Romans 4:2

Some commentators take this verse as the logical proof (for) of the negative answer which must be understood between Romans 4:1-2: “ Nothing; for, if he had been justified by his works, he would have whereof to glory, which is inadmissible.” But why would it be inadmissible? This is exactly the matter to be examined. The reasoning would then be only a vicious circle. The verse must be regarded, not as a proof of the negative answer anticipated, but as the explanation why Paul required to put the question of Romans 4:1: “I ask this, because if Abraham had been justified by his works, he would really have something of which to glory; and consequently the boasting which I declared to be excluded (Romans 3:27) would reappear once more as right and good.” Did not Abraham's example form the rule?

The expression by works is substituted for that of Romans 4:1: according to the flesh, as the term being justified replaces the having found. In both cases, the term appearing in Romans 4:2 indicates the concrete result (works, being justified), as that in Romans 4:1 expressed the abstract principle (the flesh, finding). The word καύχημα signifies a matter for glorying in, which is quite a different thing from καύχησις, the act of glorying. Paul does not say that Abraham would really glory, but only that he would have matter for doing so. But how can the apostle express himself at the end of the verse in the words: but not before God, so as to make us suppose that Abraham was really justified by his works, though not before God? Some commentators (Beza, Grot., de Wette, Rück., Philip.) think themselves obliged to weaken the sense of the word justified, as if it denoted here justification in the eyes of men: “If Abraham was justified by his works (in the judgment of men), he has a right to boast (relatively to them and himself), but not as before God.” But would such an attenuated sense of the word justify be possible in this passage, which may be called Paul's classical teaching on the subject of justification? Calvin, Fritzsche, Baur, Hodge, assert that we have here an incomplete syllogism; the major: “If Abraham was justified by works, he has whereof to glory;” the minor: “Now he could not have whereof to glory before God;” the conclusion (understood): “Therefore he was not justified by works.” But the minor is exactly what it would have been necessary to prove; for what had been said, Romans 3:27, of the exclusion of boasting or of justification by works, was again made a question by the discussion on the case of Abraham. Besides, the conclusion was the important part, and could not have been left to be understood. The apostle has not accustomed us to such a mode of arguing. Meyer, after some variations in his first editions, has ended by siding with the explanation of Chrysostom and Theodoret, which is to the following effect: “If Abraham was justified by his works, he has undoubtedly something whereof to glory in his own eyes; but in this case he has received no favor from God, nothing which honors him as the object of divine grace; and his justification not coming from God, he has no cause to glory in relation to God.” This meaning is very ingenious; nevertheless it is untenable; for

1. The term glorying would require to be taken in a good sense: glorying in a real favor received from God, while throughout the whole piece it is applied to an impure boasting, the ground of which man finds in himself and in his own work.

2. Paul must have said in this sense: ἐν Θεῷ, in God, rather than πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, in relation to God, comp. Romans 2:17.

3. Romans 4:3 does not naturally connect itself with Romans 4:2 when thus understood, for this verse proves not what it should (for), to wit, that Abraham has no cause for boasting in the case supposed, but the simple truth that he was justified by his faith. Semler and Glöckler have had recourse to a desperate expedient, that of taking πρὸς τὸν Θεόν as the exclamation of an oath: “But no, by God, it is not so.” But this sense would have required πρὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ; and what could have led Paul to use such a form here? The turn of expression employed by the apostle is certainly singular, we shall say even a little perplexed. He feels he is approaching a delicate subject, about which Jewish national feeling could not but show itself very sensitive. To understand his meaning, we must, after the words: “If he was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory,” add the following: “and he has really great reason for glorying; it is something to have been made an Abraham; one may be proud of having borne such a name, but ”...Here the apostle resumes in such a way as to return to his theme: “but all this glorying has nothing to do with the account which he had to render to God.” The words: in relation to God, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, are evidently opposed to a corresponding: in relation to man, understood. In comparing himself with men less holy than he, Abraham might have some cause for glorying; but the instant he put himself before God, his righteousness vanished. This is exactly the point proved by the following verses.