereign grace and mercy of God. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (ver. 3). So David also describes the blessedness of those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered; of the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sin (vers. 6-8). No two cases more appropriate or more telling could the apostle have selected in illustration of man"s universal need of a Divine righteousness. Here were two saints of God, the one called the friend of God, the other the sweet singer of Israel, and yet they both rested, not on their own good works, but on the mercy and free grace of God. True, David had grievously sinned against God, but he did not trust for forgiveness to any penances or works of merit which he might have done in atonement for his sin, but solely to the pardoning mercy of the Lord. Abraham"s faith, however, is the main subject of the chapter.

I ITS REASONABLENESS. The subject of faith is not merely an abstract theological question. Abraham"s faith, in particular, is not something which concerned Abraham but has no interest for us. We are told in the close of this chapter that "it was not written for his sake alone, that his faith was imputed to him for righteousness; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification" (vers. 23-25). What, then, do we mean by faith? Faith is a strong inward persuasion manifesting itself in outward acts. We could have no better illustration of it than the life of Abraham. "Abraham believed God." His life was a life of faith in God. He trusted God"s word, and he took God"s way. Here, then, we have a simple definition of what faith means trusting God"s word and taking God"s way. Is not this an eminently reasonable course for a human being to take? So Abraham thought. He was a man of experience when we have the first record of God speaking to him. He was seventy-five years old when God"s first command reached him the command to leave his country and his father"s house. It would appear as if Abraham had begun before that time to look beyond the seen to the unseen. His spiritual instincts and his reason told him that those idols which the people round him worshipped could not represent the great Creator of the world. He had already a conviction that there was a God a reasonable conviction based on the evidence of natural laws. He knew something of that almighty Being"s power, and wisdom, and immortality, and unchangeableness. And so he reached the conclusion, which became an irresistible conviction, that "what God had promised he was able also to perform" (vers. 18-21). He was "fully persuaded." Upon this Abraham based his faith. For these reasons he trusted God"s word and took God"s way. Is it not still more reasonable that we should have faith in God? We too have had experience, and not merely our own experience, but the experience of thousands of others from Abraham"s day till now, who have trusted God, and found that what he hath promised he is able also to perform. The history of the ages teaches us that heaven and earth may pass away, but that God"s words do not pass away; that men will change and die, and mighty empires crumble into dust, but that the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him. It teaches us also this lesson, that God"s way is always best, and that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Abraham"s faith was a reasonable faith. It is a reasonable thing that we also should trust God"s word and take God"s way.

II ITS RESULTS.

1. Abraham"s faith led him to unfaltering obedience. It was a strange and apparently a harsh command which God gave to him, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father"s house, unto a land that I will show thee". (Gen_12:1) But Abraham did not hesitate. He knew whom he had believed. It was God, the living God, his heavenly Father, who was speaking to him, and he felt he must obey. He knew that God would provide for him; he knew that God would lead him right. How many of us under similar circumstances would show such unhesitating, unfaltering obedience to God"s command? How many of us are willing to trust God to take care of us when we are doing his will? Alas! is it not true that we often hesitate to do his will, just because we cannot trust him to take care of us, to bring us safely through the difficulties and to crown our labours with success? But, then, it must be admitted that there is a real, practical difficulty here which sometimes perplexes God"s people. Some one may say, "Well, I am quite willing to do God"s will, to follow the path of duty, if I could only tell what it was. There are so many cases where I cannot see my way. If I could only hear God speaking to me as he did to Abraham, there would be no difficulty about it." I think the way to meet that difficulty is this. Saturate your mind with the spirit of the gospel, with the teachings of the Word of God, with the spirit of Christ. A Christian is one who has the spirit of Christ. And, while there will be inconsistencies, as a rule we can depend upon the Christian. A remarkable illustration of this was given in Abraham"s own case. Before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, the Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord". (Gen_18:17, Gen_18:19) God had confidence in Abraham doing what was right, although in one case Abraham acted sinfully and inconsistently. So we can trust the Christian to act in a Christian way. There will be mistakes, inconsistencies, in his life. But there are some things we know he will not do. He will not be among the sabbath-breakers, among the profane, the foul and filthy speakers, among the intemperate, among those who defraud or those who defame their neighbour. And all this we know, because we know him to have the spirit of Christ. We must cultivate this spirit, then, if we would know what the path of duty is.

