The interpretation timeline
Romans 4:1 Douay-Rheims

What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh.

A.D. 407 – 1849 6 witnesses

Patristic

before A.D. 750
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“He had said that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but "righteousness. Therein" (he says) "is the righteousness of God revealed." For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not "righteousness" only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great. And he calls him "father, as pertaining to the flesh," to throw them out of the genuine relationship to him, and to pave the Gentiles' way to kinsmanship with him. And then he says, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not before God." After saying that God "justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith," and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this righteous man the subject of the whole struggle. For the great power of Paul is especially displayed in this, that he turns what is objected to the other side, and shows that what seemed rather to be on the side of salvation by works, viz. glorying or boldness of claim belonged much more truly to that by faith. For he that glorieth in his works has his own labors to put forward: but he that finds his honor in having faith in God, has a much greater ground for glorying to show, in that it is God that he glorifieth and magnifieth.”
Source

Scholastic

c. 1100 – 1500
1273
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas Catholic
1225–1274
“After the Apostle excluded the glory of the Jews which they had in the law, by which they preferred themselves to the Gentiles, here he excludes their glory as regards circumcision. And concerning this he does two things. First he resumes the question which he had proposed above, saying, What is the profit of circumcision? And because Abraham was the first to receive the commandment concerning circumcision, as is said in Genesis 17:10, therefore he repeats the question in the person of Abraham himself, saying: if it is so that God justifies the uncircumcision just as He justifies circumcision, what then shall we say that Abraham our father found according to the flesh? That is, according to carnal circumcision and according to the other carnal observances? It seems to be unfitting if it should be said that he found no profit, since it is said in Isaiah 47:17: "I am the Lord teaching you profitable things." Second, where he says "For if Abraham," etc., he responds to the question proposed. And he does two things. First he shows that Abraham did not find this through circumcision and the other works of the law, namely that he should be justified by it, but rather through faith. Second he commends his faith, where he says "who against hope," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the proposition by an argument taken from the side of the divine acceptance; second, by an argument from the divine promise, where he says "For not through the law," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he proposes a certain conditional; second he proves the destruction of the consequent, where he says "For what does Scripture say," etc. Third, he proves the conditional itself, where he says "as also David," etc. Concerning the first part, the Apostle intends to argue thus: if Abraham had been justified by the works of the law, he would not have glory before God; therefore he was not justified by works. He proposes therefore a conditional, saying: it was asked what Abraham found according to carnal circumcision, and it is manifest that he did not find this — that he should be justified by the works of the law — in the sense, namely, that his justice should consist in the works of the law; he has glory indeed, namely before men, who see external deeds, but not before God, who sees in secret, according to that saying in 1 Kings 16:7: "But God looks upon the heart." 1 Corinthians 3:21: "Let no one of you glory in men," etc. Whence against certain ones it is said in John 12:43: "They loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." But against this it can be objected, because from the habit of external works an interior disposition is generated, according to which even the heart of man is well disposed, so that it is prompt for acting well and delights in good works, as the Philosopher teaches in Book II of the Ethics. But it must be said that this holds in human justice, by which, namely, man is ordered to a human good. For the habit of this justice can be acquired through human works, but the justice which has glory before God is ordered to the divine good, namely of future glory, which exceeds human capacity, according to that saying in 1 Corinthians 2:9: "Into the heart of man there has not ascended what God has prepared for those who love Him." And therefore the works of man are not proportioned to causing the habit of this justice, but it is necessary that the heart of man first be justified interiorly by God, so that he may perform works proportioned to the divine glory. Then, where he says "For what," etc., he destroys the consequent which was negative, by proving the opposite affirmation, namely that Abraham had glory before God. And this he proves through the authority of Scripture, which the Apostle first sets down; second he expounds it, where he says "But to him," etc. He says therefore first: I say Abraham to be so justified that he has glory before God — for what does Scripture say? Genesis 15:6: Abraham believed God promising him the multiplication of his seed. Ecclesiasticus 2:6: "Believe God, and He will recover you." "And it was reputed to him," namely by God, "unto justice." 