Ver. 31. vdépov οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; Do we then annul “law” through the faith we have been discuss- ing? Perhaps if Law were written with. a capital letter, it would suggest the true meaning. The Apostle speaks as from the consciousness of a Jewish objector: is all that we have ever called Law— the whole Jewish religion—that divinely established order, and everything of the same nature—made void by faith? God forbid, he answers: on the contrary, Law is set upon a secure footing ; for the first time it gets its rights. To prove this was one of the main tasks lying upon the Apostle of the New, Covenant. One species of proof is given in chap iv.,
* But etwep = if God is indeed one (which no Jew, the supposed interlocutor,
would deny).
IV. i—4.
1V. 1. ΤΙ οὖν ἐροῦμεν ᾽Αβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα !; 2. εἰ yap ABpadp ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχηµα, GAN’
οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν."
3. τί γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει; “'᾿Επίστευσε δὲ ᾽Αβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.
4. τῷ δὲ
ἐργαζομένω ὁ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ " χάριν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ὀφεί-α Ver. 16.
1 The T.R. ABpaap τον πατερα ηµων ευρηκεναι is found in KLP, Theodoret and
later fathers.
For πατερα, προπατορα is read in ΝΑΒΟΙ, etc. before ABpaap in ΝΑΟΡΕα lat. and Egypt. versions, etc.
ευρηκεναι stands In B 47} ενρηκεναι is
omitted. The omission (see commentary) gives the easiest and most suitable text.
W. and Ἡ. omit it from their text but put it in marg. after ερουµεν. Weiss retains it.
omits it in marg., inserting it in text. 2 pos τον θεον; om. τον SABCD'F.
where he shows that representative saints under the Old Dispensation, like Abraham, were justified by faith. That is the Divine order still, and it is securer than ever under the Gospel. Another kind of proof is given in chaps. vi.-viii., where the new life of the Christian is unfolded, and we are shown that ‘‘ the just demands of the law ” are fulfilled in oelievers, and in believers only. The claim which the Apostle makes here, and establishes in these two passages, is the same as that in our Lord’s words: I came not to destroy (the law or the pro- phets), but to fulfil.
» CHAPTER IV.—Vers. 1-8. The justifi- cation of Abraham, considered in relation to the doctrine just expounded in iii. 21-31. The point to be made out is that the justification of Abraham does not traverse but illustrates the Pauline doc- trine.
Ver. t The force of οὖν seems to be that the case of Abraham, as com- monly understood, has at least the ap- pearance of inconsistency with the Pauline doctrine. ‘* What, then, i.e., on the supposition that vers, 21-31 in chap. ili. are a true exposition of God’s method, shall we say of Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? Does not his case present a difficulty? For if he was justified by works (as one may assume), he has ground for boasting (whereas boasting, according to the pre- vious argument, iii. 27, is excluded).”’ This seems to me by far the simplest interpretation of the passage. The speaker is a Jewish Christian, or the Apostle putting himself in the place of one. κατὰ σάρκα goes with τὸν προπά- τορα ἡμῶν, because the contrast with another kind of fatherhood belonging to Abraham is already in the Apostle’s thoughts: see νετ. 11. If the reading
hey Reve
εὐρηκέναι be adopted (see critical note), no change is necessary in the interpreta- tion. To take κατὰ σάρκα with εὑρηκέ- vat, as though the question were: What shall we say that our forefather Abra- ham found in the way of natural human effort, as opposed to the way of grace and faith? is to put a sense on κατὰ σάρκα which is both forced and irrele- vant. The whole question is, What do you make of Abraham, with such a theory as that just described ?