2. Abraham"s faith led him to unflinching self-sacrifice. There are two grand scenes in his life that illustrate this. One was when he gave Lot the permission to choose what portion of the land he would have. Abraham had the right to choose, but he relinquished his own rights in favour of his nephew. The other was when God called on him to offer up as a sacrifice his son Isaac. What a spirit of faith Abraham showed then! He trusted God, and so he took God"s way. He had himself said once before, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?". (Gen_18:25) And now when God, who gave him his son, asks him to give him back again, his faithful servant is ready to do what God asks. It was enough. The Lord himself had provided a lamb for the burnt offering. But Abraham showed the greatness of his faith by the sacrifice he was ready to make. There is a process in mathematics called the elimination of factors. The factor self had been eliminated from Abraham"s character and life. So it will be with the true Christian. The spirit of self-sacrifice is the spirit of Christ, the spirit of Christianity. "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." We must be ready to make sacrifice of self for Christ"s sake. Such, then, was Abraham"s faith. It was a reasonable faith, and a faith that resulted in unfaltering obedience and in unflinching self-sacrifice. He trusted God"s word, and he took God"s way. That is the way of salvation for every sinner. Such faith is the condition of all righteousness. If we are to please God, if we are to get to heaven, we must take God"s way. The manner of Abraham"s justification is an encouragement for every sinner, whether Jew or Gentile. If salvation had been by the Law, only those who had the Law, or who kept it, could be saved. But it is "of faith, that it might be of grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham" (ver. 16). The Jews" beast that they were Abraham"s seed showed a narrow idea of what the promise was. Abraham was "the father of many nations" (vers. 17, 18). Abraham"s true spiritual children are those who imitate Abraham"s faith. C.H.I.

HOMILIES BY T.F. LOCKYER Vers. 1-8. A test case.

Abraham was their father (John 8) this they were proud to acknowledge; but what was his relationship to God?

I ABRAHAM"S RIGHTEOUSNESS. Righteousness must be either absolute or imputed; e.g. a servant in employ, on the one hand tried and true, on the other hand false, but penitent and received again. Which was Abraham"s?

1. If of works, it was absolute, and therefore he was in a position of proud integrity before God. Was it so? The whole history proved the contrary. Humble dependence.

2. If imputed, it could only be as he accepted God"s promises, and lived by faith in them. And so saith the Scripture (ver. 3).

II ABRAHAM"S FAITH. What was the faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness?

1. Renunciation of self. (Ge 15 Ge 17) He could do nothing.

2. Reliance on God. (Ge 15, and implied in Ge 17) God could do all things.

Such the general principle: faith is the laying hold of all God"s mighty love. Hence the spring of all righteousness. In Abraham"s case, faith in promises for the future pertaining to the kingdom of God. Virtually, it was the faith of his spiritual salvation. Was not David"s case the same? There are iniquities, sins; man can never undo them; God can cover them. So with us. Not of debt, but of grace on God"s part; therefore, not of works, but of faith on man"s part. And hence no arbitrary condition; the appropriation of all the wealth of good offered in God and by God. Well is it said, "Blessed are they," etc. T.F.L.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Vers. 1-25. Abraham justified by faith alone.

