Romans 4:1,2

“ 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 Romans 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? Romans 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 (Romans 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 Romans 4:12; Romans 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 1 Corinthians 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. Romans 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.