Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 4:1

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Ch. Rom 4:1-25. Abraham, an apparent exception to the rule of gratuitous acceptance, really the great example of it

1. What shall we say then? &c.] Here a new and independent objection is anticipated. Abraham, the great Head of the Old Covenant, would be appealed to by the Jew, as on the assumption that he at least was justified by its terms; and on him now the argument turns. See Appendix B.

The reading of the Gr. varies in MSS.; but the most probable reading will be rendered thus, What therefore shall we say that Abraham our father hath found, according to the flesh? “ Therefore: ” this, in our view, refers to the general previous argument from Rom 3:21, not specially to Rom 3:31. “ Our father: ” i.e. of the Jews. “ Hath found: ” i.e., in the way of acceptance and privilege. The perfect tense suggests the permanence of Abraham’s position in men’s thoughts. “ According to the flesh: ” these words do not, as in E. V., belong to “our father,” but to “hath found.” To interpret them here we must remember (what will come out in the course of the Epistle) St Paul’s doctrine of “the flesh.” It is, briefly, that “the flesh” is human nature, in the Fall, as unrenewed and unassisted by Divine special grace. “According to the flesh” will thus mean here “in respect of his own independent works and merits.” Did Abraham win acceptance as meritoriously keeping the covenant of works, which demands obedience and provides no grace? In brief, was he justified by works?

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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?

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 4:1-25

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

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 holiness–to 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 forgiven–it 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 poverty–and 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.)

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 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 believers–of 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 descendants–the land of inheritance–a perpetual covenant–seed, 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 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 son–by 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.

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 life–our 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

?–

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 office–many 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 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 none–Cursed 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 Jam 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, 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 revelation–and 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:

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 powerful–who 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 effect–for 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).

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 logically, as subject and object of the same act; but there is a close moral affinity between them. Fidelity, constancy, firmness, confidence, reliance, trust, belief–these 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 it–then 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 faith–a 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 faith–a 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 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.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER IV.

Abraham was justified by faith, and not by the works of the

law; for his faith was imputed to him for righteousness, 1-5.

David also bears testimony to the same doctrine, 6-8.

Abraham, the father of the Jewish race, was justified by faith,

even before he was circumcised; therefore salvation must be of

the Gentiles as well as the Jews, 9-12.

And the promise that all the nations of the earth should be

blessed tn him, was made to him while he was in an uncircumcised

state; and, therefore, if salvation were of the Jews alone, the

law, that was given after the promise, would make the promise

of no effect, 13-17.

Description of Abraham’s faith, and its effects, 18-92.

This account is left on record for our salvation, that we might

believe on Christ, who was delivered for our offences, and

raised again for our justification, 23-25.

NOTES ON CHAP. IV.

The apostle, having proved in the foregoing chapter that neither Jews nor Gentiles have a right to the blessing of God’s peculiar kingdom, otherwise than by grace, which is as free for the one as the other, in this chapter advances a new argument to convince the Jew, and to show the believing Gentile, in a clear light, the high value and strong security of the mercies freely bestowed on them in the Gospel; and, at the same time, to display the scheme of Divine providence, as laid in the counsel and will of God. His argument is taken from Abraham’s case: Abraham was the father and head of the Jewish nation; he had been a heathen, but God pardoned him, and took him and his posterity into his special covenant, and bestowed upon them many extraordinary blessings above the rest of mankind; and it is evident that Abraham was not justified by any obedience to law, or rule of right action, but, in the only way in which a sinner can be justified, by prerogative or the mercy of the lawgiver. Now, this is the very same way in which the Gospel saves the believing Gentiles, and gives them a part in the blessings of God’s covenant. Why then should the Jews oppose the Gentiles? especially as the Gentiles were actually included in the covenant made with Abraham for the promise, Ge 17:4, stated that he should be the father of many nations: consequently, the covenant being made with Abraham, as the head or father of many nations, all in any nation who stood on the same religious principle with him, were his seed and with him interested in the same covenant. But Abraham stood by faith in the mercy of God pardoning his idolatry; and upon this footing the believing Gentiles stand in the Gospel; and, therefore, they are the seed of Abraham, and included in the covenant and promise made to him.

To all this the apostle knew well it would be objected, that it was not faith alone, that gave Abraham a right to the blessings of the covenant, but his obedience to the law of circumcision; and this, being peculiar to the Jewish nation, gave them an interest in the Abrahamic covenant; and that, consequently, whoever among the Gentiles would be interested in that covenant, ought to embrace Judaism, become circumcised, and thus come under obligation to the whole law. With this very objection the apostle very dexterously introduces his argument, Ro 4:1; Ro 4:2; shows that, according to the Scripture account, Abraham was justified by faith, Ro 4:3-5; explains the nature of that justification, by a quotation out of the Psalms, Ro 4:6-9; proves that Abraham was justified long before he was circumcised, Ro 4:9-11; that the believing Gentiles are his seed to whom the promise belongs, as well as the believing Jews, Ro 4:12-17; and he describes Abraham’s faith, in order to explain the faith of the Gospel, Ro 4:17-25. See Dr. Taylor’s notes. We may still suppose that the dialogue is carried on between the apostle and the Jew, and it will make the subject still more clear to assign to each his respective part. The Jew asks a single question, which is contained in the first and part of the second verses. And the apostle’s answer takes up the rest of the chapter.