1 Maccabees 2:52: "Abraham was found faithful in temptation." And thus it is clear that before God, by whom it was reputed to him unto justice that he believed, he has glory. It must be considered, however, that the justice which God reputes as written, He expressed not in some external work, but in the interior faith of the heart, which God alone beholds. Now since it is said that the act of faith is threefold, namely to believe God, to believe in God, and to believe unto God, he set down this act which is to believe God, which is the proper act of faith, showing its species. For to believe in God shows the order of faith to its end, which is through charity; for to believe in God is, by believing, to go into God, which charity effects. And thus it follows upon the species of faith. But to believe God shows the matter of faith, according as it is a theological virtue, having God for its object. And therefore this act does not yet attain to the species of faith, because if someone should believe that God exists through certain human reasonings and natural signs, he is not yet said to have the faith of which we speak, but only when from this very reason he believes that it was said by God — which is designated by saying "to believe God"; and from this faith is specified, just as any cognitive habit has its species from the reason by which it assents to something. For one having the habit of science is inclined to assent by one reason, namely through demonstration, and one having the habit of opinion by another reason, namely through dialectical syllogism. Then, where he says "But to him who works," etc., he expounds the aforesaid authority as to what it says, "it was reputed to him unto justice," etc. And a twofold exposition of these words is touched upon in the Gloss. The first is according as they are referred to the final reward, concerning which it is shown first how it stands with respect to works, second how it stands with respect to faith, where he says "But to him who does not," etc. He says therefore first, that to him who works — namely, works of justice — the reward, of eternal recompense, concerning which it is said in Isaiah 40:10: "Behold, his reward is with him," is not reputed according to grace only, but according to debt, according to that saying in Matthew 20:13: "Did you not agree with me for a denarius?" But against this is what is said below in 6:23: "the grace of God is eternal life." And below in 8:18: "the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared to the glory to come." Thus therefore that recompense is not made according to debt, but according to grace. But it must be said that human works can be considered in two ways. In one way according to the substance of the works, and thus they have nothing condign, such that the reward of eternal glory should be rendered to them. In another way they can be considered according to their principle, namely as they are done from the impulse of God according to the purpose of God predestining; and according to this the aforesaid reward is owed to them according to debt, because, as is said below in 8:14: "those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God; but if sons, also heirs." Then, where he says "But to him," etc., he shows how the eternal reward stands with respect to faith, saying: "But to him who does not work" — namely, external works, for instance because he does not have time to work, as is clear in one baptized who dies immediately — "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly," namely, in God, of whom it is said below, 8:18, "his faith is reputed" — namely alone, without external works — "unto justice," that is, so that by it he may be called just, and may receive the reward of justice, just as if he had done works of justice, according to that saying below, 10:10: "with the heart one believes unto justice," and this "according to the purpose of the grace of God," that is, according as God purposes from His grace to save men. Below, 8:28: "to those who according to His purpose are called saints." Ephesians 1:11: "who works all things according to the counsel of His will." The other exposition is that this be referred to the justification of man. He says therefore "but to him who works," that is, if someone should be justified by works, justice itself would be imputed as a reward not according to grace, but according to debt. Below, 11:6: "But if by grace, now it is not of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace." "But to him who does not work" — namely, so as to be justified by his own works — "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly" — this faith of his shall be computed unto justice according to the purpose of the grace of God — not indeed so that by faith he merits justice, but because the very act of believing is the first act of justice which God works in him. For from the fact that he believes in God justifying, he subjects himself to His justification, and thus receives its effect. And this exposition is the literal one, and according to the intention of the Apostle, who lays stress on this, that in Genesis 15:6 it is said "it was reputed to him unto justice," which is customarily said when that which is less on someone's part is reputed to him