1. 1. ROMA S 4 COMME TARY EDITED BY GLE PEASE 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? BAR ES, What shall we say then? - See Rom_3:1. This is rather the objection of a Jew. How does your doctrine of justification by faith agree with what the Scriptures say of Abraham? Was the Law set aside in his case? Did he derive no advantage in justification from the rite of circumcision, and from the covenant which God made with him? The object of the apostle now is to answer this inquiry. That Abraham our father - Our ancestor; the father and founder of the nation; see the note at Mat_3:9 The Jews valued themselves much on the fact that he was their father; and an argument, drawn from his example or conduct, therefore, would be especially forcible. As pertaining to the flesh - This expression is one that has been much controverted. In the original, it may refer either to Abraham as their father according to the flesh, that is, their natural father, or from whom they were descended; or it may be connected with hath found. What shall we say that Abraham our father hath found in respect to the flesh? ? ? kata sarka. The latter is doubtless the proper connection. Some refer the word flesh to external privileges and advantages; others to his own strength or power (Calvin and Grotius); and others make it refer to circumcision. This latter I take to be the correct interpretation. It agrees best with the connection, and equally well with the usual meaning of the word. The idea is, If people are justified by faith; if works are to have no place; if, therefore, all rites and ceremonies, all legal observances, are useless in justification; what is the advantage of circumcision? What benefit did Abraham derive from it? Why was it appointed? And why is such an importance attached to it in the history of his life. A similar question was asked in Rom_3:1. Hath found - Hath obtained. What advantage has he derived from it? CLARKE, Jew. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? - The , pertaining to the flesh, must here refer to the sign in Abrahams flesh, viz. his circumcision; on which the Jew would found his right to peculiar blessings. That this is the meaning of , 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 Gods 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,
2. 2. 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. COFFMAN, This chapter is a development of the thought expressed in Romans 4:28-29near 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 was without all those things "when he was called." The word "when" inRomans 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 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 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. HE RY, 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:
3. 3. 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. GILL, 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. JAMISON, THE FOREGOING DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ILLUSTRATED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Rom. 4:1-25) What shall we say then that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?--that is, (as the order in the original shows), "hath found, as pertaining to ('according to,' or 'through') the flesh"; meaning, "by all his natural efforts or legal obedience." CALVIN, 1.What then, etc. This is a confirmation by example; and it is a very strong one, since all things are alike with regard to the subject and the person; for he was the father of the faithful, to whom we ought all to be conformed; and there is also but one way and not many ways by which righteousness may be obtained by all. In many other things one example would not be sufficient to make a common rule; but as in the person of Abraham there was exhibited a mirror and pattern of righteousness, which belongs in common
4. 4. than that they were the children of Abraham; and they could not have dared to claim to themselves more holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch. Since it is then evident that he was justified freely, his posterity, who claimed a righteousness of their own by the law, ought to have been made silent even through shame. According to the flesh, etc. Between this clause and the word father there is put in Paul text the verb , in this order shall we say that Abraham our father has found ACCORDING to the flesh? On this account, some interpreters think that the question is has Abraham obtained according to the flesh? If this exposition be approved, the wordsaccording to the flesh mean naturally or from himself. It is, however, probable that they are to be connected with the wordfather. (130) Besides, as we are wont to be more touched by domestic examples, the dignity of their race, in which the Jews took too much pride, is here again expressly mentioned. But some regard this as spoken in contempt, as they are elsewhere called the carnal children of Abraham, being not so spiritually or in a legitimate sense. But I think that it was expressed as a thing peculiar to the Jews; for it was a greater honor to be the children of Abraham by nature and descent, than by mere adoption, provided there was also faith. He then concedes to the Jews a closer bond of union, but only for this end that he might more deeply impress them that they ought not to depart from the example of their father. (130) So did all the fathers according to [Pareus ] and so does the Vulgate. But later commentators have taken the words as they stand, and with good reason, for otherwise the correspondence between this and the following verse would not be apparent. [Beza ] [Hammond ] and [Macknight ] take the words in their proper order; and this is what is done by the Syriac and Arabic versions. is rendered by [Grotius ] and [Macknight ] (per ) the flesh. Some understand by the word circumcision, as [Vatablus ] ; others, natural powers, as [Grotius ] But [Beza ] and [Hammond ] think that it is the same as what is meant works in the next verse; and evidently has this meaning: it signifies often the CHARLES SIMEON, JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE Rom_4:1-8. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. THE mind of man, however open to conviction from the plain deductions of reason, is susceptible of peculiarly strong impressions from that species of argument, which, at the same time that it addresses itself to his intellect, has a tendency to engage his feelings, and to enlist his prejudices in its favour. All the prejudices of the Jews were in favour of Abraham their father, and of David, the greatest of their monarchs, and one of the most distinguished of their prophets: and, if the conduct of these two could be adduced as precedents, there would need but little further argument to convince a Jew, that the thing which was so recommended was right. Of this prejudice St. Paul availed himself in the passage before us. He had proved,
5. 5. beyond all reasonable doubt, that the justification of a sinner was, and must be, solely by faith in Christ: he had proved it from the guilty state of all, whether Jews or Gentiles, (which precluded a possibility of their being justified by any works of their own [Note: Rom_3:20.];) and from the Lord Jesus Christ having been sent into the world to make an atonement for sin, and thereby to reconcile the demands of justice with the exercise of mercy. He had shewn, that this way of salvation cut off all occasion of boasting, and was equally suited both to Jews and Gentiles; and that, instead of in validating; the law, as at first sight it might appear to do, it did in reality establish the law. Having thus proved his point by argument, he now comes to confirm it by example; and he adduces such examples, as the Jews could not but regard as of the highest authority. We must bear in mind what the point is which he is endeavouring to maintain: it is, That the justification of the soul before God is not by works of any kind, but simply, and solely, by faith in Christ. This he proceeds to prove from the examples, I. Of Abraham What (he asks) did Abraham, the great progenitor of the Jewish nation, find effectual for his salvation? This he answers, 1. By an express declaration of Holy Writ [The manner in which he appeals to the decision of Scripture is well worthy of notice. What saith the Scripture? It matters little, what this or that man may say: we must abide by what Godhas spoken. His word shall stand, though the whole universe should rise up to contradict it. On that therefore we must found our sentiments, and on that alone: if men speak according to his word and testimony, it is well: if not, whatever may be their pretences to wisdom, there is no light in them [Note: Isa_8:20.]. Now the Scripture declares, that Abraham believed God, and it was ACCOUNTED to him for righteousness [Note: Gen_12:1-3. with 15:5, 6.] In the passages referred to, there were two promises made to him: the one was, that one particular seed should be given to him, in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed; and the other was, that a spiritual seed should be given him, who should be numerous as the stars of heaven. These promises he firmly believed; and so believed them, as actually to repose all his hope and trust in that promised Seed, who was to be the Saviour of the whole world. This faith of his was counted to him for righteousness; or, in other words, this Saviour, on whom his faith reposed, was made the source of righteousness and salvation to his soul. This particular declaration of Holy Writ is referred to by the Apostle a great many times, on ACCOUNT of its singular importance: but, as its importance will more fully appear in the sequel of our discourse, we shall
6. 6. proceed to notice how St Paul answers his own question.] 2. By arguments founded upon it [He justly observes, that, when the Scripture thus represents Abraham as justified by faith all works are of necessity excluded from any participation in the office of justifying: for if it be supposed that a man is justified, either in whole or in part, by his works, his reward would come to him as a debt, and not as a gift. However great the distance maybe between the work and the reward, it will make no difference with respect to this point: if the work be proposed as the ground of the reward, and be performed in order to merit that reward, then is the reward a debt which may be justly claimed, and cannot with justice be withheld. Moreover, if works be thus admitted as purchasing or procuring the reward, then may the person who performs them have a ground of glorying in himself: he may say with truth, This I EARNED ; this I merited; this could not justly have been withheld from me. But had Abraham any such ground of glorying? No: the Scripture denies that he had, in that it ascribes his salvation, not to any righteousness of his own, but to a righteousness imputed to him, and apprehended by faith only. But whilst the Apostle argues thus strongly and incontrovertibly on the passage he has cited, we must not overlook the peculiarly forcible language which he uses, and which, if it had not been used by him, we should scarcely have dared to use. In declaring who the person is that is thus justified, he tells us, that it is the person who worketh not (with a view to obtain justification by his works), but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly. Of course the Apostle is not to be understood as saying, that the justified person will CONTINUE ungodly, or that he will not work, after he has been justified; but only as saying, that he does not work with a view to obtain justification, or come as godly person to receive a recompence: in coming to the Saviour, he will bring nothing but his sins with him, in order that he may be delivered from them, and obtain an interest in the Redeemers righteousness, in which he may be clothed and stand before God without spot or blemish. But still the terms are such as to mark with the utmost force and precision, that, from the office of justifying, works must be for ever excluded; and that we must, like Abraham, be justified by a righteousness not our own; a righteousness which cuts off all occasion of glorying, and which makes our salvation to be altogether of grace.] But, as to the Apostles arguments several objections may be made, we will endeavour to state and answer them. 1. This statement of Abrahams being justified by faith is directly contradicted by St. James [St. James, it is true, does say that Abraham was justified by his WORKS ; and specifies the offering up of his son Isaac as the work for which he was justified: and farther declares, that in that act the passage QUOTED by St. Paul received its accomplishment [Note: Jam_2:21-23.]. But here is no opposition between the two Apostles; as the scope of the context in the two passages will clearly evince. St.