Verse 1. 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 Abraham’s 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 God’s peculiar kingdom, in virtue of the promise made to him; his justification is the ground of ours. Now what shall we make of his case, on your principles? Of what use was his obedience to the law of circumcision, if it did not give him a right to the blessing of God? And if, by his obedience to that law, he obtained a grant of extraordinary blessings, then, according to your own concession, Ro 3:27, he might ascribe his justification to something in himself; and, consequently, so may we too, in his right; and if so, this will exclude all those who are not circumcised as we are.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The apostle proceeds to prove his main conclusion, Rom 3:28, which is, that a sinner is justified by faith without works, from the example of Abraham. He was a man that had faith and works both, yet he was justified by faith, and not by works; and who doubts but the children are justified after the same manner that their father was: there is but one way of justification; this is the connexion.

As pertaining to the flesh: these words may either be referred to father; and then they import no more but that Abraham was their father according to the flesh, Rom 9:5. Or else they may be referred to the following word found; and then the question is, What hath Abraham found, i.e. got or attained, according to the flesh? The sense is, What hath he got by his righteousness, which stands in works, and are done in the flesh? Abraham obtained not righteousness by any works, ceremonial or moral. So the word flesh is taken, {see Phi 3:3,4} when under the word flesh came circumcision, our own righteousness, which is by the law, or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1-3. What shall we say then thatAbraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?thatis, (as the order in the original shows), “hath found, aspertaining to (‘according to,’ or ‘through’) the flesh”;meaning, “by all his natural efforts or legal obedience.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Case of Abraham.

A. D. 58.

      1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?   2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.   3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.   4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.   5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.   6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,   7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.   8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

      Here the apostle proves that Abraham was justified not by works, but by faith. Those that of all men contended most vigorously for a share in righteousness by the privileges they enjoyed, and the works they performed, were the Jews, and therefore he appeals to the case of Abraham their father, and puts his own name to the relation, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews: Abraham our father. Now surely his prerogative must needs be as great as theirs who claim it as his seed according to the flesh. Now what has he found? All the world is seeking; but, while the most are wearying themselves for very vanity, none can be truly reckoned to have found, but those who are justified before God; and thus Abraham, like a wise merchant, seeking goodly pearls, found this one pearl of great price. What has he found, kata sarka—as pertaining to the flesh, that is, by circumcision and his external privileges and performances? These the apostle calls flesh, Phil. iii. 3. Now what did he get by these? Was he justified by them? Was it the merit of his works that recommended him to God’s acceptance? No, by no means, which he proves by several arguments.

      I. If he had been justified by works, room would have been left for boasting, which must for ever be excluded. If so, he hath whereof to glory (v. 2), which is not to be allowed. “But,” might the Jews say, “was not his name made great (Gen. xii. 2), and then might not he glory?” Yes, but not before God; he might deserve well of men, but he could never merit of God. Paul himself had whereof to glory before men, and we have him sometimes glorying in it, yet with humility; but nothing to glory in before God, 1Co 4:4; Phi 3:8; Phi 3:9. So Abraham. Observe, He takes it for granted that man must not pretend to glory in any thing before God; no, not Abraham, as great and as good a man as he was; and therefore he fetches an argument from it: it would be absurd for him that glorieth to glory in any but the Lord.

      II. It is expressly said that Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness. What saith the scripture? v. 3. In all controversies in religion this must be our question, What saith the scripture? It is not what this great man, and the other good man, say, but What saith the scripture? Ask counsel at this Abel, and so end the matter, 2 Sam. ii. 18. To the law, and to the testimony (Isa. viii. 20), thither is the last appeal. Now the scripture saith that Abraham believed, and this was counted to him for righteousness (Gen. xv. 6); therefore he had not whereof to glory before God, it being purely of free grace that it was so imputed, and having not in itself any of the formal nature of a righteousness, further than as God himself was graciously pleased so to count it to him. It is mentioned in Genesis, upon occasion of a very signal and remarkable act of faith concerning the promised seed, and is the more observable in that it followed upon a grievous conflict he had had with unbelief; his faith was now a victorious faith, newly returned from the battle. It is not the perfect faith that is required to justification (there may be acceptable faith where there are remainders of unbelief), but the prevailing faith, the faith that has the upper hand of unbelief.

      III. If he had been justified by faith, the reward would have been of debt, and not of grace, which is not to be imagined. This is his argument (Rom 4:4; Rom 4:5): Abraham’s reward was God himself; so he had told him but just before (Gen. xv. 1), I am thy exceeding great reward. Now, if Abraham had merited this by the perfection of his obedience, it had not been an act of grace in God, but Abraham might have demanded it with as much confidence as ever any labourer in the vineyard demanded the penny he had earned. But this cannot be; it is impossible for man, much more guilty man, to make God a debtor to him, Rom. xi. 35. No, God will have free grace to have all the glory, grace for grace’s sake, John i. 16. And therefore to him that worketh not–that can pretend to no such merit, nor show any worth or value in his work, which may answer such a reward, but disclaiming any such pretension casts himself wholly upon the free grace of God in Christ, by a lively, active, obedient faith–to such a one faith is counted for righteousness, is accepted of God as the qualification required in all those that shall be pardoned and saved. Him that justifieth the ungodly, that is, him that was before ungodly. His former ungodliness was no bar to his justification upon his believing: ton asebe—that ungodly one, that is, Abraham, who, before his conversion, it should seem, was carried down the stream of the Chaldean idolatry, Josh. xxiv. 2. No room therefore is left for despair; though God clears not the impenitent guilty, yet through Christ he justifies the ungodly.

