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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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