7. 7. James is evidently speaking of the difference between a living and a dead faith; and he shews that Abraham clearly proved his to be a living faith, by the fruits it produced [Note: Jam_2:18.]. But St. Paul is speaking of the way in which Abraham was justified before God: and the faith whereby Abraham was justified, was actually exercised forty years before the time that St. James speaks of [Note: The faith by which Abraham was justified was exercised twenty years before Isaac was born. See Gen_15:5-6. And we suppose Isaac to have been at least twenty years old when his father offered him up.]: which we consider as a decisive proof of these two things, namely, that Abraham was justified (in St. Pauls sense of that term) by faith without works; and next, that St. James did not intend to contradict St. Paul, but only to guard his doctrines from abuse.] 2. Though it was not for offering up his son that God justified Abraham, yet it was for another act of obedience, namely, his submitting to circumcision [This idea is entertained by many, who oppose the doctrine of justification by faith alone: but it is as erroneous as that before stated: for Abraham had no son at all, when he exercised faith in Gods promises, and by that faith was justified before God: and he had waited some years in expectation of the promised seed, before Sarah gave him her servant Hagar to wife [Note:Gen_16:3.]: and Ishmael was thirteen years old when God renewed his covenant with Abraham, and enjoined him the use of circumcision: so that, in this, as in the former case, Abraham wasjustified many years before the act took place for which our objector would suppose him to be justified. And this is so important an observation, that St. Paul, in the verses following our text, dwells upon it with all the emphasis imaginable [Note: ver. 911. with Gen_17:23.] deducing from it a truth which is of infinite importance to us, namely, that, as Abraham was justified in his uncircumcised state, he is as truly the father of us uncircumcised Gentiles, as he is of his lineal descendants, the circumcised Jews.] 3. If we are constrained to acknowledge, as indeed we must, that Abraham was justified by faith without works, yet that was a personal favour to him. on ACCOUNT of the extraordinary strength of his faith, and not to be drawn into a precedent for us [But this also is as erioneous as either of the foregoing objections: for though it is certain that he is celebrated above all men for the strength of his faith, and that the exercises of his faith are recorded to his honour, yet it is expressly affirmed by St. Paul, that it was not written for Abrahams sake alone, that faith was imputed to him for righteousness, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification [Note: ver. 2025.].] Having thus considered the example of Abraham, we proceed to notice, that, II. Of David
8. 8. The passage which St. Paul adduces from the Psalms of David, in confirmation of his argument, is peculiarly deserving of our attention [Note: Psa_32:1-2.]. In the words themselves, we, if not directed by an inspired Apostle, should not have found any decisive evidence of justification by faith alone [There is nothing in it respecting imputation of righteousness, but only of a non-imputation of sin. That non- imputation, or forgiveness of sin, might, for aught that appears in that passage to the contrary, be obtained by works: for there is nothing said about faith in Christ, or indeed about faith at all. Moreover, the words, as they stand in the psalm, and are followed by what is spoken of a guileless spirit, seem to intimate the very reverse of what St. Paul has deduced from them, namely, that a man, who, in consideration of his guileless spirit, has his infirmities forgiven, is a blessed man.] But St. Paul has, by Divine direction, put a sense upon them which beyond all possibility of doubt determines the question before us [He tells us, that David in this passage describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Here it is not possible to shut our eyes against the doctrine of imputed righteousness. We do not approve of taking one or two particular expressions, and giving them in our discourses a prominence and importance which they do not hold in the inspired volume. But we equally disapprove of keeping out of view any doctrine which is clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures: and we must say, that the doctrine of righteousness imputed to us without works, is more clearly taught here, than if it had been maintained in a long and elaborate course of argument; because it is introduced so incidentally, and because the Apostle goes, if we may so speak, so much out of his way on purpose to introduce it. To introduce it, he represents David as saving, what (in words) he did not say; and he omits some very important words which he actually did say. It is observable, that St. Paul stops short in his quotation, and leaves out those words of David, and in whose spirit there is no guile. And why did he omit them? We apprehend, for this reason. If he had inserted them, he might have been supposed to countenance the idea, that, though we are justified by faith, yet it is not by faith only, but by faith either as connected with a guileless spirit, or as productive of a guileless spirit: whereas we are justified by it, not as united with holy dispositions, nor as an operative principle in the soul, but simply and solely as apprehending Christ, in and through whom we are justified. Thus by a remarkable addition, and by a no less remarkable omission, he brings the words of David to bear upon his point, and to prove what is of incalculable importance to every soul of man. We would earnestly wish these words of David to be understood in their full import, as declaring explicitly, that we are to be justified by a righteousness not our own, nor obtained by any works of ours; but by a righteousness imputed to us, and apprehended entirely by faith, even by the righteousness of Christ, which
9. 9. is unto all, and upon all them that believe [Note: Rom_3:22.].] From hence then we may see, how incontrovertibly the doctrine of justification by faith alone is established; and, 1. How far it is from being a new doctrine [Wherever this doctrine is preached, a clamour is raised against it, just as it was in the Apostles days [Note: Act_17:19.], as a new doctrine: but let any one look into our Articles and Homilies, and see, whether it be not the doctrine of our Church. It is that very doctrine which constituted the basis of the Reformation Then let us GO BACK to the apostolic age: Can any one read the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, and doubt what St. Paul thought of it? If we go farther back, to David and to Abraham, we see that they sought salvation in no other way than simply by faith in Christ: and we may go farther still, even to Adam, whose views were precisely the same, and who had no hope but in the Seed of the woman, who should bruise the serpents head. There has been but one way of salvation for fallen man from the beginning of the world: nor shall there be any other as long as the world shall stand [Note:Act_4:12.]. If it be new in any place, the fault is not in him that preaches it, but in those who have preceded him, who have neglected to preach it. Dismiss then this prejudice; and receive the glad tidings of a Saviour with all the joy and gratitude that the occasion demands.] 2. How far it is from being an unimportant doctrine [Many who do not reject the doctrine itself, yet consider it as a merely speculative doctrine, a mere strife of words. But our reformers did not so think it, when they sealed the truth of it with their blood. Nor did St. Paul think it so, when he denounced a curse against any man, yea even against any angel from heaven, that should attempt to establish any doctrine that interfered with it [Note: Gal_1:8-9.]. See how strongly he guards us against any dependence whatever upon our own works, as entirely INVALIDATING the whole Gospel, and destroying utterly all our hope in Christ [Note: Gal_5:2-4.] It was owing to the aversion which the Jews had to this doctrine, that so few of them were saved; whilst the Gentiles, who felt less difficulty in submitting to it, were brought in vast multitudes into the kingdom of our Lord [Note: Rom_9:30-32.]. Know then, that this doctrine of justification by faith alone without works, is absolutely necessary to be received, and known, and felt, and gloried in; and that if we build on any other foundation, we must inevitably and eternally perish [Note: 1Co_3:11.].] 3. How far it is from being a discouraging doctrine [Another calumny generally circulated respecting justification by faith, is, that it is an alarming and terrifying doctrine, and calculated not only to bewilder weak persons, but even to deprive them of their senses. But the very reverse of this is true. Doubtless, before that this doctrine can be received aright, a man must be made