      IV. He further illustrates this by a passage out of the Psalms, where David speaks of the remission of sins, the prime branch of justification, as constituting the happiness and blessedness of a man, pronouncing blessed, not the man who has no sin, or none which deserved death (for then, while man is so sinful, and God so righteous, where would be the blessed man?) but the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, who though he cannot plead, Not guilty, pleads the act of indemnity, and his plea is allowed. It is quoted from Psa 32:1; Psa 32:2, where observe, 1. The nature of forgiveness. It is the remission of a debt or a crime; it is the covering of sin, as a filthy thing, as the nakedness and shame of the soul. God is said to cast sin behind his back, to hide his face from it, which, and the like expressions, imply that the ground of our blessedness is not our innocency, or our not having sinned (a thing is, and is filthy, though covered; justification does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin), but God’s not laying it to our charge, as it follows here: it is God’s not imputing sin (v. 8), which makes it wholly a gracious act of God, not dealing with us in strict justice as we have deserved, not entering into judgment, not marking iniquities, all which being purely acts of grace, the acceptance and the reward cannot be expected as debts; and therefore Paul infers (v. 6) that it is the imputing of righteousness without works. 2. The blessedness of it: Blessed are they. When it is said, Blessed are the undefiled in the way, blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, c., the design is to show the characters of those that are blessed but when it is said, Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, the design is to show what that blessedness is, and what the ground and foundation of it. Pardoned people are the only blessed people. The sentiments of the world are, Those are happy that have a clear estate, and are out of debt to man; but the sentence of the word is, Those are happy that have their debts to God discharged. O how much therefore is it our interest to make it sure to ourselves that our sins are pardoned! For this is the foundation of all other benefits. So and so I will do for them; for I will be merciful, Heb. viii. 12.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

What then shall we say? ( ?). Paul is fond of this rhetorical question (Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14; Rom 9:30).

Forefather (). Old word, only here in N.T. Accusative case in apposition with (accusative of general reference with the infinitive).

Hath found (). Westcott and Hort put in the margin because B omits it, a needless precaution. It is the perfect active infinitive of in indirect discourse after . The MSS. differ in the position of .

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

What shall we say? [ ] . See ch. Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14, 30. The phrase anticipates an objection or proposes an inference. It is used by Paul only, and by him only in this Epistle and in its argumentative portions. It is not found in the last five chapters, which are hortatory. Our Father. The best texts read propatora forefather.

Hath found. Westcott and Hort omit. Then the reading would be “what shall we say of Abraham,” etc. Found signifies, attained by his own efforts apart from grace.

As pertaining to the flesh [ ] . Construe with found. The question is, Was Abraham justified by anything which pertained to the flesh ? Some construe with Abraham : our father humanly speaking.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

JUSTIFICATION BEFORE GOD

1) “What shall we say then,” (ti oun eroumen). “What therefore shall we say;” How can righteousness or justification before God be recognized or illustrated, or what example may be given? Paul seems to interject!

2) “That Abraham our father,” (Abram ton propatora hemon) “That Abraham our forefather,” the father of the National Jewish race, and Spiritual father of all who by faith receive Jesus Christ, the Redeemer to acquit them from condemnation, what did he discover or experience?

3) “As pertaining to the flesh,” (kata sarka) “According to the flesh,” our forefather; While yet an heathen, a Gentile in Ur of the Chaldees, God preached the gospel to him. By faith he accepted it, obeyed God by going where God led, and received God’s offered blessings of becoming a father of a great nation in the flesh, Gen 12:1-3.

4) “Has found?” (heurekenai) “To have found,” has found, discovered, experienced or disclosed? regarding salvation, justification, righteousness, and redemption; what was Abraham’s experience of Faith? Paul raised the question as a basis of using Abraham as a Specific example of how God saves or justifies a believing sinner apart from requirement of works, forms, or ceremonies of any law. God saved Abraham when he believed what God told him about Salvation, and that was before he received circumcision, the outward sign of his inner faith, which faith he placed in God and by which he was justified before God, before he left his heathen homeland for Canaan! Gal 3:8.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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 to the whole Church, rightly does Paul apply what has been written of him alone to the whole body of the Church, and at the same time he gives a check to the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in 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’s text the verb ἑυρηκέναι, in this order — “What shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?” On this account, some interpreters think that the question is — “What has Abraham obtained according to the flesh?” If this exposition be approved, the words according to the flesh mean naturally or from himself. It is, however, probable that they are to be connected with the word father. (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.

Κατὰ σάρκα is rendered by [ Grotius ] and [ Macknight ] , “by ( per ) the flesh. Some understand by the word “flesh,” circumcision, as [ Vatablus ] ; others, natural powers, as [ Grotius ] But [ Beza ] and [ Hammond ] think that it is the same as what is meant “by works” in the next verse; and “flesh” evidently has this meaning: it signifies often the performance of what the law requires, the observance not only of ceremonial but also of moral duties. See Gal 3:3; Gal 6:12; and especially Phi 3:3; where Paul gives up “all confidence in the flesh, ” and enumerates, among other things, his strict conformity to the law. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom. 4:1.Alford, following Meyer, says is in contrast to , and refers to that part of our being from which spring works in contrast with that which is the exercise of faith. in respect to efforts by ones own natural powers, or efforts made in ones own strength.

Rom. 4:2. .Talmud maintains that Abraham was justified by works.

Rom. 4:3.Jewish Rabbis viewed Abrahams faith as so much merit. As the reward of his faith our father Abraham inherited both this world and that which is to come, as it is said, Abraham believed God, and it was counted, etc.

Rom. 4:4. But of debt., what one owesa debt, a due, duty, obligation.

Rom. 4:7. Blessed are they, etc.Paul refers them to the example of Abraham and the beatitudes of David. Another proof that he does not disparage the law (Wordsworth). .New Testament side of forgivenessreal removal of sin. .Old Testament sidesin only covered till atonement should be made for it.

Rom. 4:9. supposes an affirmative to the preceding questionsviz., The privilege belongs also to the uncircumcised. Proved by the quotation from David.

