Romans 4:2. The question in Romans 4:1 contained the negative sense, which had therefore necessarily to be limited by κατὰ σάρκα: “We may not assert that Abraham has obtained anything according to the flesh.” The reason for this is now assigned (γάρ): “For, assuming that Abraham has been justified by works” (as was the Jewish opinion[964]), “he has cause for boasting,” namely, that he has attained righteousness through his actions, but he has not this ground of boasting with respect to God (as if his justification were the divine act), since, namely, in the case supposed it is not God to whom he owes the justification, but on the contrary he has himself earned it, and God would simply have to acknowledge it as a human self-acquirement. God has not, in that supposed case, done anything for him, on account of which he might thus boast with regard to God as his justifier; for ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔργων πληρῶσις αὐτοὺς στεφανοῖ τοῦς ἐργαζομένους, τὴν δὲ τ. Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίαν οὐ δείκνυσιν, Theodoret. Comp also Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact. Thus for the proper understanding of this difficult passage (Chrysostom: ἀσάφες τὸ εἰρημένον) we must go back to the explanation of the Greek expositors, which is quite faithful both to the words and the context. Comp on Romans 4:3-4. This interpretation, now adopted also by Tholuck (comp Reithmayr and Th. Schott), has especially this advantage, that ἐδικαιώθη is not taken otherwise than in the entire development of the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, not therefore as somewhat indefinite and general (“justus apparuit,” Grotius), in which case it would remain a question by whom Abraham was found righteous (Rückert, Philippi; comp Beza and others; also Grotius and Koppe, and, with trifling variation, de Wette, likewise Spohn in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 429 ff., Volckmar, and others). That Abraham was justified with God was known to no Jew otherwise (comp Sir 44:19 ff.; Manass. 8; Joseph. Antt. xi. 5, 7; Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 322, 343), and no reader could in accordance with the entire context understand ἐδικαιώθη otherwise, than in this definite sense, consequently in the solemn absolute sense of the Apostle (in opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 35). The only question was, whether ἐξ ἔργων or ἐκ πίστεως. If we suppose the former case, it is indeed for Abraham worthy of all honour, and he may boast of that which he has himself achieved, but with reference to God, as if He had justified him, he has no ground for boasting.[970] Observe besides, that πρὸς is used not in the sense of ἘΝΏΠΙΟΝ, coram (Hofmann: overagainst), or apud (Vulgate), but in accordance with the quite common usage of ἔχειν with the object of the thing (to have something to do, to say, to boast, to ask, to censure, etc.), and with specification of the relation of reference to some one through πρὸς τινα. The opposite of ἜΧΕΙΝ ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ ΠΡΌς is ἜΧΕΙΝ ΜΟΜΦῊΝ ΠΡΌς, Colossians 3:13. The special mode of the reference is invariably furnished by the context, which here, in accordance with the idea of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, suggests the notion that God is the bestower of the blessing meant by καύχημα. To that the ἔχειν καύχημα of Abraham does not refer, if he was justified by works. In the latter case he cannot boast of himself: ὁ Θεὸς με ἐδίκαιωσε, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον. Reiche and Fritzsche, following Calvin, Calovius, and many others, have discovered here an incomplete syllogism, in which ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τ. Θεόν is the minor premiss, and the conclusion is wanting, to this effect: “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 (Romans 4:3).…; non est igitur Abr. ob bene facta Deo probatus,” Fritzsche. So in substance also Kraussold in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 783; Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 71; Köstlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 92. Forced, and even contrary to the verbal sense; for through the very contrast ἀλλʼ οὐ π. τ. Θ. the simple ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ is distinguished from the καύχημα πρὸς τ. Θεόν, as one that takes place not πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Paul must have written: ἜΧΕΙ ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ· ἈΛΛʼ (or ἈΛΛᾺ ΜῊΝ) ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΙ. Mehring takes ἈΛΛʼ Οὐ ΠΡῸς ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ as a question: “If Abraham has become righteous by works, he has glory, but has he it not before God?” But in what follows it is the very opposite of the affirmation, which this question would imply, that is proved. If the words were interrogative, ἀλλὰ μή must have been used instead of ἈΛΛʼ Οὐ (but yet not before God?) Hofmann, in consequence of his erroneous exposition of Romans 4:1, supposes that Paul wishes to explain how he came to propose the question in Romans 4:1, and to regard an answer to it as necessary. What is here involved, namely, is nothing less than a contradiction between what Christians say of themselves (when they deny all possibility of becoming righteous by their own actions), and what holds good of “an Abraham,” the father of the people of God. If the latter has become righteous through his own action, he has glory, and by this very circumstance his ancestorship is distinguished from that of all others. But then the Scripture teaches that what God counted worthy in Abraham was his faith, and it is therefore clear that the glory which he has, if he has become righteous by works, is no glory in presence of God, and consequently is not fitted to be the basis of his position in sacred history. This is a chain of ideas imported into the passage; instead of which it was the object of the Apostle himself merely to set forth the simple proposition that Abraham was not justified by works, and not at all to speak of the mode in which the Christian ancestorship of the patriarch came to subsist.