10. 10. sensible that he is in a guilty and undone state, and incapable of effecting his own salvation by any works of righteousness which he can do: but when once a person is brought to that state, the doctrine of a full salvation wrought out for him by Christ, and freely offered to him without money and without price, is replete with consolation: it is marrow and fatness to the soul; it is meat indeed, and drink indeed. Look at the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, and see the effect of this doctrine upon them [Note: Act_2:46- 47.]. Look at the Ethiopian Eunuch, and at the whole city of Samaria, when Philip had preached it to them [Note: Act_8:8; Act_8:39.]; and then you will see the proper tendency of the doctrine, and the sure effect of it wherever it is received. If any works of ours were required to purchase salvation, that doctrine might well drive men to despair: for, it would he like telling the wounded Israelites, when they were in the very article of death, to perform some arduous feats in order to procure their restoration to health; or rather, like telling the dead to raise themselves in order to their enjoyment of life. But the erection of the brazen serpent, that the dying might look unto it and live, is a lively emblem of that salvation which is offered to the world through faith in a crucified Redeemer: and the more pungent is the grief which any feel on account of their guilt and helplessness, the richer is the consolation which will flow into their souls the very instant they believe the glad tidings of the Gospel.] 4. How far it is from being a licentious doctrine [There is no end to the calumnies raised against this doctrine, and against all who maintain it. The preachers of it, even those who are most sober, and most guarded, and most practical, are always represented as saying, that, if only men will believe, they may live as they please. But there is nothing more contrary to truth than such a representation as this. We always affirm, that though works are excluded from the office of justifying the soul, they are indispensably necessary to prove the sincerity of our faith; and that the faith which is not productive of good works, is no better than the faith of devils. And then, as to the actual effects which are produced by this doctrine, look back to our reformers: look back to St. Paul, the great champion of this doctrine: look back to David, and to Abraham, and to all the saints recorded in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews: or if you wish for living examples, look to thousands who maintain and glory in this blessed doctrine. We will appeal to matter of fact: who are the persons that in every place are spoken of as precise, and righteous overmuch, and as making the way to heaven so strait that nobody can walk in it? Are not these the very persons, even these who maintain salvation by faith alone? That there are some who do not adorn this doctrine, is true enough: and so there were in the apostolic age. But do we not bear our testimony against them, as well as against the self-righteous contemners of the Gospel, yea, with far greater severity than against any other class of sinners whatever? Be it remembered then, that the Gospel is a doctrine according to godliness; and that the grace of God which bringeth salvation teaches us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live righteously, soberly, and godlily in this present world. And we now declare before all, that they who profess the Gospel in words, and deny it in their works, will have a less tolerable portion in the day of judgment than Tyre and Sidon, or even Sodom and Gomorrha.]
11. 11. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, Lessons from the case of Abraham I. However much the most perfect of the species may have to glory of in the eye of his fellows, he has nothing to glory of before God. The apostle affirms this of Abraham, whose virtues had canonised him in the hearts of all his descendants, and who still stands forth as the embodiment of all the virtues of the older dispensation. But of his piety we have no account, till after that point which Paul assigns as the period of his justification. And whatever he had antecedently of the virtues that are useful to and call forth the praise of man, certain it is, that with every human being, prior to that great transition in his history, God is not the Being whose authority is recognised in any of these virtues, and he has nothing to glory of before God. Here we are surrounded with beings, all of whom are satisfied if they see in us their own likeness; and, should we attain the average character of society, its voice will suffer us to pass. But not till the revelation of Gods likeness is made to us do we see our deficiency from that image of unspotted holinessto be restored to which is the great purpose of our dispensation. Job protested innocence and kindness and dignity before his friends, but when God, whom he had only before heard of by the hearing of the ear now appeared before his awakened eye, he abhorred himself and repented in dust and in ashes. This is the sore evil under which humanity labours. The magnitude of the guilt is unfelt; and therefore does man persist in a most treacherous complacency. The magnitude of the danger is unseen; and therefore does man persist in a security most ruinous. II. This disease of nature, deadly and virulent as it is, and that beyond the suspicion of those who are touched by it, is not beyond the remedy provided in the gospel. Ungodliness is this disease; and it is here said that God justifies the ungodly. The discharge is as ample as the debt; and the grant of pardon in every way as broad and as long as is the guilt which requires it. The deed of amnesty is equivalent to the offence; and, foul as the transgression is, there is a commensurate righteousness which covers the whole deformity, and translates him whom it had made utterly loathsome in the sight of God, into a condition of full favour and acceptance before Him. Had justification been merely brought into contact with some social iniquity, this were not enough to relieve the conscience of him who feels in himself the workings of a direct and spiritual iniquity against God. It is a sense of this which festers in the stricken heart of a sinner, and often keeps by him and agonises him for many a day, like an arrow sticking fast. And there are many who keep at a distance from the overtures of mercy, till they think they have felt enough and mourned enough over their need of them. But we ought not thus to wait the progress of our emotions, while God is standing before us with a deed of justification, held out to the ungodliest of us all. To give us an interest in the saying, that God justifieth the ungodly, it is enough that we count it a faithful saying, and that we count it worthy of all acceptation. III. While the offer of a righteousness before God is thus brought down to the lowest depth of human wickedness, and it is an offer by the acceptance of which all the past is forgivenit is also an offer by the acceptance of which all the future is reformed. When Christ confers sight upon a blind man, he ceases to be in darkness; and when a rich individual confers wealth upon a poor, he ceases to be in povertyand so, as surely, when justification is conferred upon the ungodly, his ungodliness is done away. His godliness is not the ground upon which the gift was awarded, any more than the sight of him who was blind is the ground upon which it was communicated, or than the wealth of him who was poor is the ground upon which it was bestowed. But just as sight and riches come out of the latter gifts, so godliness comes out of the gift of justification; and while works form in no way the consideration upon Which the righteousness that availeth is conferred upon a sinner, yet no sooner is this righteousness granted than it will set him a- working. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)
12. 12. A crucial case 1. St. Paul has lust shown how the gospel method of justification shuts out the usual Hebrew boast in the Mosaic law as a pathway to eternal life. But some might ask, Did it not set it aside altogether? 2. To this there were two answers possible. (1) The most obvious would be this: The law had other ends to serve (Gal_3:19; Gal 3:23-24; Rom_3:19). (2) Here, however, Paul answers by alleging the ease of Abraham. The force of the argument may be somewhat like this: The reward which the Jew hoped to secure for himself through his circumcision and his observance of the Mosaic law was the national blessing which God had originally conferred by covenant upon the ancestor and representative of his race. It was in his character as a descendant of Abraham that each Jew received in his flesh the seal of the national covenant, or had a right to aspire after the national hope. Nothing higher, therefore, could be looked for by any Israelite than to attain to the blessedness of his forefather Abraham (Luk_16:22). Yet this favour had been promised to and received by him, not in consequence of his observance of the Mosaic law, which was not given for a great while after, not even in consideration of his being circumcised, but solely because he was a believer. Instead of Gods covenant with Israel resting on the law, the law on the contrary rested on the covenant. That covenant was, to begin with, one of grace, not of works. So far, therefore, from Pauls doctrine of justification upsetting the Mosaic law, it was just the old teaching of the very earliest Book of the Law. Do we, then, make the law of Moses void? God forbid. On the contrary, we establish that law; since we find for it its ancient basis on which alone it can serve those helpful uses for which it was given. 