Lange Commentary - Romans 4:1

Lange Commentary - Romans 4:1 - 4:25

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Romans 4:1 - 4:25

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

4:1 - 4:25

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]? ²For if Abraham were [was] justified by works [as is assumed by the Jews], he hath whereof to glory [he hath ground of boasting]; 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] 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, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted [reckoned] for righteousness. ⁶Even as David also describeth the blessedness [happiness] 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].

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, [as?] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised [of the faith in the uncircumcision, ôῆò ðßóôåùò ôῆò ἐí ôῇ ἀ÷ñïâõóôßᾳ , 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: 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].

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 [ ïἱ ἐ÷ íüìïõ ] be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none [no] effect [rendered powerless]: ¹⁵Because the law worketh wrath: for where 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, 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 not his own body now [already] 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; ²¹And being fully persuaded, that what he had [hath] promised, he was [is] ²²able also to perform. And therefore [Wherefore also] 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.

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 ( ὀñãÞ ), 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 ïὖí 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 ïὖí 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 ἐñïῦìåí , and thus made two questions out of the sentence. Then äé÷áéïóýíçí is supplied to åὑñç÷Ýíáé .—If the åὑñç÷Ýíáé 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 ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á relates to ðñïðÜôïñá ( ðáôÝñá ) or to åὑñ ç ̣ ÷Ýíáé . Lachmann’s reading: ôß ïὖí ἐñïῦìåí åὑñç÷Ýíáé ̓ Áâñ , &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 ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á [of åὑñç÷Ýíáé 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 åὑñç÷Ýíáé ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á , nevertheless connect the latter with ðáôὴñἡìῶí ” (Tholuck, p. 167). De Wette, Meyer [Tholuck, Alford, Wordsworth, Hodge], and most commentators, with the Peshito, connect ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á , with åὑñç÷Ýíáé , and not (according to Origen, Ambrose, Calvin, &c.) with ðáôÝñá ἡìῶí . 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, ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á should correspond to the ἐî ἔñãùí , yet not so that the two ideas should be identical, but that works should be embraced in the more general idea of ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á . The óÜñî , in antithesis to the divine ðíåῦìá , should then denote humanity given up to itself. Pelagius, Ambrose, and others, refer ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á to circumcision. Rückert understands the word as embracing both circumcision and ἔñãá . While Tholuck consents to the now customary connection of the ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á with åὑñç÷Ýíáé , he does not grant that the works of faithful Abraham were ἔñãá ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á ; 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 óÜñî equal to ἔñãá . 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.,” ̓́ ÁâñÜì ὁ ðñïðÜôùñ ἡìῶí ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á (Rom_4:1) is an antithesis to áὐôüò ðáôὴñ ðÜíôùí ôῶí ðéóôåýïíôùí , &c. (Rom_4:11), and to ὅò ἐóôéí ðáôὴñ ðÜíôùí ἡìῶí (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 ôß , and this refers to the äé÷áéïῦóèáé ðßóôåé ÷ùñὶò ἔñãùí íüìïõ (Rom_3:28), and especially to Rom_3:29 also. As God is a God of the Jews and Gentiles, Abraham, the ðñïðÜôùñ of the Jews, has become a ðáôÞñ of Jews and Gentiles.

Rom_4:2. For if Abraham was justified [ ἐäé÷áéþèç ] 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). The answer does not therefore assume an ïὐäÝí [omitted before åἰ ãÜñ ] or an ïὐäïôéïῦí (Tholuck), because ÷áôὰ óÜñ÷á [Rom_4:1] does not stand in connection with åὑñç÷ἑíáé , [? 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 ÷áý÷çìá (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 ἐäé÷áéþèç 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). Tholuck thinks, with Meyer, that reference to God cannot disappear from ἐäé÷áéþèç , 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 íüìïò ἔñãùí is conceivable, but only in the sense of íüìïò ðßóôåùò . A plain remark may aid in the understanding of this difficult passage: that äé÷áéïῦóèáé , always refers to a definite tribunal, but that this tribunal may be very different according to the different relations of äé÷áéïῦóèáé . 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.—[But Abraham believed God, and it (viz., the believing, ôὸ ðéóôåῦóáé , which must be supplied from ἐðὶóôåõóåí ) was reckoned to him for righteousness, ̓ Åðßóôåõóåí äὲ ̓ Áâñáὰì ôῷ èåῷ , ÷áὶ ἐëïãßóèç áὐôῷ åἰò äé÷áéïóýíçí . Gen_15:6, Sept. The emphasis lies on ἐðßóôåõóåí , placed first, or the faith of Abraham as distinct from works and as excluding merit on the part of man. Áïãéæåóèáé åἰò äé÷áéïóýíçí , to reckon, or count, or impute to any one as righteousness, and consequently to treat him as righteous, is identical with äé÷áéüù (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 åַéַּçְùְׁáֶäָ into the passive ἐëïãßóèç . Paul uses the more prominent expression äÝ instead of the ÷áß 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 ðéóôåßåéí ôῷ èåῷ on the part of Abraham, Paul has perceived nothing really different from Christian ðßóôéò ; 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 [ ôῷ äὲἐñãáæïìÝíῳ , 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 ἐñãáæüìåíïò and the ìὴ Ýñãáæüìåíïò ; 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 ἐñãáæüìåíïò 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 ïὐ÷ ἐñãáæüìåíïò , but a ìὴ ἐñã .