Rom. 4:11.The term , sign, relates to the material thing; the term , seal, to its religious import. Seal of the covenant of grace.

Rom. 4:12.Refers to believers of Jewish origin who formed the other half of Abrahams spiritual family.

Rom. 4:13.Abraham was justified before the institution of circumcision and the delivery of the law, therefore by faith in Christ to come.

Rom. 4:15., transgression, from , to trespass. A barrier cannot be crossed except in so far as it exists; so without law there is no sin in the form of transgression.

Rom. 4:17. is the creature call of the Almighty, by which He, according to the analogy of the first act of creation, calls forth the concrete formations out of the general stream of life (Olshausen). Abraham the father of all the faithful, however far removed. In Gods sight Abraham still lives; in Gods sight we were already in existence when He spake to Abraham.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Rom. 4:1-17

The father of the faithful.The divinity of the Bible shown in this, that it confers immortality upon its heroes which no other book possesses. Abrahams trials, faith, and final victory are familiar facts to-day. He lives both in Bible story and in traditions lore. It is a fact to be noticed that the fame of Bible heroes has spread beyond the book in which it is related. The memory of the just is blessed; and Abrahams memory is blessed and green because he was justified by faith and is the father of the faithful. Consider the negative and the positive aspect of Abrahams descendants.

I. Negatively.His descendants:

1. Are not the moralists. Ethical systems cannot be a ground of justification before the unchangeable God. They run from Socrates down to Victor Cousin or Mr. Herbert Spencer. How am I to know by which ethical system I am to be saved? How am I to ascertain which is relatively right and which is absolutely right? Amid hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives, and apodeictical principles, what am I to do? Abrahams descendants would be few if they were confined to the ethical philosophers and their scholars.

2. Are not the legalists. The law maketh wrath and brings condemnation. For all are guilty of infractions of the law, both natural and revealed. Without the written law men will be judged by the natural law written on their hearts. Conscience is a witness to guilt. When it has not been killed, it doth make us all criminals. Can the criminal claim reward as a debt? Punishment is his due.

3. Are not the ceremonialists. We must coin the word so as to avoid a word which has become descriptive of a certain party. Forms and ceremonies have their place, but we must observe the rule, A place for everything and everything in its place. Clothes have their use; but what use are they to the dead? First life, then clothes and food. Abraham had the righteousness of faith, being uncircumcised.

II. Positively.His descendants are:

1. Those who exercise faith. This is the source from the human side of justification, and is the root force which generates the leaves, flowers, and fruits of the Christian character.

2. Those who are forgiven. The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins too often ignored. The blessing to be realised. Faith rightly exercised brings into the soul the consciousness of the divine pardon.

3. Those who are the subjects of grace. By grace are ye saved. The method of grace is one for Abraham and for all Gods people, from the dawn of time to its close.

4. Those to whom belong the sure promises. They are sure, resting upon the solid foundation of Gods grace. This is a rock. All other foundations are as shifting sand. Our moods change; our ethical systems have their days; our volitions vary; our efforts, if strong to-day, are weak the next day, and they always fall far short of our noblest volitions. Gods grace is immutable; His promises are firm:

Engraven as in eternal brass
The might; promise shines.

5. Those who stand a gracious army before Him, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things that be not as though they were. Review the muster-roll of faiths sons and daughters, and it will be found that, though sometimes lightly esteemed, they are indeed the precious sons and daughters of Zion, comparable unto fine gold. They stand in the presence of the infinite Purity, and are ennobled by the gracious influence.

(1) Let us seek for that faith which justifies and leads on to purity.

(2) Let us strive to walk in the steps of that faith which has been exercised by the noblest,these are the steps leading to spiritual greatness and happiness.

(3) Let us believe the promises sure because they are of grace.

(4) Let us glory, not in ourselves, not in works, but in our sublime heirships.

Rom. 4:3. What saith the Scripture?In the third chapter St. Paul had brought this truth plainly forwardthat all men before God are sinners. Those to whom the apostle was referring thought they had such special privileges connected with themselves that they at least ought to be exempted from this general statement. But the apostle says, No such thing; and he falls back therefore upon the question; What saith the Scripture? Now before I attempt to lead you to the answer which ought to be given to this question, it will be necessary that I dwell briefly upon one or two introductory points.

I. What is meant by the Scripture?When St. Paul used these words he certainly referred simply to the Old Testament Scriptures; but we are never for a moment to suppose that the Old Testament and the New Testament are different; and therefore if a man ask me, What saith the Scripture? I am quite as ready to give him an answer out of the Old Testament as I should be to give him one out of the New, and just as ready to answer him out of the New as I should be out of the Old. But when a man asks me a question about his soul, when he is asking me how a man may get to heaven, I should like to answer him out of both Testaments, because when they are put together the one seems to explain the other, enabling a man to say, Thus saith the Scripture.

II. What is the authority of Scripture?If you ask me what there is in this book different from what there is in the best kind of other books, I have but one plain answer. It is because this book was written, not by man, but by God; it is because, though holy men of old wrote the book, they wrote it as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. We speak of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, the Gospel according to St. Luke, or the Gospel according to St. John; but we say it is the gospel of the grace of God, and we acknowledge that from first to last the book was written as God Himself put it into the hearts and minds of the different writers. So then we acknowledge in this book the authority of God Himself. No wonder therefore St. Paul should fall back upon the question of the text. I would only further remark in connection with this part of my subject that we are not to think that the Scripture was intended for men of another age or another country, as if it did not bear upon ourselves; neither must you, when you look at the Scriptures and consider them as the word of God, expect to find them without their difficulties. Even infidels who have disbelieved the Bible have testified to its morality. They have said that if they wanted to bring up their children well there was no morality like that which was to be found in the Bible. To the truth of what the Bible contains the researches of the last few years have testified.