3. The case of Abraham was thus, as St. Paul clearly saw, a crucial instance in which to test his doctrine of justification by faith. Abraham was not merely the first of Israelites or the greatest of them; he was all Israel in his single person. It would never do for a Jew to pretend that a principle which ruled the relations of Abraham to Jehovah could by any possibility make void the law of Moses. 4. But the example of Abraham proves fruitful for Pauls purpose in more ways than one. I. His controversy up to this point has involved two main positions. The first is Rom_3:28. The second, Rom_3:30. Both positions he now proceeds to illustrate and confirm by the case of Abraham. 1. It was by his faith Abraham was justified, not by his works of obedience (Rom_3:1-8). Paul finds a remarkable proof-text in Gen_15:16. (1) The religious life of Abraham gathers round three leading moments. The first, when God bade him emigrate to Canaan (Gen_12:1-5); the second, at Mamre, when God first made with the childless and aged man a covenant that he should have a son, etc. (Gen_15:1-21); the third, when, after the first portion of this promise had been fulfilled, as well as the whole of it sealed by circumcision, Jehovah commanded the child of promise to be sacrificed (Gen_22:1-24). At all these three turning times in Abrahams history his confidence in God appeared as the most eminent feature of his character. But plainly, the first of these was preliminary to the second, which conveyed to him the promises of God; and the third was a consequent of the second. The central point, therefore, in the patriarchs history is to be sought in the second, to which St. Paul here refers. On Gods side there was simply a word of promise; on the mans side, simply a devout and childlike reliance upon that word. God asked no more; and the man had no
13. 13. more to give. His mere trust in the Promiser was held to be adequate as a ground for that sinful mans acceptance into friendship and league with the eternal Jehovah. (2) The apostles argument is a very obvious one. There are only two ways of obtaining Divine approval. Either you deserve it, having earned it; then it is a pure debt, and you have something to boast in. Or else you have not earned the Divine approval, but the wages of sin, which is death; only you trust in the promised grace of One who justifies the ungodly; then it may be said that this trust of yours is reckoned as equivalent to righteousness. Now, Abrahams acceptance was plainly of this latter sort. He therefore, at least, had no ground for boasting. His, rather, was such blessedness as his great descendant David sang of so long after (Psa_32:1-2). 2. Abraham was justified by his faith, not as a circumcised man, but as an uncircumcised (verses 9-16). It lies in the very idea of acceptance through faith, that God will accept the believer apart from nationality, an external rite, or church privilege, or the like. This inference Paul has been pressing on his Jewish readers, and here is a curious confirmation of it. Abraham, through whom came circumcision, etc., was taken into Divine favour previous to his circumcision. Circumcision came in simply to seal, not to constitute, his justification. And the design of such an arrangement was to make him the type and progenitor of all believersof such believers first, as are never circumcised at all, since for thirteen years or more he was himself an uncircumcised believer; then of such also as are circumcised, indeed, yet believers. He is the father of us all. The only people whom his experience fails to embrace, whose father he really is not, are those Jews who trust in their lineage and their covenant badge, and expect to be saved for their meritorious observance of prescribed rules, but who in the free and gracious promises of Abrahams God put no trust at all. (1) Having got thus far, St. Paul has reached this notable conclusion: that so far from his doctrine making the law of Moses void, it is the Jewish figment of justification by the law which makes void Gods promise, and Abrahams faith, and the whole basis of grace on which the privileges of the Hebrew people ultimately reposed. Here, therefore, he fairly turns the tables upon his objectors (verse 14). (2) Nay, more, another conclusion emerges. It turns out now that instead of St. Paul being a disloyal Jew for admitting believing Gentiles to an equal place in the favour of Israels God, it is his self-righteous countryman, who monopolises Divine grace, that is really false to the original idea of the Abrahamic covenant. All who have faith, whatever their race, are blessed with faithful Abraham, and he, says Paul, writing to a Gentile Church, is the father of us all. The apostle has now completed his polemic against Jewish objectors. Before, however, he is done with the case of Abraham, there is a further use to be made of his bright exemplar. II. The father of believers stands out as not simply a specimen of the faith that justifies, but as the highest pattern and lesson in this grace to all his spiritual progeny (verses 17-25). 1. I spoke of three leading moments in the spiritual life of the great patriarch. In the roll of heroes in faith given in Heb_11:1-40, stress is laid upon the first and upon the last. Here, it is the second; and it is this proof of faith, therefore, which Paul now proceeds to examine. The particular promise was that when he was ninety-nine, and his wife ninety, a son should be born to them. On this child of promise were made to depend all the other promises numerous descendantsthe land of inheritancea perpetual covenantseed, in whom all earths families should be blessed. To believe in this explicit word was to believe substantially in the whole of Gods grace to men as far as it was then revealed. It was gospel faith so far as there was yet any gospel on earth to put faith in. Dimly and far off Abraham saw the day of Christ, and at Gods bare word he risked his spiritual life upon that hope. This
14. 14. was his faith. 2. Now note its characteristics. On the one side lay the improbabilities of an unheard of miracle, to be believed in before it happened; a needless miracle, too, so far as mans reason could discern; for was not Ishmael already there? On the other side, what was there? Nothing but a word of God. Between these two conflicting grounds of expectation a weaker faith than his might have wavered. But Abraham was not weak in faith. Therefore he did not shrink from considering the physical obstacles to the birth of a son. On the contrary, he could afford to fasten his regard on these, without his confidence, in the promise suffering any diminution; since he kept as clearly in view the character of the Almighty Promiser. God is the Quickener of the dead. He can give a name and virtual existence to the yet unbegotten child. Isaac lives in Gods counsel and purpose before he has actual being. So Abraham dared to trust in the hope of paternity given him of God, and gave God glory, by honouring the truthfulness of His word and the power of His grace. Such is faith; so it always works. Without calling its eyes off from the objections and difficulties which are present to sense, it fastens itself, nevertheless, on the veracity of Him who speaks words of grace to men. 3. These things were not written for Abrahams sake alone, but for ours. Abraham trusted in God to quicken his unborn sonby and by to raise him (if need were) from the dead. We trust Him who did raise from the dead His own Son Jesus. The gospel facts, the promises, and blessings of the new covenant in Christ are to us what the birth of Isaac was to Abraham: things all of them beyond the reach of experience or against it; resting for their evidence solely on the word of the living God. Such a faith in God is reckoned for righteousness to every man who has it, as it was to Abraham, the father of all believers. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.) No room for glorying That workman should do ill who, having built a house with another mans purse, should go about to set up his own name upon the front thereof; and in Justinians law it was decreed that no workman should set up his name within the body of that building which he made out of anothers cost. Thus Christ sets us all at work; it is He that bids us to fast, and pray, and hear, and give alms, etc.; but who is at the cost of all this? whose are all these good works? Surely Gods. Mans poverty is so great, that he cannot reach a good thought, much less a good deed; all the materials are from God, the building is His; it is He that paid for it. Give but, therefore, the glory and the honour thereof unto God, and take all the profit to thyself. (J. Spencer.) What saith the Scripture? What saith the Scripture ? I. What is meant by the Scripture? Paul referred simply to the Old Testament. But we are not to suppose that the Old and New Testaments are different Scriptures. The only difference is that in the New we have a clearer explanation of that which may be found in the Old. II. What is the authority of the Scripture? The difference between this and the best of other books is that it was written, not by man, but by God; though holy men of old wrote the Book, they wrote it as they were moved by God the Holy Ghost. This Divine authority is supported by ample evidence.