We have just seen in last chapter the utility of Judaism, the universal depravity of the race, the new channel for Divine righteousness which had consequently to be found, and the confirmation of law which is secured by faith. The apostle in the present chapter illustrates his argument from the history of Abraham. He was reckoned by the Jews as "father of the faithful;" his case is, therefore, a crucial one. Accordingly, Paul begins by asking, "What shall we then say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found, as pertaining to the flesh?" By this is meant virtually this: "What merit before God did Abraham acquire in the use of his natural human faculties, or, in other words, by his own works?" (cf. Shedd, in loc. ). Now, to this a negative answer is expected; and, as if it had been supplied, Paul goes on to state the case thus: "For if Abraham were justified by works, he has a subject for glorification; but, vis-a-vis, of God, he has no reason for glorification." This he proceeds to show from the history. Now, there are three things mentioned in this chapter which Abraham got, and in each case it was by exercising faith. These were righteousness (vers. 3-12), inheritance (vers. 13-17), and a seed (vers. 18-25). Let us direct our attention to these in their order.

I ABRAHAM RECEIVED RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH FAITH. (Vers. 3-12) The apostle begins here with a scriptural quotation; it is from Gen_15:6, to the effect that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." We see from the context in Genesis that what Abraham believed was that God"s promise about a Seed who would prove a blessing to all nations would yet be fulfilled. He bettered God"s naked promise, and looked forward prophetically to his Seed as the medium of universal blessing. His faith was thus fixed in a Seed of promise in Christ to come. Now, this act of faith without works was "reckoned unto him" (Revised Version) for righteousness. Because of this act of faith, he was regarded by God as having fulfilled the Law and secured righteousness through a perfect obedience. Such a reckoning of righteousness to Abraham"s credit was a great act of grace upon God"s part. Assuming for the moment that God could justly reckon faith for righteousness, it must be regarded as a gracious gift on the part of God. But the apostle would leave us in no doubt as to the principle involved. One who trusts in his works for acceptance claims reward as a debt; he who trusts, not in his works, but in his God for justification, receives reward as a matter, not of debt, but of grace. This was Abraham"s exact position. And David follows his father Abraham in this respect, celebrating in the Psalms the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works; saying, "Blessed arc they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin" (Revised Version). Abraham and David had by faith entered into that blissful position where God not only was felt to forgive them all their iniquities and to cover all their sin, but also would not reckon sin unto them. It was as if they had been transfigured before God into men innocent of all sin. The past was cancelled, and they stood before God accepted as righteous in his sight. But this is not all. The apostle points out particularly that this pardon and acceptance of Abraham on the ground of his faith happened before his circumcision. As a matter of fact, it happened fourteen years before. So that circumcision could constitute no ground of acceptance. It was simply a divinely appointed sign and seal of the previously imputed righteousness. Accordingly, Abraham was in a position to be the father of uncircumcised believers or of circumcised believers, as the case may be; showing us at once faith as exercised in uncircumcision with its resultant righteousness, and faith also exercised after his circumcision with its continued justification.

II ABRAHAM RECEIVED AS INHERITANCE THROUGH FAITH. (Vers. 13-17) Now we have to observe that Abraham received net only righteousness through faith, but also an inheritance. As a matter of fact, he became "heir of the world." We must not restrict justification, therefore, to deliverance from deserved penalty, but must attach to it the further idea of inheritance. As one writer has well remarked, "Justification is a term applicable to something more than the discharge of an accused person without condemnation. As in our courts of law there are civil as well as criminal cases; so it was in old time; and a large number of the passages adduced seem to refer to trials of the latter description, in which some question of property, right, or inheritance was under discussion between the two parties. The judge, by justifying one of the parties, decided that the property in question was to be regarded as his. Applying this aspect of the matter to the justification of man in the sight of God, we gather from Scripture that whilst through sin man is to be regarded as having forfeited legal claim to any right or inheritance which God might have to bestow upon his creatures, so through justification he is restored to his high position and regarded as an heir of God." Now, this designation of Abraham to the heirship of the world was at the same time as the reckoning to him of righteousness. The Law afterwards given to his posterity had nothing to do with this inheritance. It came solely through faith. It was the gift of Divine grace signalizing the patriarch"s trust in God as faithful Promiser. Hence the patriarch was called the "father of many nations," because he felt assured that God, who raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, could give him through his seed the inheritance of the world. In the universal triumph of righteousness, the believing descendants of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile, should "inherit the earth

