Romans 4:1

This chapter is a development of the thought expressed in Romans 4:28-29 near the close of Romans 3, that is, the vindication of God's righteousness in calling Jews and Gentiles in one body, that of Christ, with no distinctions between them. Paul followed throughout this chapter the terminology introduced in those verses, calling the Jews "the circumcision" and the Gentiles "the uncircumcision." That such is indeed the subject of this chapter appears in the use of those two words a dozen times in four verses. Of course, reference is also made to the rite of circumcision.

In this chapter, Paul was not discussing the question of how either Jews or Gentiles are justified; and therein is the explanation of why James in his epistle is thought by some to have contradicted Paul. Their arguments touched each other but were concerned with different objectives. James was dealing with justification and Paul with the righteousness of God. Abraham, the example Paul cited to show God's justice in calling the Gentiles, was the possessor of Gentile status himself at the time God called him, in the sense of his having been called prior to the giving of the covenant of circumcision and prior to the giving of the law of Moses. What a beautiful argument. In effect, Abraham, the father of all the Jews (specifically pointed out in the first verse), was himself without those very things (the law, circumcision, etc.) which the Christians of Jewish background were attempting to bind upon Gentile converts to Christianity; that is, Abraham was without all those things "when he was called." The word "when" in Romans 4:10 is the pivot upon which the whole argument was based.

One of the tragic mistakes people have made in the interpretation of this chapter is that of making Abraham to be a type of the alien sinner's conversion. He is no such thing, as will be shown in the notes below.

Regarding the so-called contradiction between the inspired authors, James and Paul, it simply does not exist. Paul wrote of justification "by faith," and James of justification "by works." So what? Justification is obviously by both! It would require a statement by one of them to the effect that salvation is by one or the other "only," in order for there to be a contradiction (this is merely basic English); but of course, neither writer said any such thing; and James went so far as to guard against anyone's ever saying such a thing when he wrote: "Ye see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). The alleged contradiction is thus between human error and the word of God, not between the apostolic authors.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? (Romans 4:1)

Both the KJV and the English Revised Version (1885) are ambiguous in the translation of this verse; and, despite the fact that various shades of meaning are ably advocated by scholars, one can hardly go wrong, as regards the English meaning of this disputed verse, in accepting the concurrent testimony of reputable versions and translations. This verse, according to Phillips, the New English Bible, and the RSV, means essentially what the RSV has given, namely, "What shall we say then about Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?" The words "hath found according to the flesh" (as in the English Revised Version (1885) version which is used in this commentary) have no clear meaning in English. Therefore, we construe this first verse as a simple introduction of Abraham, father of all the Jews, who was called before either the law or circumcision was given. Paul was arguing that to require Gentile converts to accept the law and circumcision would require what was not even required of Abraham. The Gentiles, at the time Paul wrote, were being called to accept Christianity; and, as far as the law of Moses and the rite of circumcision were concerned, the Gentiles had an equivalent status to that of the Jews themselves in the person of their great ancestor, who had neither the law nor circumcision "at the time God called him." Therefore, it was perfectly right for God to call all the Gentiles without respect to the law or circumcision, the lack of such being no impediment to their call. Also, by the choice of such an example, Paul was making it obviously ridiculous to require Gentile converts to the faith to submit to a system that was not even a prerequisite for the call of Abraham.