15. 15. 1. Historical. 2. Experimental. III. What saith the scripture? 1. For the head. It unfolds (1) The doctrine of the Trinity. (2) The plan of salvation. (3) The judgment to come. (4) The eternity of future rewards and punishments. 2. For the heart. (1) It proclaims every kind of encouragement to turn from the error of our ways. It assures us of (a) The love of God to each soul. (b) His forbearance with sinners. (c) His desire to make men happy. (2) It secures for those who have turned (a) The sympathy of Jesus. (b) The comfort of the Holy Ghost. 3. For our lifeour way of living. It testifies (1) To the impossibility of a double service. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (2) To the necessity of holiness. Without it no man shall see the Lord. (3) To the vanity of this world compared with the next. What shall it profit a man? etc. IV. How are we to know these Scriptures? By searching them 1. Prayerfully. 2. Daily. Conclusion: What an awful responsibility rests upon every man who does not consider what the Scripture saith! It is just as if you were walking in a dark place, not knowing your road, and someone were to offer you a light, and you were to refuse to take it. Not long ago I happened to be visiting in a great castle, situate on the top of a hill, near which there was a very steep cliff, and a rapid river running at the bottom. A person, anxious to get home from that castle late one night in the midst of a violent thunderstorm when the night was blackness itself, was asked to stop till the storm was over. She declined. She was begged to take a lantern, that she might be kept in the road, but she said she could do very well without it. She left, and, perhaps frightened by the storm, she wandered from the road and got upon the top of the cliff; she tumbled over, and the next day the lifeless body of that foolish woman was found washed ashore from the swollen river. Ah! but how many such foolish ones are there who, when the light is offered, and they have only to ask, What saith the Scripture? are prepared to say, I have no need of that Book; I know right from wrong; I am not afraid; I fear not the end. (Bp. Williers.) What saith the Scripture
16. 16. ? I. As a revelation. On some subjects it is the sole authority. Without it man has no light whatever, or only the dimmest light, on the nature of God, His relations to man, the method of reconciliation, immortality. On these subjects its testimony is full, clear, authoritative. How important, then, that man, a spiritual being, with an immortal destiny, should ask, What saith the Scriptures? II. As a counsellor. Man is a traveller in an unknown way, and needs a guide, or the chances are he will go astray. There are many candidates for the officemany sincere, and desirous only to secure his good; many insincere, seeking their own advantage: all fallible, and liable to give the wrong advice. The Scripture alone is infallible; it displays every step of the way, so that a wayfaring man, if he accepts its guidance, though a fool, will not err. How important, then, that as regards the path of duty and the way to heaven, young and old should ask, What saith the Scriptures? III. As a standard. Weights and measures in ordinary use may be right or may be wrong. Some are wrong, being too heavy or too light, too long or too short, too large or too small. So it is necessary again and again to apply the standard test of weight, measurement, etc. So the Churches, theological schools, etc., may be right or may be wrong in their enunciation of doctrine, and moralists in their statement of ethics. But the Scripture is the authoritative standard of faith and practice, and to it all teaching is to be referred. The Thessalonians received or rejected Pauls doctrine without referring to the standard; the Bereans were more noble, in that they searched the Scriptures whether these things were so. IV. As a judge. The Scripture will judge those to whom it has been given at the last day. The Books will be opened, and this amongst them. It will be in vain then for man to plead that he has consulted the Church, human opinion, etc. What will Scripture say then? Come, ye blessed, or, Depart, ye cursed. (J. W. Burn.) The Bible alone 1. Scripture. means writing. Generally, when the Bible, as a volume, is spoken of, the expression the Scriptures is used, because it is made up of many writings. When some particular part is alluded to, then it is said the Scripture. For instance (Joh_5:39), Christ said, Search the Scriptures, because the whole Bible, from first to last, more or less testified to Him. But when He selects any particular part, then He says, that Scripture (Mat_12:10). Now in the text Paul does not Say, What saith the Scriptures? speaking of the whole Bible, but What says this particular part of Scripture which I am now quoting? 2. From this we gather that the Bible is infallible. When Jesus quotes it, it is with a view to settle all dispute; or when Paul has proved what he has to say by the Bible, he has decided the matter which is in controversy. To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to that Word it is because they have no light in them. Note I. What the text does not say. It does not say 1. What says reason? Many a man says that. Appeal to their reason and they are satisfied. But what is reason? That which is reason to one man is not reason to another. Must I listen to any infidel who chooses to put the Bible aside and say, Listen to me, I am reason? It is true that one man has more mental faculty than another. But when we come to weigh mind against mind, who have displayed greater powers of mind than those who have believed the Bible? And am I to set aside the reason of these men, and take up the reason of other men who are immeasurably their inferiors, and be told that the Bible is not a book to be believed
17. 17. because it is contrary to reason? To me it is the most reasonable thing to believe in the Bible. 2. What saith science? Some men say they can disprove the Bible by scientific discoveries. One geologist will tell you that the Bible has false statements with regard to the antiquity of the world; but another says that science and the Book of God are in perfect harmony. Well, then, which am I to believe? Science is always changing. Until Galileo made his discovery that the earth moved round the sun, science declared that the earth stood still and the sun moved round it. 3. What saith the Church? Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture do we understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Good; that is the doctrine of all the Churches that hold the truth as it is in Jesus. And right that they should do so. They do not bring a mans interpretation, creeds, decrees, and councils, and say, Take this to be your faith. But they all say, What saith the Scripture? II. What the text does say. 1. As to doctrine, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. There is the doctrine, then; it is salvation by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. Now many object to this, and say, That is unreasonable; God will expect me to do something. No, the Scripture saith, and with reason. If you look to the law, you must do all the works of the law, or noneCursed is everyone that continueth not in all things in the law. As one leak will sink a ship, so one sin will damn a soul. But is not this a dangerous doctrine? Does it not make a man neglect good works? I cannot help that. Men may abuse the doctrine, as they do other good things, but that is no valid objection against the doctrine itself. 2. As to duty. Having taught that doctrine, we proceed to say that faith will never be without works. As there will always be light and heat in the rays of the sun, so there will always be works following and accompanying faith. Faith worketh by love. Love is the fulfilling of the law. What saith the Scripture? Love worketh no ill to his neighbour. But there are those who speak of faith but show no works. Now, that is not the faith of Gods elect. You will find it described in Jas_2:20-23. This bears upon the subject. The Holy Ghost says that although Abraham was accounted righteous in the sight of God by faith, he justified his character in the sight of men by works. What, then, saith the Scripture to that man who lives as most men live; to that man who is neglectful of secret prayer, who is living in sin, serving divers lusts and pleasures, setting his affection on things below? Why, they condemn him from first to last. He that believeth not is condemned already. He is not a believer; his life proves it. According to the Word of God, where there is faith there will be works. (R. W. Dibdin, M. A.) The Christian oracles 1. This question is highly characteristic of St. Paul. If a Grecian statesman like Solon had been in a difficulty, his question would have been, What saith the oracle? If a Roman general like Caesar, his would have been, What say the victims? But the Christian apostles is, What saith the Scripture? 2. Universal has been the confession of human ignorance, especially regarding the future. The numerous oracles of antiquity, of which there were twenty-two sacred to Apollo alone,