III ABRAHAM RECEIVED A SEED THROUGH FAITH, (Vers. 18-25) Now, the inheritance centred itself, as the history shows us, in a "seed of promise," and for years this was unlikely. Abraham is ninety and nine, and Sarah ninety, before the promised seed is given. For a quarter of a century it seemed hopeless; but the patriarch hoped against hope, and eventually the God who can raise the dead granted to Sarah"s dead womb a living son of promise. Here was the strength of the patriarch"s faith in hoping in spite of all appearances. We have thus set before us in Abraham"s case, as received through faith alone, righteousness, inheritance, and a seed of promise. But the apostle at once reminds us that all this is written for us also, to whom the same righteousness and the same inheritance shall be secured if we exercise the same faith. And the analogy he traces out in the closing verses is very striking. Jesus, the Seed of Abraham, lay for a season in Joseph"s tomb. He was to all appearances hopelessly dead. But God raised him from the dead, just as he had brought Isaac from the dead womb of Sarah. In the God who can thus "call those things which be not as though they were" we ought to believe. Let us believe in the Father who raised Christ from the dead; and then we can rejoice in the two great facts, that Jesus was delivered because of our offences unto death, and then raised out of death as the sign of our justification. Christ"s resurrection is thus seen to be the sign and pledge of our personal justification. May we enter into all these privileges through the exercise of faith! R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having proved it by argument, he now proves by example, and such example as must have greater weight with the Jews than any other.

1. That justification is by faith:

2. That it is free for the gentiles.

That our father Abraham hath found - Acceptance with God. According to the flesh - That is, by works.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Do we then

The sinner establishes the law in its right use and honour by confessing his guilt, and acknowledging that by it he is justly condemned. Christ, on the sinner’s behalf, establishes the law by enduring its penalty, death. Cf. Mat 5:17; Mat 5:18.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Righteousness of God Demonstrated from History.

The justification of Abraham:

v. 1. What shall we say, then, that Abraham, our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

v. 2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.

v. 3. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

v. 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

v. 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Paul had taught that we are justified by faith. to demonstrate and confirm this doctrine, as well as to anticipate a probable objection on the part of the Jews, he now refers to the case of Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. What, then, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh? How must his case be judged? What did he gain according to the flesh, by his obedience to the Law and to all the commands of God, especially the rite of circumcision? If he obtained the unusual blessings he enjoyed, particularly his justification, on the strength of his outward observance of the Old Testament sacrament, then the Jews would certainly be entitled to consideration for the same reason. The answer is implied: We must say that Abraham was not justified by works. This conclusion the apostle defends. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has reasons for expecting glory and praise, he might indeed assert his claim to the confidence and favor of his fellow-men; but he would have no reason for boasting before God. The argument, which is contracted, would read in full: If Abraham was justified by works, he could boast of his merits: but now he has nothing which he could adduce as being worthy of praise; therefore he was not justified by works. That Abraham had no ground for boasting in relation to God, Paul proves from Scriptures. For what does the Scripture say, Gen 15:6? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. According to this infallible authority, Abraham was declared to be righteous and just; justification was credited to his account, since he accepted it by faith. In this way the faith of Abraham, in itself anything but righteousness, in itself without merit, was counted to him for righteousness. Although he had neither inherent nor habitual righteousness, he was looked upon and treated by God as righteous. The value of Abraham’s faith, therefore, did not lie or ’consist in any subjective quality, but in its object and content; because the faith was directed to God, and, in God, to Christ, the Redeemer, therefore the righteousness of Christ was imputed to Abraham as his own, and he was declared to be acceptable in the sight of God.

