CONTENTS.
THE object of this chapter is to confirm the doctrine of justification by faith. It is divided into two parts. The first, from ver. 1 to 17 inclusive, contains the argumentative portion. The second, ver. 18 to 25, is an illustration of the faith of Abraham.
ROMANS IV. 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, vs. 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, ver. 2; second, because the Scriptures expressly declare that he was justified by faith, ver. 8. Verses 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 favour of the doctrine of justification by faith. 2. On this principle he adduces Ps. xxxii. 1, 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, vs. 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, vs. 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, vs. 13, 14. 5. And the fifth, from the nature of the law, vs. 15—17.
COMMENTARY.
VERSE 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, εὑρηκέναι, ‘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. iii. 3, vi. 12, Philip. iii. 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 favour with others. This is the explanation given by Köllner.