18. 18. are manifest acknowledgments of this. But those oracles did not arise merely out of a consciousness of human ignorance; they had their origin likewise in a reverence for the gods and a respect for their religion, such as it was. 3. This being the case, let us contrast the oracles of the heathen with the oracles of God. At Delphi was the most famous oracle. In the innermost sanctuary there was the golden statue of Apollo, and before it there burnt upon an altar an eternal fire. In the centre of this temple there was a small opening in the ground, from which an intoxicating smoke arose. Over this chasm there stood a high tripod, on which the Pythia took her seat whenever the oracle was to be consulted. The smoke rising under the tripod affected her brain in such a manner that she fell into a state of delirious intoxication, and the sounds which she uttered in this state were believed to contain the revelations of Apollo. In the long experiment of heathenism it may be truly said that men groped after God, if haply they might find Him. Think of them solemnly examining the entrails of a beast, or studying the intersections of a cobweb; think of them trying to discover the mind of God from dreams or the sounds of the wind among the rustling leaves; and then reflect on our greater light and privileges, for we have the oracles which holy men wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. As we have a nobler oracle, let us consult it with a nobler curiosity and on nobler subjects than the Gentiles did. It is the boast of some natural theologians that they could do without the Bible. But in the full light of nature men acted as we have observed, and therefore something more luminous and powerful was necessary to the renovation of humanity. That one thing needful was a revelationand that we have got; for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. What saith the Scripture on I. The original and present state of man? It tells us we were created upright, that man is fallen and degenerate, and that we are now in a state of sin and death. II. This present world. How are we to interpret it? Now, just as there is an intended distance for judging of a picture, so there is a right position and attitude for judging this world. A man comes close up to a masterpiece of Rubens, and pronounces it a daub. Let him stand back, and the picture will come out even to his unskilful eye. Just so with the world. You cannot judge it rightly while you are near it, amidst its fascinations. You must retire and prayerfully consult the Word of God. That is the right position and attitude for judging of the world. Many a thoughtful man asks himself, Why has God set me down here in the world? What does He want me to do? If he went to the Bible he would get these questions satisfactorily answered; but perhaps he comes to the easy conclusion that he ought to enjoy himself, and straightway plunges into the stream of pleasure, and basks for a little in her fitful sunshine. He is destined to experience what a million experiences fail to prove to the imprudent, that the pleasures of the world turn to acids. What saith the Scripture? It tells us that man is here on probation, that this is a life of discipline preparatory to another stage of existence, that this life is not our home, but that our home is in heaven. III. The subject of happiness. It is not to be found in the world. Knowledge will not give happiness; for he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Wealth will not give happiness. A rich man, when he was dying, cried out for his gold. It was brought to him, and he put it to his breast. Take it away! take it away! he shrieked; that wont do! Greatness cannot give happiness. Once a friend called to salute a prime minister, and wished him a happy new year. God grant that it may be! said the poor great man; for during the last year I have not known a happy day. A real Christian is the happiest style of man. Thus saith the Scripture, In the world ye shall have tribulation; but in Me ye shall have peace. IV. Of the immortality of the soul. How unsatisfactory is mere reason here! But Christ has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Conclusion:
19. 19. 1. We should receive the responses of Gods oracle with meekness. 2. Consider your responsibility. Shall not the heathen rise up in the judgment and condemn us? For they listened for the voice of Deity among the rustling leaves or the cooing of the doves, but many of us despise the voice that speaketh from heaven. 3. Consider the perpetuity of the Word, and tremble. Its reviler has long been in his grave; but the Word of God liveth and abideth forever. (F. Perry, M. A.) Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. The faith of Abraham 1. A simple childlike dependence on the naked Word of God. 2. An acceptance of, and trust in, Gods promised Saviour. 3. A renouncing of his own works as meritorious. 4. A faith that wrought by love, making him the friend of God. 5. One that overcame the world, leading him to seek a better country. 6. One that evidenced its reality by a self-denying obedience. (T. Robinson, of Cambridge.) The faith of Abraham, though not the same with a faith in Christ, was analogous to it 1. As it was a faith in unseen things (Heb_11:17-19). 2. As it was prior to and independent of the law (Gal_3:17-19). 3. As it related to the promised seed in whom Christ was dimly seen. (Prof. Jowett.) Abrahams faith I. Whom did he believe? God, as infinitely powerfulwho could quicken the dead, and who had merely to will that beings and events should be, and they immediately came into existence (verse 17). II. What did he believe? What God was pleased to reveal. What is mentioned here is that he should become the father of many nations; but that was only a small part of what was revealed and what he believed. He believed in effectfor this was the sum of what God revealed to him that one of his descendants was to be the promised Saviour of men; and that both he and his spiritual seed were to be saved by faith in Him. The revelation was comparatively indistinct, but this was its purport. III. Why did he believe this? Just because God had said it. He had no other ground for it. Everything else would have led him to doubt or disbelieve it. IV. What were the characteristics of this faith? It was 1. Firm faith (verse 21). 2. Hopeful faith (verse 18).
20. 20. 3. A faith that no seeming impossibilities could shake (verse 20). (J. Browne, D. D.) Abrahams faith I. Abraham was a man of faith. 1. His faith was not (1) Assent to a creed; (2) Nor an intelligent conviction of any plan of salvation to be accomplished centuries later in the sacrifice of Christ. 2. It was a grand, simple trust in God. It was shown in (1) His forsaking the idols of his forefathers and worshipping the one spiritual God. (2) In his leaving home and going he knew not whither in obedience to a Divine voice. (3) In his willingness to sacrifice his son. (4) In his hope of a future inheritance. 3. Such a faith is personal reliance, leading to obedience and encouraged by hopeful anticipation. 4. This faith is a model faith for us. For faith is to rely upon Christ, to be loyal to Christ, to hope in Christ, and to accept the fuller revelations of truth which Christ opens up to us as Abraham accepted the Divine voices vouchsafed to him. The contents of faith wilt vary according to our light; but the spirit of it must be always the same. II. His faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. The special point in Abrahams character was not his holiness, but his faith. Gods favour flowed to him through this channel. It was the way through which he, imperfect and sinful as are all the sons of Adam, was called to the privileged place of a righteous man. This is recorded of him in the sacred history (Gen_15:6), and therefore should be admitted by all Jews. The reasons for our relying on faith are 1. Historical. Faith justified Abraham, therefore it will justify us. 2. Theological. Faith brings us into living fellowship with God, and so opens our hearts to receive the forgiveness that puts us in the position of righteous men. 3. Moral. Faith is the security for the future growth of righteousness; with the first effort of faith the first seed grace of righteousness is sown. III. Participation in Abrahams faith is the condition of participation in Abrahams blessing. The Jews claimed this by birthright, but Abraham had it by faith. Only men of faith could have it. Therefore Jews who lost faith lost the blessing. But all men of faith are spiritual sons of Abraham (verse 12). The finest legacy left by the patriarch was his faith. (H. F. Adeney, M. A.) The nature of faith as illustrated in the case of Abraham I. Faith The Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words hover between two meanings 1. Trustfulness, the frame of mind which relies on another. 2. Trustworthiness, the frame of mind which can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammatically, as active and passive senses of the same word, or
21. 21. logically, as subject and object of the same act; but there is a close moral affinity between them. Fidelity, constancy, firmness, confidence, reliance, trust, beliefthese are the links which connect the two extremes, the passive with the active meaning of faith. Owing to these combined causes, the two senses will at times be so blended together that they can only be separated by some arbitrary distinction. When the members of the Christian brotherhood, e.g., are called the faithful, what is meant by this? Does it imply their constancy, their trustworthiness, or their faith, their belief? In all such cases it is better to accept the latitude, and oven the vagueness, of a word or phrase, than to attempt a rigid definition which after all can only be artificial. And indeed the loss in grammatical precision is often more than compensated by the gain in theological depth. In the case of the faithful, e.g., does not the one quality of heart carry the other with it, so that they who are trustful are trusty also; they who have faith in God are steadfast and immovable in the path of duty? II. In Abraham this attitude of trustfulness was most marked. By faith he left home and kindred, and settled in a strange land; by faith he acted upon Gods promise of a race and an inheritance, though it seemed at variance with all human experience; by faith he offered up his only son, in whom alone that promise could be fulfilled. This one word faith sums up the lesson of his whole life. As early as the First Book of Maccabees attention is directed to this lesson (chap. 2:52), and at the time of the Christian era the passage in Genesis relating to it had become a standard text in the Jewish schools for discussion and comment, and the interest thus concentrated on it prepared the way for the fuller and more spiritual teaching of the apostles. Hence we find it quoted by both Paul and James. While the deductions drawn from it by them are at first sight diametrically opposed in terms, and as long as our range of view is confined to the apostolic writings, it seems scarcely possible to