This the apostle explains more fully in verses 4 and 5. Now to him that works, that keeps the Law with the idea of obtaining an equivalent reward, adequate wages for his labor, the reward is reckoned not of grace, but of debt. But to him who does not work, does not make his works a basis of hope toward God, but believes in Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. There are only two possibilities that we can consider at all, to be justified and saved by works and by faith; there is an absolute contrast between righteousness of works and righteousness of faith. In the case of Abraham, therefore, who was justified by faith, the other possibility, righteousness by works, was excluded. The apostle here does not argue the matter that a complete and adequate righteousness of works is impossible for all men, as a simple matter of fact. If a workman has done his work according to specifications, he receives the promised and stipulated wages, as his due reward, which he can justly claim. So also in the spiritual field: If one that is active in works of the Law intends to satisfy the demands of God and keeps all the commandments, then God will give to him the promised reward, righteousness, as a matter of justice, provided, of course, that he has rendered a perfect obedience. The very opposite of such a man is the person that puts his faith, not as a mere assent, but as an act of trust, in Him that justifies the ungodly, that is, he that has violated the divine right, that has refused God the proper obedience, that has lacked all reverence toward Him. When a godless person of this kind stands before the judgment-seat of God, he can, by human computation, expect nothing but the sentence of everlasting condemnation. But instead of pronouncing this expected sentence, God declares the sinner to be just and righteous, Isa 1:18. It is not the purpose of Paul to show here just how this sentence is possible, that the sinner must feel and acknowledge his guilt, that he must rely on the mercy of God in Jesus, his Savior: St. Paul deliberately makes the contrast as great as possible in order to bring out the unequaled consolation of the doctrine of justification. Truly, He is a wonderful God, as He has revealed Himself in Christ, in the Gospel, the God that justifies the ungodly, that imputes the sinner’s faith for righteousness. "It is a miracle. It is a thing that only God can achieve, and that calls into act and manifestation all the resources of the divine nature. It is achieved through an unparalleled revelation of the judgment and the mercy of God. The miracle of the Gospel is that God comes to the ungodly with a mercy which is righteous altogether, and enables them through faith, in spite of what they are, to enter into a new relation to Himself, in which goodness becomes possible for them. There can be no spiritual life at all for a sinful man unless he can get an initial assurance of an unchanging love of God deeper than sin, and he gets this at the Cross. He gets it by believing in Jesus, and it is justification by faith. " Note: The act of justification, the imputation of righteousness, in itself has nothing to do with the moral character of those concerned. To declare that justification is the infusion of moral righteousness, as the Papists do, is to confuse justification and sanctification, Law and Gospel.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As if the apostle had said, "What shall we say? Shall anyone affirm, that Abraham our father found or obtained righteousness by, or according to the flesh; that is, by being circumcised in the flesh, or by any works of righteousness which he had done? surely no: For if Abraham were justified by circumcision, or any other works of his own, he hath whereof to glory; that is, ground of boasting in these works by which he was thus justified. But manifested it is, that he had not whereof to boast and glory before God; therefore he was not justified by circumcision, nor any works of his own."

Learn hence, That no righteousness of our own, no services we can perform, are sufficient to procure our justification in the sight of God: For if we are justified by our works, it must be by works either before faith, or after faith. Not before faith; for the corruption of nature, and man’s impotent condition thereby, will give check to any such thought. Surely, unrighteousness cannot make us righteous, no more than impurity can make us clean. Nor do works after faith, justify; for then a believer is not justified upon his believing, but by his works after his believing; and faith is not the justifying grace, but only a preparation to those works which justify; which is contrary to the whole strain of the apostle throughout the epsitle, who ascribes justification in faith in the blood of Christ without works.

In short, no righteousness of man is perfect; therefore, no righteousness of man can be justifying: There is nothing that a man doth, but is defective, and consequently, has matter of condemnation in it: Now, that which is condemning, cannot be justifying; that which falls short of the holiness of the law, can never free us from the condemnatory sentence and curse of the law. Now, all works after faith fall short of that perfection which the law requireth.

Learn, 2. That the design of God, was to justify us in such a way as to strip us of our own. Not of works, least any man should boast, says the apostle often. We are justified by faith, to exclude boasting, which would not have been excluded by the law of works.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE REDEMPTIVE SCHEME OUT OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

1. “Then what we say that Abraham, our father according to the flesh, hath found?