III. What saith the Scripture,

1. For my head? It unfolds to me many difficulties. That great doctrine of there being three PersonsFather, Son, and Holy Ghostbut one living and true God. But the Scripture unfolds to me another great subject, and that is the plan of salvation. The apostle had been showing that all men were sinnersif sinners, they could not save themselves, and that therefore a plan must be devised by which they could be saved. Here is the plan. You and I could do nothing for ourselves. When we were condemned as sinners Christ died in our place, bore our punishment, endured the shame, suffered on the cross, and has now set us free.

2. But what saith the Scripture for my heart? I have known the Scripture turn many a bad man into a good man and make him happy, but I have never known it make a single person unhappy. To each individual I say, You have no hope; but you may have a full hope, a good hope through Christ.

3. But what saith the Scripture for our lifeI mean our way of living? It tells us the impossibility of a double service: Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore if the man who loves his sin would only read, What saith the Scripture? he would find that he must leave off sinning if he would have peace, for there is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. But what saith the Scripture still for our life? It bids us ask ourselves, in the midst of the busy world, in the midst of all our occupations, when we rise early and late take restit bids us ask ourselves, What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

IV. But how are we to know these Scriptures?We must search those Scriptures; and if we were asked how and when, I should say the how must be prayerfully and the when must be daily. I would say to all that if you will only follow that advice there is not one but may be mighty in the Scripturesif you will only search them and pray over them, and that daily. There is an awful responsibility that rests upon every one who does not study that book, who does not read the Bible, who does not consider what the Scripture saith. It is just as if you were walking in a dark place, not knowing the road, and some one were to offer you a light, and you were to say, I do not require it, and refuse to take it. If a man suffered injury under such circumstances, who would marvel?Dr. Villiers, Bishop of Carlisle.

How did Abraham get his righteousness?Justification by faith is a very old doctrineone of the oldest dogmas on record. It is as old as Abraham, as old as Abel.

I. Who justifies?It is God that justifieth. The Judge, the Lawgiver, is the Justifier. Self-justification is as useless as it is impossible.

II. What sort of justification does He give?His justification is:

1. Righteous. The adjustment of the question between us and God is a righteous adjustment. Nothing but this would satisfy God or ourselves, or make us feel safe in accepting it in our dealings with a holy God. This righteousness is secured by the full payment of the penalty by a surety or substitute.

2. Complete. It extends to our whole persons, to our whole lives, to every sin committed by us. The whole man is justified; it is no half pardon.

3. Irreversible. No second verdict can alter our legal position. Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect?

4. Divine. It is a justification worthy of God; a justification which shall place the justified on a far higher level than the first Adam stood upon.

III. For whom is it?For the ungodly. Yes; for such alone. Righteousness for the unrighteous is that which the righteous One came to bring. In this matter of pardon and acceptance, the principle is not, to him that hath shall more be given, but to him that hath nothing shall all be given.

IV. How we get it.By believing. In accepting Gods testimony to this righteousness, in crediting His word concerning this justification, we are justified at once. The righteousness becomes ours; and God treats us henceforth as men who are righteous, as men who, on account of the righteousness which has thus become theirs, are entitled to be dealt with as righteous out and out, Of Abraham it is said, His faith was counted for righteousnessthat is, God counted this believing man as one who had done all righteousness, just because he was a believing man. Not that his act or acts of faith were substituted as equivalent to work, but his believing brought him into the possession of all that working could have done. Thus, in believing, we get the righteousness. Our believing accomplishes for us all that our working could have done.H. Bonar.

Rom. 4:3. Belief in God.Belief in God is the foundation of all religion, both natural and revealed. Now as without belief in God there can be no religion, so where there is such belief in God the Scripture always of course supposes it accompanied with every other part of true religion. As the foundation of religion in general is believing in God, so the foundation of Christianity in particular is the belief of that great act of God, the raising His Son from the dead, in order to judge the world in righteousness.

I. Now the account which the Scripture gives us of the faith of Abraham is this:

1. It consisted in his believing the true God, the Maker and Governor of the universe, the Lord of heaven and earth. The nations among whom he sojourned were all idolaters, worshippers of dead men, worshippers of the kings who had reigned over them in their lifetime; for that was the original of all the heathen idolatry. Every city or territory had its own prince, and the world was divided into small kingdoms. These kings were honoured by their flatterers with honours during their lives too nearly divine, and after their deaths they were by the ignorant people worshipped as gods. The worship paid to such gods of their own making was accordingly superstitious; and the corruption of their manners was answerable to the absurdity of their religion. From these Abraham separated himself and believed in the true God, the Maker of all things; and for the sake of that belief forsook his native country.

2. As Abrahams faith consisted in general in believing the true God, so in particular it manifested itself in such acts of dependence upon Him as became a person who had just and worthy notions of the true God, whom he served; and for this it was counted unto him for righteousness.

3. The faith of Abraham was not a speculation or mere credulity, but a principle of obedience and true holiness.

4. The faith of Abraham is opposed in Scripture, just as the faith of Christians is, not to the works of virtue, but to the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses. They that are of faith, saith St. Paul (Gal. 3:7)that is, they who, believing in Christ, expect salvation through the real holiness of the gospel, and not by such outward forms and ceremonies as the Jews observedthe same, saith he, are the children of Abraham; even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:6).