avoid the conclusion that James is attacking the teaching of Paul. But when we realise the fact that the passage in Genesis was a common thesis in the schools, that the meaning of faith was variously explained, and diverse lessons drawn from itthen the case is altered. The Gentile apostle and the Pharisaic rabbi might both maintain the supremacy of faith as the means of salvation; but faith with Paul was a very different thing from faith with Maimonides. With the one its prominent idea is a spiritual life, with the other an orthodox creed; with the one the guiding principle is the individual conscience, with the other an external rule of ordinances; with the one faith is allied to liberty, with the other to bondage. Thus, and since the circles of labour of the two apostles were not likely to intersect, St. Jamess protest against reliance on faith alone is more likely to have been levelled against the Pharisaic spirit which rested satisfied with a barren orthodoxy than against the teaching of Paul. (Bp. Lightfoot.) Abraham, the model of faith I. The faith of Abraham was a simple faitha faith which asked for nothing but the word of God to rest upon. II. It was an obedient faith. It led him to do whatever God told him to do. And our faith is good for nothing unless it leads us to be like Abraham in this respect. III. It was a conquering faitha faith which helped him to overcome the greatest difficulties. IV. Abrahams faith was a comforting faith. (R. Newton, D. D.) Difficulties overcome by faith Bishop Hall has only overstated a fundamental fact when he says, There is no faith where there
22. 22. is either means or hope: Means and hopes may be mixed with faith, but undoubtedly the mightiest deliverances ever wrought have been by faith alone. Difficulties and apparent impossibilities are the food on which faith feeds. Believing God Abraham was the head of a wandering tribe, with probably only such small ambitions as were common to his station; a man of purer life, of higher purposes, perhaps, than his neighbour chiefs, and yet with nothing very marked to distinguish him from them. God calls this man, instructs him, leads him, and as he hears, believes, obeys, he becomes quite another man. In this is the whole source of Abrahams greatness. It was not in his natural gifts that he was distinguished above all other men of his day; ethers may have been as intelligent and as forceful as he. Nor was it in his great opportunities that he excelled. There is nothing very wonderful in his history, if you take away from it his faith and its influence on his life. He wandered farther than many of the men of his day; but they were all wanderers. He fought his petty battles; so did they. But the one thing which raised him above them all, the thing which makes us know that there was such a man at all, is only this, that he believed God. There is nothing small in such a life, for its whole business is to follow Gods call. The same transformation is wrought today over the man who, like Abraham, believes God. It does not come from believing that God is, or believing in God, or on God, but by simply, lovingly, believing God; believing what He says, and all He says, and because He says it. It makes a man a saint if you look at him from the side of personal purity of character and life. It puts him under the holiest influence which can move a mortal man. God has said, Without holiness no man can see the Lord, and he believes God; and having this hope in Him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure. It makes a man a hero, if you look at him from the side of his daring or endurance. He believes God. It makes no difference to him what any man, what all men say. What are mens words against the Word of God? (Christian World Pulpit.) Folly of self-righteousness By the works of the law there shall no flesh living be justified; and in the teeth of that millions of men say, We will be justified by the works of the law; so, coming to God with the pretence of worshipping Him, they offer Him that which He abhors, and give the lie to Him in all His solemn declarations. If God says that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, and man declares, But I will be so justified, he maketh God a liar; whether he knoweth it or not, his sin hath that within it. Man is much like a silkworm, he is a spinner and weaver by nature. A robe of righteousness is wrought out for him, but he will not have it; he will spin for himself, and like the silkworm, he spins and spins, and he only spins himself a shroud. All the righteousness that a sinner can make will only be a shroud in which to wrap up his soul, his destroyed soul, for God will cast him away who relies upon the works of the law. (C. H. Spurgeon.) EBC, ABRAHAM AND DAVID THE Jewish disputant is present still to the Apostles thought. It could not be otherwise in this argument. No question was more pressing on the Jewish mind than that of Acceptance; thus far, truly, the teaching and discipline of the Old Testament had not been in vain. And St. Paul had not only, in his Christian Apostleship, debated that problem countless times with Rabbinic combatants; he had been himself a Rabbi, and knew by experience alike the misgivings of the Rabbinists conscience, and the subterfuges of his reasoning. So now there rises before him the great name of Abraham, as a familiar watchword of the
23. 23. controversy of Acceptance. He has been contending for an absolutely inclusive verdict of "guilty" against man, against every man. He has been shutting with all his might the doors of thought against human "boasting," against the least claim of man to have merited his acceptance. Can he carry this principle into quite impartial issues? Can he, a Jew in presence of Jews, apply it without apology, without reserve, to "the Friend of God" himself? What will he say to that majestic Example of man? His name itself sounds like a claim to almost worship. As he moves across the scene of Genesis, we-even we Gentiles-rise up as it were in reverent homage, honouring this figure at once so real and so near to the ideal; marked by innumerable lines of individuality, totally unlike the composed picture of legend or poem, yet walking with God Himself in a personal intercourse so habitual, so tranquil, so congenial. Is this a name to becloud with the assertion that here, as everywhere, acceptance was hopeless but for the clemency of God "gift-wise, without deeds of law"? Was not at least Abraham accepted because he was morally worthy of acceptance? And if Abraham, then surely, in abstract possibility, others also. There must be a group of men, small or large, there is at least one man, who can "boast" of his peace with God. On the other hand, if with Abraham it was not thus, then the inference is easy to all other men. Who but he is called "the Friend?" (Isa_41:8) Moses himself, the almost deified Lawgiver, is but the Servant," trusted, intimate, honoured in a sublime degree by his eternal Master. But he is never called "the Friend." That peculiar title seems to preclude altogether the question of a legal acceptance. Who thinks of his friend as one whose relation to him needs to be good in law at all? The friend stands as it were behind law, or above it, in respect of his fellow. He holds a relation implying personal sympathies, identity of interests, contact of thought and will, not an anxious previous settlement of claims, and remission of liabilities. If then the Friend of the Eternal Judge proves, nevertheless, to have needed Justification, and to have received it by the channel not of his personal worth but of the grace of God, there will be little hesitation about other mens need, and the way by which alone other men shall find it met. In approaching this great example, for such it will prove to be, St. Paul is about to illustrate all the main points of his inspired argument. By the way, by implication, he gives us the all- important fact that even an Abraham, even "the Friend," did need justification somehow. Such is the Eternal Holy One that no man can walk by His side and live, no, not in the path of inmost "friendship," without an acceptance before His face as He is Judge. Then again, such is He, that even an Abraham found this acceptance, as a matter of fact, not by merit but by faith; not by presenting himself, but by renouncing himself, and taking God for all; by pleading not, "I am worthy," but, "Thou art faithful." It is to be shown that Abrahams justification was such that it gave him not the least ground for self-applause; it was not in the least degree based on merit. It was "of grace, not of debt." A promise of sovereign kindness. connected with the redemption of himself, and of the world, was made to him. He was not morally worthy of such a promise, if only because he was not morally perfect. And he was, humanly speaking, physically incapable of it. But God offered Himself freely to Abraham, in His promise; and Abraham opened the empty arms of personal reliance to receive the unearned gift. Had he stayed first to earn it he would have shut it out; he would have closed his arms. Rightly renouncing himself, because seeing and trusting his gracious God, the sight of whose holy glory annihilates the idea of mans claims. he opened his arms, and the God of peace filled the Void. The man received his Gods approval, because he interposed nothing of his own to intercept it. From one point of view, the all-important viewpoint here, it mattered not what Abrahams conduct had been. As a fact, he was already devout when the incident of Gen_15:1-21 occurred. But he was also actually a sinner; that is made quite plain by Gen_12:1-20, the very chapter of the Call. And potentially, according to Scripture, he was a great sinner; for he was an instance of the human heart. But this, while it constituted Abrahams urgent need of acceptance, was not in the least a barrier to his acceptance, when he turned from himself, in the great crisis of absolute