καύχημα (comp on Php 1:26; Php 2:16) is throughout the N. T. materies gloriandi; as also in the LXX. and Apocrypha; although in classic authors (Pind. Isthm. v. 65; Plut. Ages. 31) it also occurs as the equivalent of καύχησις, gloriatio. In Galatians 6:4, also, it is joined with ἔχειν.

[964] In the Talmud it is even inferred from Genesis 26:5 that Abraham kept the whole law of Moses. Kiddusch f. 82, 1; Joma f. 28, 2; Beresch. rabba f. 57, 4. Comp. the passages from Philo quoted by Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 135.

[970] Van Hengel places a point after καύχ., and takes ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τ. Θεόν as an independent sentence, in which he supplies secundum literas sacras, making the sense: “Atqui gloriandi materiam Deum Abrahamo denegare videmus in libris sacris.” But that is, in fact, not there. Against my own interpretation in the 1st ed. (making εἰ.… ἐδικαιώθη the question, and then (ἔχει.… Θεόν the answer negativing it) see Philippi. The εἰ must be the dialectic if.

Romans 4:2 f. With ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τὸν θεόν the Apostle summarily repels the objection. “You say he has ground of boasting? On the contrary, he has no ground of boasting in relation to God, For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to Him for righteousness.” The quotation is from Genesis 15:6, and is exactly as in the LXX, except that Paul writes ἐπίστευσεν δὲ τῷ θεῷ instead of καὶ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, which serves partly to bring out the contrast between the real mode of Abraham’s justification, and the mode suggested in Romans 4:2, partly to give prominence to faith, as that on which his argument turned. The reading ἐπίστευσεν δὲ is also found in Jam 1:23, Philo i. 605 (Mangey), as well as Clem. Rom., I., x., 6, and Just. Martyr, Dial., 92: so that it was probably current, and not introduced by Paul. It is assumed that something not in itself righteousness was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness; only on this assumption is boasting in his case excluded.

2. For] Q. d., “the question is asked, because if the answer is yes, Abraham stands in a position of independence before God.”

by works] Lit. out of works; in consequence of them.

he hath] “As he stands before us in Scripture;” a frequent and natural use of the present tense.

whereof to glory] Lit. a boast; a ground of self-congratulation. The word is nearly the same as that in Romans 3:27. Both Gr. words are good or bad according to their connexion; meaning sometimes rightful and even holy exultation (e.g. ch. Romans 5:2; Hebrews 3:6, “rejoicing”), sometimes vanity and self-assertion.

but not before God] Lit. but not towards God; i.e. “not as looking Him in the face.” Before is thus a fair rendering. The phrase seems to be pregnant: instead of a mere negative to the question proposed, St Paul suggests the ultimate reason of the negative—the impossibility that man can boast rightly before God. We may paraphrase: “But as a fact he had no ground of boasting; for, in view of the holiness of God, that could not be, even for him. And (Romans 4:3) Scripture bears this out in direct terms; for it records that he was accepted as believing.”

Romans 4:2. Εἰ, if) A particle implying reluctant concession [for argument’s sake].—γὰρ, for) [The γάρ expresses] the cause after the proposition, and the reason why, in Romans 4:1, he added the limitation, hath found as pertaining to the flesh.[43]—πρὸς) to, or before. He was not justified by works before God, and therefore, he has no ground of boasting before God; but both [hold good of him] according to the flesh.

[43] Εξ ἔργων, from works) Abraham was before the law, hence Paul introduces no mention of the law, ver. 1–12.—V. g.

Verse 2. - For if Abraham was justified by works, be hath whereof to glory; but not before God. Many commentators take this verse to imply that, even if he was justified by works, he still had no ground of glorying before God, though he might have before men. But the drift of the whole argument being to show that he was not justified by works at all, this interpretation can hardly stand. "Not before God" must therefore have reference to the whole of the preceding sentence, in the sense, "It was not so in the sight of God." Before God (as appears from the text to be quoted) he had not whereof to glory on the ground of being justified by works, and therefore it follows that it was not by works that he was justified. Romans 4:2For

Supply, Abraham found nothing according to the flesh; for, if he did, he has something to boast of.

By works (ἐξ ἔργων)

Lit., out of works. In speaking of the relation of works to justification, Paul never uses διά by or through, but ἐκ out of; works being regarded by the Jew as the meritorious source of salvation.

Romans 4:2 Interlinear
Romans 4:2 Parallel Texts


Romans 4:2 NIV
Romans 4:2 NLT
Romans 4:2 ESV
Romans 4:2 NASB
Romans 4:2 KJV

Romans 4:2 Bible Apps
Romans 4:2 Parallel
Romans 4:2 Biblia Paralela
Romans 4:2 Chinese Bible
Romans 4:2 French Bible
Romans 4:2 German Bible

Bible Hub