II. The second thing I proposed to speak of is, what it is that is particularly required of us when we likewise are in Scripture commanded to believe in God.And this evidently implies:

1. Believing His beingthat is, not only in a speculative manner believing that there is an infinitely perfect Being in the notional way wherein philosophers describe Him, which may easily be separate from any religious affection, but it is having upon our minds a constant sense of His being in the moral sense the supreme Governor and righteous Judge of the world. This belief of the being of God is that only which, because it will certainly produce the fruits of virtue, shall therefore certainly be accounted unto us for righteousness.
2. The duty of believing in God implies not only our believing His being, and His being governor and judge of the world, but also that we have worthy and honourable apprehensions of His nature and attributes; for when any man thinks he believes in God, without attending at the same time to those perfections and excellences which constitute the true and real notion of God, he deceives himself with that empty fallacy of putting words for things, and, instead of placing his religion in obeying the commands of the true Governor of the universe by the practice of all holiness, righteousness, and virtue, he will be apt to content himself with worshipping he knows not what, and he knows not how, with a blind superstition, without understanding, and without any real improvement in goodness. This is naturally the effect of ascribing absurdities to God, as those of the Church of Rome do in the matter of transubstantiation; or of teaching things concerning Him contrary to the common and obvious notions of righteousness and goodness, as those have done who contend for the doctrine of absolute and unconditional predestination. The religion of such men usually consists more in a useless amazement of mind than in any real practise of virtue, than which nothing can be more dishonourable to God or more injurious to religion.
3. Believing in God signifies believing His revelations also, as well as what nature teaches concerning Him. The obligations of revealed religion are founded upon the same ground as the obligations of natural religion, and they mutually strengthen and confirm each other. By the dictates of nature it was reasonable to expect that God would vouchsafe to make more clear to men His will by revelation; and in all true revelation is contained a fuller enforcement and more strong confirmation of the law of nature. Men, therefore, who in Christian countries, where the gospel is preached, pretend to believe in the God of nature, and yet at the same time reject the revelation of the gospel, which is so agreeable to and perfective of the law of nature, do, generally speaking, in pretence only, and not in reality, show any more regard to natural than to revealed religion, falling for the most part into absolute atheism. Whereas they who seriously believe and practise the duties of natural religion are generally disposed to embrace also consequently the revelation of the gospel.

4. As believing in God signifies believing His revelations as well as His nature and attributes, so it always includes obedience to Him likewise, when it means that faith which shall be counted to us for righteousness. Abrahams faith, saith St. James, wrought with his works, and by works was his faith made perfect. And concerning ours in like manner St. Paul declares, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom. 10:10).Clarke.

Rom. 4:7. An uncommon conception.St. Paul throws a new light on Old Testament utterances, a spiritual interpretation not received by the Jews. He likewise gives a conception of happiness not generally accepted. Let us examine it.

I. In order to taste joy we must feel sorrow.Thus in a general way sorrow has its blessed uses. The sorrow of pain tastes the joy of release. Sorrow for sin prepares the way for the joy of its removal. No wonder men make light of sin when they do not feel the sorrow it inflicts. The sorrowful pathway of the sin-stricken soul leads to the blessedness of forgiveness.

II. In order to enjoy ease we must bear the burden.The burden-bearers of time may seem to have a hard lot, but they can taste a rich enjoyment when the burden is removed which is unknown to the indolent. The burden of sin is a heavy load; but what joy when the Saviours invitation is accepted, the burden is removed, and the weary soul obtains infinite repose!

III. In order to welcome forgiveness we must realise our helplessness.If a man fancies he is rich and increased in goods, he will be possessed of pride. Fancy plays fantastic tricks. Men fancy that they are morally rich. Why should they crave forgiveness? The sense of soul poverty must be antecedent to the reception of infinite riches. A man condemned will welcome the remission of sentence. Helpless, we rejoice in forgiveness.

IV. In order to rejoice in buried sins we must feel their loathsomeness.We feel in no hurry to carry to the grave the beautiful child that sweetly sleeps in death. The sins that are not frowned upon by society, the sins that make us popular, we are in no haste to cover. But the sin which exposes us to the contempt of our fellows we would gladly bury many fathoms deep. All sin is hateful to God. He loves man, and yet mans sin turns divine complacency into abhorrence. All sin is loathsome. Let us haste to have it covered. It can be covered beneath the propitiation. Let us pray for the divine Spirit to show us the evil of sin, to reveal to us our own sin, and then are we likely to know the high felicity of those whose sins are forgiven.

Rom. 4:13. A vast heirship.Is any single man heir of the world? He possesses only a part. One man possesses property, another fame, another power. Each man has his own dominion. Even of that he is not complete master. We possess in part as well as know in part. Abrahams material world was small as compared with the world of the present, but he looked beyond and above the material to the moral sphere, to the wide expanding future. Abrahams spiritual seed is heir of the world; and why? Because:

I. It is a dominating force.We may try to exalt the material, but we are being constantly confronted with the fact that the moral is mighty. Moral wisdom is mightier than weapons of war. Spiritual forces are more dominating than either material, social, or political forces. The spiritual seed is sovereign in time, as times advance will manifest.

II. It is a formative agency.The spiritual seed is working silently, almost secretly, and yet surely. The great formative agency in the highest of modern civilisations is the spiritual seed. Christ and the Christ likethe true Abrahamic seedare permeating all nationalities. The seed is germinating through the centuries; and when the harvest time of humanity and of Gods purpose has come, the golden grain will beautify the planet.

III. It works by means of an eternal principle.The righteousness of faith is the principle of the Abrahamic seed. It is not a Pauline doctrine; it is a divine creed. Righteousness is eternal. God and righteousness are synonymous. Faith in God implies faith in righteousnessfaith in righteousness as a divine attribute, as a divine bestowal to the human unrighteous one.