Is the reward ( ὁìéóèüò ) not reckoned according to (as a matter of) grace ( ÷áôὰ ÷Üñéí ). That is, the earned reward, in accordance with the law of wages and labor. The ëïãßæåóèáé 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 ἐñãáæüìåíïò really declines grace; he claims a reward for his merit. And in the same way will his reward be reckoned according to his debt. Ὀöåßëçì , 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, 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 ἀóåâÞò , ungodly, must not be diluted into ἄäé÷ïò , unrighteous. Faith perceives that the foundation of the ἀäé÷ßá is the ἀóÝâåéá (Rom_1:21), alienation from God; and, because of its deeper knowledge of sin, applies to the grace of God. The ðéóôåýåéí åðß ôéíá 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 ( ÷áèÜðåñ ) 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 õἱïèåóßá , which is really included therein.” Compare, however, the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 60. 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 ἀíïìßá is a debt doomed to prison; it is released, and thus abolished; the ἁìáñôßá is the ground of it, and is covered from God’s eye ( ëָּñָä , ëָּôַø )—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 ìá÷áñéóìüò , 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, ἐóôß ; Meyer [Fritzsche, De Wette, Alford, Hodge], ëÝãåôáé [comp. Heb_7:13; Mar_9:12], with reference to Rom_4:6 (others, ðßðôåé [Theophylact], ἦëèåí [Œcumenius], ἔñ÷åôáé [Olshausen], ãÝãïíå ). The ëÝãåôáé has less foundation than ἐóôß . [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, ìüíïí .—P. S.]—For we say. The ãÜñ 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 ÷áß , 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 ôῷ ̓ Áâñ . 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 [ ÷áὶ óçìåῖïíἔëáâåí ðåñéôïìῆó ]. Genitive of apposition [i.e., a sign which consisted in circumcision. Van Hengel and Hofmann, preferring the reading ðåñéôïìὴí to ðåñéôïìῆò , explain: As a sign he receiver circumcision, as a seal ( óöñáãῖäá in apposition to óçìåῖïí ). Meyer objects that in the first case, óçìåῖïí , in the second, ðåñéôïìÞõ , 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. óçìåῖïí , sign, token, symbol, àåֹú . Circumcision was the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, Gen_17:11; God, on His part, promising the Messianic êëçñïíïìßá (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 ( àåֹú ) posuit in carne, et filios suos sigillavit ( çָäַí ) 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 óöñáãὶò ôïῦ ëïõôñïῦ . 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. åἰò ôὸ åἶíáéáὐôüí must be mentally repeated after êáὶ . 2. ôïῖò , the dative commodi [for those], comes in the place of faith. 3. Instead of ἀëëὰ êáὶ ôïῖò óôïéêïῠóé , we should expect ἀëëὰ êáὶ óôïéêïῦóé without the article. Tholuck: “The êáὶ ôïῖò is an unexampled solecism in the Apostle’s language.” Theodoret, Hervæus, Luther, and others, have assumed a transposition: ôïῖò ïὐê , instead of ïὐ ôïῖò . 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 ôïῖò , and interrupted by the ïὐê ἐê ðåñéôïìῆò ìüíïí , ἀëëὰ êáß .—P. S.] It may be asked, whether ïἱ ïὐê ἐê ðåñéôïìῆò ìüíïí , ἀëëὰ êáἰ ïἱ óôïéêïῦíôåò could be said. And this would certainly be practicable, if we could place ὄíôåò after ìüíïí . 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. [ ôïῖò ἴ÷íåóé , the dative after óôïéêåῖí 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: “ äéὰ íüìïõ , 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. ἐóôß ) to Abraham, or to his seed. This is the great Messianic ἐðáããåëßá êáô ̓ ἐîïêÞí . 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 êáὶ , 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 [ ôὀ êëçñïíüìïí áὐôὸí åἶíáé êüóìïõ ]. The ôü introduces an explanatory declaration of the import of the promise. The áὐôüò 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 êüóìïò and ãῆ 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 êüóìïò we must then understand the óðÝñìá itself, so far as it is led to faith, and that this cannot be regarded at once as êëçñïíüìïò and êëçñïíïìßá . But the óðÝñìá , as the organ of the world’s conversion, must be distinguished from the óðÝñìá , 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 êëçñïíïìßá ôïῦ êüóìïí 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.); 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 íüìïò , 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 íüìïò , 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 ἐê íüìïõ 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. [ ïἱ ἐê íüìïõ , those of law = adherents of the law, legalists. This periphrase is of frequent occurrence; comp. ïἱ ἐî ἐñéèåßáò , those of self-seeking = self-seeking partisans; Rom_2:8; ïἱ ἐê ðåñíôïìῆò , the circumcised; Rom_4:12; Tit_1:10; Act_10:45; Act_11:2; ïἱ ἐê ðßóôåùò , the believers; Gal_3:7; Gal_3:9; Rom_4:16; ïἱ ἐî ἸóñáÞë , the Israelites; Rom_9:6; &c.; comp. Xenoph., Anab. Rom_1:2; Rom_1:18, ïἱ ἐê ôῆò ἀãïñᾶò , the market people. The preposition ἐê (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 e