24. 24. faith, and accepted God in His promise. The principle of the acceptance of "the Friend" was identically that which underlies the acceptance of the most flagrant transgressor. As St. Paul will soon remind us, David in the guilt of his murderous adultery, and Abraham in the grave walk of his worshipping obedience, stand upon the same level here. Actually or potentially, each is a great sinner. Each turns from himself, unworthy, to God in His promise. And the promise is his, not because his hand is full of merit, but because it is empty of himself. It is true that Abrahams justification, unlike Davids, is not explicitly connected in the narrative with a moral crisis of his soul. He is not depicted, in Gen_15:1-21, as a conscious penitent, flying from justice to the Judge. But is there not a deep suggestion that something not unlike this did then pass over him, and through him? That short assertion, that "he trusted the Lord, and he counted it to Him for righteousness," is an anomaly in the story, if it has not a spiritual depth hidden in it. Why, just then and there, should we be told this about his acceptance with God? Is it not because the vastness of the promise had made the man see in contrast the absolute failure of a corresponding merit in himself? Job (Job_42:1-6) was brought to self-despairing penitence not by the fires of the Law but by the glories of Creation. Was not Abraham brought to the same consciousness, whatever form it may have taken in his character and period, by the greater glories of the Promise? Surely it was there and then that he learnt that secret of self-rejection in favour of God which is the other side of all true faith, and which came out long years afterwards, in its mighty issues of "work," when he laid Isaac on the altar. It is true, again, that Abrahams faith, his justifying reliance, is not connected in the narrative with any articulate expectation of an atoning Sacrifice. But here first we dare to say, even at the risk of that formidable charge, an antique and obsolete theory of the Patriarchal creed, that probably Abraham knew much more about the Coming One than a modern critique will commonly allow. "He rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad". (Joh_8:56) And further, the faith which justifies, though what it touches in fact is the blessed Propitiation, or rather God in the Propitiation, does not always imply an articulate knowledge of the whole "reason of the hope." It assuredly implies a true submission to all that the believer knows of the revelation of that reason. But he may (by circumstances) know very little of it, and yet be a believer. The saint who prayed (Psa_143:2) "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, O Lord, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified," cast himself upon a God who, being absolutely holy, yet can somehow, just as He is, justify the sinner. Perhaps he knew much of the reason of Atonement, as it lies in Gods mind, and as it is explained, as it is demonstrated, in the Cross. But perhaps he did not. What he did was to cast himself up to the full light he had, "without one plea," upon his Judge, as a man awfully conscious of his need, and trusting only in a sovereign mercy, which must also be a righteous, a law honouring mercy, because it is the mercy of the Righteous Lord. Let us not be mistaken, meanwhile, as if such words meant that a definite creed of the Atoning Work is not possible, or is not precious. This Epistle will help us to such a creed, and so will Galatians, and Hebrews, and Isaiah, and Leviticus, and the whole Scripture. "Prophets and kings desired to see the things we see, and did not see them". (Luk_10:24) But that is no reason why we should not adore the mercy that has unveiled to us the Cross and the blessed Lamb. But it is time to come to the Apostles words as they stand. What then shall we say that Abraham has found-"has found," the perfect tense of abiding and always significant fact-"has found," in his great discovery of divine peace-our forefather according to the flesh? "According to the flesh"; that is to say, (having regard to the prevailing moral use of the word "flesh" in this Epistle,) "in respect of self," "in the region of his own works and merits." For if Abraham was justified as a result of works, he has a boast; he has a right to
25. 25. self-applause. Yes, such is the principle indicated here; if man merits, man is entitled to self- applause. May we not say, in passing, that the common instinctive sense of the moral discord of self-applause, above all in spiritual things, is one among many witnesses to the truth of our justification by faith only? But St. Paul goes on; ah, but not towards God; not when even an Abraham looks Him in the face, and sees himself in that Light. As if to say, "If he earned justification, he might have boasted rightly; but rightful boasting, when man sees God, is a thing unthinkable; therefore his justification was given, not earned." For what says the Scripture, the passage, the great text? (Gen_15:6) "Now Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to the man who works, his reward, his earned requital, is not reckoned grace-wise, as a gift of generosity, but debt-wise; it is to the man who does not work, but believes, confides, in Him who justifies the ungodly one, that "his faith is reckoned as righteousness." "The ungodly one"; as if to bring out by an extreme case the glory of the wonderful paradox. "The ungodly" is undoubtedly a word intense and dark; it means not the sinner only, but the open, defiant sinner. Every human heart is capable of such sinfulness, for "the heart is deceitful above all things." In this respect, as we have seen, in the potential respect, even an Abraham is a great sinner. But there are indeed "sinners and sinners," in the experiences of life; and St. Paul is ready now with a conspicuous example of the justification of one who was truly, at one miserable period, by his own fault, "an ungodly one." "Thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme". (2Sa_12:14) He had done so indeed. The faithful photography of the Scriptures shows us David, the chosen, the faithful, the man of spiritual experiences, acting out his lustful look in adultery, and half covering his adultery with the most base of constructive murders, and then, for long months, refusing to repent. Yet was David justified: "I have sinned against the Lord"; "The Lord also hath put away thy sin." He turned from his awfully ruined self to God, and at once he received remission. Then, and to the last, he was chastised. But then and there he was unreservedly justified, and with a justification which made him sing a loud beatitude. Just as David too speaks his felicitation of the man (and it was himself) to whom God reckons righteousness irrespective of works, "Happy they whose iniquities have been remitted, and whose sins have been covered; happy the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin". (Psa_32:1- 2) Wonderful words, in the context of the experience out of which they spring! A human soul which has greatly transgressed, and which knows it well, and knows too that to the end it will suffer a sore discipline because of it, for example and humiliation, nevertheless knows its pardon, and knows it as a happiness indescribable. The iniquity has been "lifted"; the sin has been "covered," has been struck out of the book of "reckoning," written by the Judge. The penitent will never forgive himself: in this very Psalm he tears from his sin all the covering woven by his own heart. But his God has given him remission, has reckoned him as one who has not sinned, so far as access to Him and peace with Him are in question. And so his song of shame and penitence begins with a beatitude, and ends with a cry of joy. We pause to note the exposition implied here of the phrase, "to reckon righteousness." It is to treat the man as one whose account is clear. "Happy the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin." In the phrase itself, "to reckon righteousness" (as in its Latin equivalent, "to impute righteousness"), the question, what clears the account, is not answered. Suppose the impossible case of a record kept absolutely clear by the mans own sinless goodness; then the "reckoned," the "imputed, righteousness" would mean the Laws contentment with him on his own merits. But the context of human sin fixes the actual reference to an "imputation" which means that the awfully defective record is treated, for a divinely valid reason, as if it were, what it is not, good. The man is at peace with his Judge, though he has sinned, because the Judge has joined him to Himself, and taken up his liability, and answered for it to His own Law. The man is dealt with as righteous, being a sinner, for his glorious Redeemers sake. It is pardon, but more than pardon. It is no mere indulgent dismissal; it is a welcome as of the worthy to the embrace of the Holy
26. 26. One. Such is the Justification of God. We shall need to remember it through the whole course of the Epistle. To make Justification a mere synonym for Pardon is always inadequate. Justification is the contemplation and treatment of the penitent sinner, found in Christ, as righteous, as satisfactory to the Law, not merely as one whom the Law lets go. Is this a fiction? Not at all. It is vitally linked to two great spiritual facts. One is, that the sinners Friend has Himself dealt, in the sinners interests, with the Law, honouring its holy claim to the uttermost under the human conditions which He freely undertook. The other is that he has mysteriously, but really, joined the sinner to Himself, in faith, by the Spirit; joined him to Himself as limb, as branch, as bride. Christ and His disciples are really One in the order of spiritual life. And so the community between Him and them is real, the community of their debt on the one side, of His merit on the other. Now again comes up the question, never far distant in St. Pauls thought, and in his life, what these facts of Justification have to do with Gentile sinners. Here is David blessing God for his unmerited acceptance, an acceptance by the way wholly unconnected with the ritual of the altar. Here above all is Abraham, "justified in consequence of faith." But David was a child of the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham was the father of that c