For if Abraham, etc. This is an incomplete argument, [1] which may be made in this form -- "If Abraham was justified by works, he might justly glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God; then he was not justified by works." Thus the clause but not before God, is the minor proposition; and to this must be added the conclusion which I have stated, though it is not expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend to have anything of our own to which a reward is supposed to be due at God's tribunal. Since he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim for himself the least particle of merit?

Footnotes

1 - Epicheirema; in Greek epicheirema, an attempted but an unfinished process of reasoning. It is not necessary to introduce this sort of syllogism, it being not the character of Scripture nor of any other writing to discuss matters in this form. The word for "glorying" here, kauchema, is different from that in Romans 3:27, kauchesis, and means reason, ground, or cause for glorying, and is rendered by Grotius "unde laudem speret -- whereby he may hope for praise;" and by Beza and Piscator "unde glorietur -- whereby he may glory." To complete the following clause, most repeat the words echei kauchema -- "But he has no ground for glorying before God." Vatablus gives another meaning, "But not with regard to God," that is, with regard to what he has said in his word; and this view is confirmed by what immediately follows, "For what saith the Scripture?" In this case there is nothing understood. That pros theon is used in a similar manner, is evident from other passages: ta pros theon -- "things which pertain to God," i.e., to God's work or service. See Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 5:1. -- Ed.

For if Abraham - This is the answer of the apostle. If Abraham was justified on the ground of his own merits, he would have reason to boast, or to claim praise. He might regard himself as the author of it, and take the praise to himself; see Romans 4:4. The inquiry, therefore, was, whether in the account of the justification of Abraham, there was to be found any such statement of a reason for self-confidence and boasting.
But not before God - In the sight of God. That is, in his recorded judgment, he had no ground of boasting on account of works. To show this, the apostle appeals at once to the Scriptures, to show that there was no such record as that Abraham could boast that he was justified by his works. As God judges right in all cases, so it follows that Abraham had no just ground of boasting, and of course that he was not justified by his own works. The sense of this verse is well expressed by Calvin. "If Abraham was justified by his works, he might boast of his own merits. But he has no ground of boasting before God. Therefore he was not justified by works."

For if Abraham were justified by works - The Jew proceeds: - I conclude, therefore, that Abraham was justified by works, or by his obedience to this law of circumcision; and, consequently, he has cause for glorying, καυχημα, to exult in something which he has done to entitle him to these blessings. Now, it is evident that he has this glorying, and consequently that he was justified by works.
Apostle. But not before God - These seem to be the apostle's words, and contain the beginning of his answer to the arguments of the Jew, as if he had said: - Allowing that Abraham might glory in being called from heathenish darkness into such marvellous light, and exult in the privileges which God had granted to him; yet this glorying was not before God as a reason why those privileges should be granted; the glorying itself being a consequence of these very privileges.

(2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
(2) A preventing of an objection. Abraham may well rejoice and extol himself among men, but not with God.

For if Abraham were justified by works,.... That Abraham was not, and could not be justified by works, is clear from hence, that if this was his case,
he hath whereof to glory; which will be allowed him before men, on account of his pious life and conversation:
but not before God; who saw all the iniquity of his heart, and was privy to all his failings and infirmities: besides, glorying before God in a man's own works, is contrary to the scheme and method of God's grace; is excluded by the doctrine of faith; nor is there any place for glorying before God but in Christ, and his righteousness: if therefore Abraham had not that of which he could glory before God, he could not be justified by works in his sight: but does not the Apostle James say that he was justified by works, James 2:21? To this it may be replied, that the two apostles, Paul and James, are not speaking of the same thing: Paul speaks of justification before God, James of justification before men; Paul speaks of the justification of the person, James of the justification of a man's cause, as the truth of his faith, or the uprightness of his conduct; Paul speaks of works, as the causes of justification, James of them as the effects and evidences of faith; Paul had to do with the self-righteous, who trusted in their own works for justification, James with Gnostics, who slighted and neglected the performance of them. These things considered, they will be found to agree.

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God--"If works were the ground of Abraham's justification, he would have matter for boasting; but as it is perfectly certain that he hath none in the sight of God, it follows that Abraham could not have been justified by works." And to this agree the words of Scripture.

The meaning is, If Abraham had been justified by works, he would have had room to glory. But he had not room to glory. Therefore he was not justified by works.