gratis, as if he had done the whole. And therefore the Apostle says that this reputation would have no place, if justice were from works, but it has place only insofar as it is from faith. Then, where he says "as also David," etc., he proves the conditional premised, from the authority of the Psalm. Of which he first sets forth the sense; second he sets down its words, where he says "Blessed are they whose"; third he excludes a false understanding, where he says "the blessedness," etc. He says therefore: as also David says, that is, asserts, the blessedness of man to be that of him, namely, to whom God brings, that is gives, justice, received — that is, freely, without preceding works. Titus 3:5: "For not by works of justice which we have done." Now the blessedness of man is from God, according to that saying in Psalm 39:5: "Blessed is the man whose hope the Lord God is." Thus therefore it is manifest that he has glory before God who is not justified from the works of the law, as has been said. Then, where he says "Blessed are they whose," etc., he sets down the words of David containing the aforesaid statement, and says that they are blessed whose sins are forgiven. And thus it is clear that they did not have prior good works from which they might obtain justice or blessedness. Now sin is threefold, namely original, actual mortal, and actual venial. First therefore, as to original sin, he says: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven." Here it must be considered that original sin is called iniquity, because it is a lack of original justice, by which, according to equity, the reason of man was subjected to God, the lower powers to reason, and the body to the soul; but through original sin this equity is taken away, because after reason ceased to be subject to God, the lower powers rebel against reason and the body is withdrawn from the obedience of the soul through corruption and death. Whence in Psalm 50:7: "Behold, for I was conceived in iniquities." In both cases, moreover, original sin is signified in the plural. Either because of the many men in whom original sin is multiplied, or rather because it virtually contains in itself, as it were, all sins. This kind of original sin, moreover, is said to be forgiven, because the guilt passes away when grace supervenes, but it remains in act, the tinder or concupiscence remaining, which is not wholly taken away in this life, but is remitted, or mitigated. Second, as to actual mortal sin, he says: "and whose sins are covered." Now sins are said to be covered from the divine sight, insofar as He does not look upon them so as to punish them. Psalm 84:3: "You have covered all their sins." Third, as to venial sin, he says: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin," so that by "sin" venial sins are understood, which, although they are light, nevertheless through many of them man is separated and removed far from God. 2 Chronicles 30:18-19: "The good Lord will be merciful to all who seek Him with their whole heart, and it shall not be imputed to them that they are less holy." These three, moreover, can also be distinguished otherwise. For in sin there are three things, of which one is the offense against God, and as to this he says: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," according as man is said to forgive an offense done to him. Isaiah 40:2: "Her iniquity is forgiven." Another is the disordered act itself of the fault, which cannot not have been done once it has been perpetrated, but it is covered by the hand of divine mercy, so that it is held as if not done. Third, indeed, is the guilt of punishment, and as to this he says: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin," namely, unto punishment. Then, where he says "The blessedness therefore," etc., he excludes a false understanding of the aforesaid authority. For a Jew could understand it thus, that the aforesaid grace of the remission of sins would not come about except to the circumcised. To exclude this, therefore, first the Apostle raises the question, saying: "this blessedness," namely, by which God gives justice without works, "does it remain only in the circumcision," that is, does it have place only in the circumcised, "or also in the uncircumcision," that is, in the Gentiles? It is manifest that it is in both, according to that which he says below, 10:10: "the same Lord is rich unto all," etc. Second, where he says "For we say," he assumes, to show this, the authority of Scripture, as if he should say, I ask this for this reason: "for we say," etc., that "faith was reputed to Abraham unto justice," Genesis 15:6. Third, from this authority he concludes the solution of the aforesaid question, yet under a question, saying: "How then was it reputed?" Namely, the faith of Abraham unto justice, "in circumcision," that is, when he was circumcised, "or in uncircumcision," that is, when he was uncircumcised? And he answers: "not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." And this is manifest from the sequence of the narrative of Scripture. For in Genesis 15:6 it is read that faith was reputed to Abraham unto justice, but he is read to have received circumcision in Genesis 17:23. If therefore Abraham, while still existing uncircumcised, was justified through faith, it is manifest that the justice of faith, by which sins are freely remitted, is not only in circumcision, but also in uncircumcision, that is, in gentility.”

Post-Reformation

c. 1650 – 1900
1714
A.D.