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? [The word "found" means "obtained" ( Heb_9:12 ) or "got" ( Luk_9:12 ) Knowing that the Jew would resist and controvert his conclusion that the Jew would have to be justified by faith, just as the Gentile, Paul further confirms his conclusion by a test case. For the test he selects Abraham, the father of the race, and the earthly head of the theocracy. No more fitting individual could be chosen, for the nation had never claimed that it had risen higher than its head; therefore, whatever could be proved as to Abraham must be conceded to be true as to all. What, says Paul, in the light of our proposition, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath obtained, by his fleshly nature, apart from the grace of God; i. e., as a doer of the law ( Gal_3:2-3 )? Surely, he obtained nothing whatever in this manner.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Romans Chapter 4

In dealing with the Jew, and even in dealing with the question of righteousness, there was, besides the law, another consideration of great weight both with the Jews themselves and in the dealings of God. What of Abraham, called of God to be the parent-stock, the father of the faithful? The apostle, therefore, after having set forth the relation in which faith stood towards the law by the introduction of the righteousness of God, takes up the question of the ground on which Abraham was placed as well-pleasing to God in righteousness. For the Jew might have admitted his personal failure under the law, and pleaded the enjoyment of privilege under Abraham. If we consider him then thus according to the flesh (that is, in connection with the privileges that descended from him as inheritance for his children) and take our place under him in the line of succession to enjoy those privileges, on what principle does this set us? On the same principle of faith. He would have had something to boast of if he was justified by works; but before God it was not so. For the scriptures say, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not counted of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” For thereby, in fact, he glorifies God in the way that God desires to be glorified, and according to the revelation He has made of Himself in Christ.

Thus the testimony borne by Abraham’s case is to justification by faith. David also supports this testimony and speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom righteousness is imputed without works. He whose iniquities are pardoned, whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord does not impute sin-he is the man whom David calls blessed. But this supposed man to be a sinner and not righteous in himself. It was a question of what God was in grace to such a one, and not of what he was to God, or rather when he was a sinner. His blessedness was that God did not impute to him the sins he had committed, not that he was righteous in himself before God. Righteousness for man was found in the grace of God. Here it is identified with non-imputation of sins to man, guilty through committing them. No sin is imputed.

Was then this righteousness for the circumcision only? Now our thesis is, that God counted Abraham to be righteous by faith. But was he circumcised when this took place? Not so; he was uncircumcised. Righteousness then is by faith, and for the uncircumcised through faith-a testimony that was overwhelming to a Jew, because Abraham was the beau ideal to which all his ideas of excellence and of privilege referred. Circumcision was only a seal to the righteousness by faith which Abraham possessed in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all believers who were in the same state of uncircumcision, that righteousness might be imputed to them also; and the father of circumcision-that is, the first model of a people truly set apart for God-not only with regard to the circumcised, but to all those who should walk in the steps of his faith when uncircumcised. For, after all, the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham nor to his seed in connection with the law, but with righteousness by faith. For if they who are on the principle of law are heirs, the faith by which Abraham received it is vain, and the promise made of none effect; [17] for, on the contrary, the law produces wrath-and that is a very different thing from bringing into the enjoyment of a promise-for where there is no law there is no transgression. Observe, he does not say there is no sin; but where there is no commandment, there is none to violate. Now, the law being given to a sinner, wrath is necessarily the consequence of its imposition.

This is the negative side of the subject. The apostle shews that with regard to the Jews themselves, the inheritance could not be on the principle of law without setting Abraham aside, for to him the inheritance had been given by promise, and this implied that it was by faith: for we believe in a promise, we do not ourselves fulfil a promise that has been made to us. Accordingly the righteousness of Abraham was-according to scripture-through this same faith. It was imputed to him for righteousness.

This principle admitted the Gentiles; but here it is established with regard to the Jews themselves or rather with regard to the ways of God, in such a manner as to exclude the law as a means of obtaining the inheritance of God. The consequence with regard to Gentiles believing the gospel is stated inRomans 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed” of Abraham to whom the promise was made; not to that only which was under the law, but to all that had the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all before God, as it is written, “I have made thee a father of many nations.”