IV.It conquers self, and thus conquers all.The tendency of the earth seed is to obtain heirship by way of merit. The spiritual seed represses this erroneous tendency. Not by the works of the law, but through the righteousness of faith. The seed that masters its own false tendencies must master. True, individually, that he who conquers self conquers all. World slaves seek possession through works. World masters obtain possession through the righteousness of faith.

V. It marches in harmony with the divine order.We may find fault with nature; but the man who moves in harmony with those laws by which nature is governed is most likely to prove natures master, and certainly most likely to secure the greatest goodif not to himself, to the race. The moral and the material order are connected. The seed that marches in harmony with the moral order will have the largest dominion. Mans immorality has well-nigh made Gods kosmos into a chaos. Mans morality, through the righteousness of faith, will turn back the chaos into a kosmos.

VI. It delights in the divine beauty.Delight in moral and spiritual beauty should promote delight in material beauty. He is heir of the world who can delight in all things good, true, and beautiful. Possession is not by legal enactments, but by the imperial and absorbing soul. The peasant may possess more than the peer. How poor an heir is that peer who spends his days in a room of the tower, where he paces up and down like a caged lion mourning over his incapacity! How rich an heir is that peasant who can walk Gods earth singing, All things are ours!

VII. It moves to universal renovation.The spiritual seed is not as the material seed. The latter seeks heirship for self-aggrandisement. Too often it heeds not that destruction and misery are in its ways, if by that destruction it can obtain spoils of enrichment. The former seeks heirship for universal enrichment, and thus it moves on to universal renovation. Let us seek the true heirship of the world. Let us pursue the right method. Let us contemplate ultimate results. Let us have faith in final triumph.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom. 4:1-17

Abrahams greatness.The name of Abraham, as we shall afterwards see more fully, is not confined to the sacred history. Over and above the book of Genesis there are two main sources of information. We have the fragments preserved to us by Josephus and Eusebius from Greek or Asiatic writers. We have also the Jewish and Mussulman traditions, as represented chiefly in the Talmud and the Koran. It is in the former classthose presented to us by the pagan historiansthat the migration of Abraham assumes its most purely secular aspect. They describe him as a great man of the East well read in the stars, or as a conquering prince who swept all before him on his way to Palestine. These characteristics, remote as they are from our common view, have nevertheless their point of contact with the biblical account, which, simple as it is, implies more than it states. He was, in practice, the friend of God, in the noblest of all senses of the wordthe friend who stood fast when others fell away. He was the first distinct historical witness, at least for his own race and country, to theism, to monotheism, to the unity of the Lord and Ruler of all against the primeval idolatries, the natural religion of the ancient world. In him was most distinctly manifested the gift of faith. In him long, long before Luther, long before Paul, was it proclaimed, in a sense far more universal and clear than the paradox of the reformer, not less clear and universal than the preaching of the apostle, that man is justified by faith. Abraham believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness. Powerful as is the effect of these words when we read them in their first untarnished freshness, they gain immensely in their original language, to which neither Greek nor German, much less Latin or English, can furnish any full equivalent. He supported himself, he built himself up, he reposed as a child in his mothers arms, in the strength of Godin God whom he did not see, more than in the giant empires of earth, and the bright lights of heaven, or the claims of tribe and kindred, which were always before him. It was counted to him for righteousness. This universality of Abrahams faiththis elevation, this multitudinousness of the patriarchal, paternal character, which his name involveshas also found a response in those later traditions and feelings of which I have before spoken. When Mahomet attacks the idolatry of the Arabs, he justifies himself by arguing, almost in the language of St. Paul, that the faith which he proclaimed in one supreme God was no new belief, but was identical with the ancient religion of their first father, Abraham. When the emperor Alexander Severus placed in the chapel of his palace the statues of the choice spirits of all times, Abraham, rather than Moses, was selected as the centre doubtless of a more extended circle of sacred associations. When the author of Liberty of Prophesying ventured, before any other English divine, to lift up his voice in behalf of universal religious toleration, he was glad to shelter himself under the authority of the ancient Jewish or Persian apologue, of doubtful origin, but of most instructive wisdom, of almost scriptural simplicity, which may well be repeated here as an expression of the world-wide sympathies which attach to the father of the faithful.Stanley.

Sins hid.Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Get your sins hid. There is a covering of sin which proves a curse. He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; there is a covering it by not confessing it, or, which is worse, by denying it. Gehazis coveringa covering of sin by a lie; and there is also a covering of sin by justifying ourselves in it. I have not done this thing, or I did no evil in it. All these are evil coverings: he that thus covereth his sin shall not prosper. But there is a blessed covering of sin: forgiveness of sin is the hiding it out of sight, and that is the blessedness.Richard Alleine.

Whose transgression is forgiven.We may lull the soul asleep with carnal delights, but the virtue of that opium will be soon spent. All those joys are but stolen waters, and bread eaten in secreta poor, sorry peace that dares not come to the light and endure the triala sorry peace that is soon disturbed by a few serious and sober thoughts of God and the world to come; but when once sin is pardoned, then you have true joy indeed. Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.Thomas Manton.

Sin is covered.Every man that must be happy must have something to hide and cover his sins from Gods eyes, and nothing in the world can do it but Christ and His righteousness, typified in the ark of the covenant, whose cover was of gold, and called a propitiatory, that as it covered the tables that were within the ark, so God covers our sins against those tables. So the cloud covering the Israelites in the wilderness signified Gods covering us from the danger of our sins.Thomas Taylor.