Matthew Henry Reformed
1662–1714
“Here the apostle proves that Abraham was justified not by works, but by faith. Those that of all men contended most vigorously for a share in righteousness by the privileges they enjoyed, and the works they performed, were the Jews, and therefore he appeals to the case of Abraham their father, and puts his own name to the relation, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews: Abraham our father. Now surely his prerogative must needs be as great as theirs who claim it as his seed according to the flesh. Now what has he found? All the world is seeking; but, while the most are wearying themselves for very vanity, none can be truly reckoned to have found, but those who are justified before God; and thus Abraham, like a wise merchant, seeking goodly pearls, found this one pearl of great price. What has he found, kata sarka - as pertaining to the flesh, that is, by circumcision and his external privileges and performances? These the apostle calls flesh, Phi 3:3. Now what did he get by these? Was he justified by them? Was it the merit of his works that recommended him to God's acceptance? No, by no means, which he proves by several arguments. I. If he had been justified by works, room would have been left for boasting, which must for ever be excluded. If so, he hath whereof to glory (Rom 4:2), which is not to be allowed. "But," might the Jews say, "was not his name made great (Gen 12:2), and then might not he glory?" Yes, but not before God; he might deserve well of men, but he could never merit of God. Paul himself had whereof to glory before men, and we have him sometimes glorying in it, yet with humility; but nothing to glory in before God, Co1 4:4; Phi 3:8, Phi 3:9. So Abraham. Observe, He takes it for granted that man must not pretend to glory in any thing before God; no, not Abraham, as great and as good a man as he was; and therefore he fetches an argument from it: it would be absurd for him that glorieth to glory in any but the Lord. II. It is expressly said that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness. What saith the scripture? Rom 4:3. In all controversies in religion this must be our question, What saith the scripture? It is not what this great man, and the other good man, say, but What saith the scripture? Ask counsel at this Abel, and so end the matter, Sa2 2:18. To the law, and to the testimony (Isa 8:20), thither is the last appeal. Now the scripture saith that Abraham believed, and this was counted to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6); therefore he had not whereof to glory before God, it being purely of free grace that it was so imputed, and having not in itself any of the formal nature of a righteousness, further than as God himself was graciously pleased so to count it to him. It is mentioned in Genesis, upon occasion of a very signal and remarkable act of faith concerning the promised seed, and is the more observable in that it followed upon a grievous conflict he had had with unbelief; his faith was now a victorious faith, newly returned from the battle. It is not the perfect faith that is required to justification (there may be acceptable faith where there are remainders of unbelief), but the prevailing faith, the faith that has the upper hand of unbelief. III. If he had been justified by faith, the reward would have been of debt, and not of grace, which is not to be imagined. This is his argument (Rom 4:4, Rom 4:5): Abraham's reward was God himself; so he had told him but just before (Gen 15:1), I am thy exceeding great reward. Now, if Abraham had merited this by the perfection of his obedience, it had not been an act of grace in God, but Abraham might have demanded it with as much confidence as ever any labourer in the vineyard demanded the penny he had earned. But this cannot be; it is impossible for man, much more guilty man, to make God a debtor to him, Rom 11:35. No, God will have free grace to have all the glory, grace for grace's sake, Joh 1:16. And therefore to him that worketh not - that can pretend to no such merit, nor show any worth or value in his work, which may answer such a reward, but disclaiming any such pretension casts himself wholly upon the free grace of God in Christ, by a lively, active, obedient faith - to such a one faith is counted for righteousness, is accepted of God as the qualification required in all those that shall be pardoned and saved. Him that justifieth the ungodly, that is, him that was before ungodly. His former ungodliness was no bar to his justification upon his believing: ton asebē - that ungodly one, that is, Abraham, who, before his conversion, it should seem, was carried down the stream of the Chaldean idolatry, Jos 24:2. No room therefore is left for despair; though God clears not the impenitent guilty, yet through Christ he justifies the ungodly. IV. He further illustrates this by a passage out of the Psalms, where David speaks of the remission of sins, the prime branch of justification, as constituting the happiness and blessedness of a man, pronouncing blessed, not the man who has no sin, or none which deserved death (for then, while man is so sinful, and God so righteous, where would be the blessed man?) but the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, who though he cannot plead, Not guilty, pleads the act of indemnity, and his plea is allowed. It is quoted from Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2, where observe, 1. The nature of forgiveness. It is the