Thus we have the great principle established. It is by faith, before and without law [18]; and the promise is made to man in uncircumcision, and he is justified by believing it.

Another element is now introduced. Humanly speaking, the fulfilment of the promise was impossible, for in that respect both Abraham and Sarah were as dead, and the promise must be believed in against all hope, resting on the almighty power of Him who raises the dead, and calls things that are not as though they were. This was Abraham’s faith. He believed the promise that he should be the father of many nations, because God had spoken, counting on the power of God, thus glorifying Him, without calling in question anything that He had said by looking at circumstances; therefore this also was counted to him for righteousness. He glorified God according to what God was. Now, this was not written for his sake alone the same faith shall be imputed to us also for righteousness-faith in God as having raised up Jesus from the dead. It is not here faith in Jesus, but in Him who came in power into the domain of death, where Jesus lay because of our sins, and brought Him forth by His power, the mighty activity of the love of God who brought Him-who had already borne all the punishment of our sins-out from under all their consequences; so that, by believing God who has done this, we embrace the whole extent of His work, the grace and the power displayed in it; and we thus know God. Our God is the God who has done this. He has Himself raised up Jesus from among the dead, who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. Our sins were already upon Him. The active intervention of God delivered Him who lay in death because He had borne them. It is not only a resurrection of the dead, but from among the dead-the intervention of God to bring forth in righteousness the One who had glorified Him. By believing in such a God we understand that it is Himself who, in raising Christ from among the dead, has delivered us Himself from all that our sins had subjected us to; because He has brought back in delivering power Him who underwent it for our sakes.

Footnotes for Romans Chapter 4

17: The careful reader of Paul’s epistles must attend to the use of this word “for.” In very many cases it does not express an inference, but turns to some collateral subject which, in the apostle’s mind, would lead to the same conclusion, or some deeper general principle, which lay at the groundwork of the argument, enlarging the sphere of vision in things connected with it.

18: (‘chooris nomou’, Lit: “apart from law,” which had nothing to do with it.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–5. What shall we say then? Paul, having show that faith is the essential principle of justification, now inquires concerning Abraham's faith and justification. Abraham, our father. “Our forefather according to the flesh,” in the Revision. The ancestor of the Jewish race. Hath found. The thought is, Hath he found justification by works, or by faith?

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul confirms that even in the past believers were made right with God by faith and not by the law.

What then will we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, found?

Paul uses the question to catch the attention of the reader and to start talking about something new. AT: "This is what Abraham our physical ancestor found" (See: Rhetorical Question)

For what does the scripture say

Paul uses this question to add emphasis. He speaks of the Scriptures as if they were alive and could talk. AT: "For we can read in the scripture" (See: Rhetorical Question and Personification)

it was counted to him as righteousness

You can translate this in an active form. AT: "God considered Abraham as a righteous person" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

Abraham

ancestor

flesh

just

works

boast

word of God

believe

righteous

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1. τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν = what shall we say of Abraham?…, i.e. in relation to the question of boasting and the source of righteousness. Zahn (Einl. p. 95, A2) punctuates ἐροῦμεν; and takes [εὑρ.] Ἀβραὰμ … θεόν as stating an opposed view: but this is too complicated.

τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν. Addressed to Gentiles (as well as Jews); cf. 11, 12 and 1Co 10:1. The spiritual lineage is an essential strain in S. Paul’s conception of religious history.

κατὰ σάρκα. If this goes with προπάτορα then the whole clause must be taken as a difficulty raised by a supposed Jew disputant. But it is better taken with ἐροῦμεν in relation to ἐξ ἔργων of Rom 4:2 and περιτομή, Rom 4:9 ff. = as regards his human condition—his works and the covenant of circumcision; cf. Hort, R. and E., p. 23.

3, 4. 1Ki 19:10; 1Ki 19:18.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.