remission of a debt or a crime; it is the covering of sin, as a filthy thing, as the nakedness and shame of the soul. God is said to cast sin behind his back, to hide his face from it, which, and the like expressions, imply that the ground of our blessedness is not our innocency, or our not having sinned (a thing is, and is filthy, though covered; justification does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin), but God's not laying it to our charge, as it follows here: it is God's not imputing sin (Rom 4:8), which makes it wholly a gracious act of God, not dealing with us in strict justice as we have deserved, not entering into judgment, not marking iniquities, all which being purely acts of grace, the acceptance and the reward cannot be expected as debts; and therefore Paul infers (Rom 4:6) that it is the imputing of righteousness without works. 2. The blessedness of it: Blessed are they. When it is said, Blessed are the undefiled in the way, blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, etc., the design is to show the characters of those that are blessed; but when it is said, Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, the design is to show what that blessedness is, and what the ground and foundation of it. Pardoned people are the only blessed people. The sentiments of the world are, Those are happy that have a clear estate, and are out of debt to man; but the sentence of the word is, Those are happy that have their debts to God discharged. O how much therefore is it our interest to make it sure to ourselves that our sins are pardoned! For this is the foundation of all other benefits. So and so I will do for them; for I will be merciful, Heb 8:12.”
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“What shall we say then,.... The apostle having proved that there is no justification by the works of the law; to make this appear more clear and evident to the Jews, he instances in the greatest person of their nation, and for whom they had the greatest value and esteem, Abraham, our father; who was not a righteous and good man, but the head of the Jewish nation; and, as the Syriac version here styles him, , "the head", or "chief of the fathers"; and so the Alexandrian copy, "our forefather": and was the first of the circumcision, and is described here by his relation to the Jews, "our father"; that is, as pertaining to the flesh; or according to carnal descent, or natural generation and relation; for in a spiritual sense, or with respect to faith and grace, he was the father of others, even of all that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles: now the question put concerning him is, "what he, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" for the phrase, "as pertaining to the flesh", may be connected with the word found; and to find anything is by seeking to obtain, and enjoy it: and the sense of the whole is, did he find out the way of life, righteousness, and salvation by the mere hint of carnal reason? and did he obtain these things by his own strength? or were these acquired by his circumcision in the flesh, or by any other fleshly privilege he enjoyed? or was he justified before God by any services and performances of his, of whatsoever kind? There is indeed no express answer returned; but it is evident from what follows, that the meaning of the apostle is, that it should be understood in the negative.”
Source
1832
A.D.
Adam Clarke Methodist
1762–1832
“Jew. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? - The κατα σαρκα, pertaining to the flesh, must here refer to the sign in Abraham's flesh, viz. his circumcision; on which the Jew would found his right to peculiar blessings. That this is the meaning of κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh, Dr. Taylor has proved by a collation of several parallel scriptures, which it is not necessary to produce here. We may, therefore, suppose the Jew arguing thus: But you set your argument on a wrong footing, viz. the corrupt state of our nation; whereas we hold our prerogative above the rest of mankind from Abraham, who is our father; and we have a right to the blessings of God's peculiar kingdom, in virtue of the promise made to him; his justification is the ground of ours. Now what shall we make of his case, on your principles? Of what use was his obedience to the law of circumcision, if it did not give him a right to the blessing of God? And if, by his obedience to that law, he obtained a grant of extraordinary blessings, then, according to your own concession, Rom 3:27, he might ascribe his justification to something in himself; and, consequently, so may we too, in his right; and if so, this will exclude all those who are not circumcised as we are.”
Source
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“The apostle proves what he had advanced in the last chapter, that the Jews cannot be justified by the works of the written law, nor by any works, unless joined with faith in the Messias, their Redeemer. This he shews by the example of Abraham, who is said to have been justified by believing; 2. and this was before he was circumcised; 3. and long before the law of Moses. Justification was then given without the works of that law. — What advantage shall we say, then, that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh? This seems the true construction and sense: rather than what did he find according to the flesh, as some expound it. (Witham)”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.