Sin covered by Christ.This covering hath relation to some nakedness and filthiness which should be coveredeven sin, which defileth us and maketh us naked. Why, saith Moses to Aaron, hast thou made the people naked? The garments of our merits are too short and cannot cover us; we have need therefore to borrow of Christ Jesus His merits and the mantle of His righteousness, that it may be unto us as a garment, and as those breeches of leather which God made unto Adam and Eve after their fall. Garments are ordained to cover our nakedness, defend us from the injury of the weather, and to adorn us. So the mediation of our Saviour serveth to cover our nakedness, that the wrath of God seize not upon us. He is that white raiment wherewith we should be clothed that our filthy nakedness may not appearto defend us against Satan. He is mighty to save, etc., and to be an ornament to decorate us, for He is that wedding garment. Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.Archibald Symson.

Sweet is pardon.The object of pardon, about which it is conversant, is set forth under divers expressionsiniquity, transgression, and sin. As in law, many words of like import and signification are heaped up and put together to make the deed and legal instrument more comprehensive and effectual. I observe it the rather, because when God proclaims His name the same words are usedTaking away iniquity, transgression, and sin. Well, we have seen the meaning of the expression. Why doth the holy man of God use such vigour and vehemency of inculcation, Blessed is the man? and again, Blessed is the man? Partly with respect to his own case. David knew how sweet it was to have sin pardoned; he had felt the bitterness of sin in his own soul to the drying up of his blood, and therefore he doth express his sense of pardon in the most lively terms. And then partly, too, with respect to those for whose use this instruction was written, that they might not look upon it as a light and trivial thing, but be thoroughly apprehensive of the worth of so great a privilege. Blessed, happy, thrice happy, they who have obtained pardon of their sins, and justification by Jesus Christ.Thomas Manton.

Sin not reckoned.Unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity. Aben-Ezra paraphrases it, of whose sins God does not think, does not regard them, so as to bring them into judgment, reckoning them as if they were not; , does not count or calculate them, does not require for them the debt of punishment. To us the remission is entirely free, our Sponsor having taken upon Him the whole business of paying the ransom. His suffering is our impunity, His bond our freedom, and His chastisement our peace; and therefore the prophet says, The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.Robert Leighton.

Legality.He to whom thou wast sent for ease, being by name Legality, is the son of the bond-woman which now is, and is in bondage with her children, and is, in a mystery, this Mount Sinai, which thou hast feared will fall on thy head. Now, if she with her children are in bondage, how canst thou expect by them to be made free? This Legality, therefore, is not able to set thee free from thy burden. No man was as yet ever rid of his burden by him; no, nor ever is like to be. Ye cannot be justified by the works of the law; for by the deeds of the law no man living can be rid of his burden. Therefore Mr. Worldly-Wiseman is an alien, and Mr. Legality is a cheat; and for his son Civility, notwithstanding his simpering looks, he is but a hypocrite, and cannot help thee. Believe me, there is nothing in all this noise that thou hast heard of these sottish men, but a design to beguile thee of thy salvation, by turning thee from the way in which I had set thee. By laws and ordinances you will not be saved, since you came not in by the door. And as for this coat that is on my back, it was given me by the lord of the place whither I go; and that, as you say, to cover my nakedness with. And I take it as a token of his kindness to me; for I had nothing but rags before. And besides, thus I comfort myself as I go: Surely, think I, when I come to the gate of the city, the Lord thereof will know me for good, since I have His coat on my back, a coat that He gave me freely in the day that He stripped me of my rags. I have, moreover, a mark on my forehead, of which, perhaps, you have taken no notice, which one of my Lords most intimate associates fixed there in the day that my burden fell off my shoulders. I will tell you, moreover, that I had then given me a roll, sealed, to comfort me by reading as I go on the way. I was also bid to give it in at the celestial gate, in token of my certain going in after it; all which things, I doubt, you want, and want them because you came not in at the gate.Bunyan.

Reason and will joined in faith.The prerogative of God extendeth as well to the reason as to the will of man; so that we are to obey His law, though we find a reluctation in our willwe are to believe His word, though we find a reluctation in our reason. For if we believe only what is agreeable to our sense, we give consent to the matter and not to the author. But that faith which was accounted unto Abraham for righteousness was of such a point as whereat Sarah laughed, who therein was an image of natural reason.Lord Bacon.

Abrahams constant trust.Though this be the only instance mentioned in Scripture of the patriarchs faith being counted to him for righteousness, yet we know that this unhesitating trust in God was the habitual temper of his mind, as it must be that of every man who would imitate the example of the father of the faithful. The Lord had communed with him previous to this period, accompanied with the same implicit reliance on the part of the patriarch. It is this immutable trust in God which communicates its whole value to the act of obeying the divine commands; for were the command obeyed without any reference to God or any reliance on Him, this would not be an act of moral obedience, as not proceeding from the proper motive. And this implicit reliance, without any external act of obedience, was counted to Abraham for righteousness. The event on which Moses remarks that Abrahams faith was counted to him for righteousness took place when the patriarch must have been under eighty-six years of age. He received the seal of the covenant by which he and his family were constituted the Church of God when he was ninety-nine years old. Hence the reckoning of his faith for righteousness took place at least thirteen years before he and his descendants were constituted the Church of God. Now if Abrahams faith was counted for righteousness when he was not a member of the outward community of Gods Church, why may not the same mark of divine favour be extended to others who, like him, place their confidence in God, and study to obey His law, though they too belong not to the visible Church of God? With all who admitted the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, the apostles argument must have appeared absolutely conclusive; for when Abraham had his faith reckoned to him for righteousness he was in the situation of the pious Gentiles of every age who have lived and died out of Gods visible Church. No person, then, can be entitled to maintain that the pious heathen may not, in virtue of the redemption that is in Christ, have their faith counted to them for righteousness, when we have the example of the father of the faithful himself obtaining justification while precisely in this situation. The term father is applied to Abraham in this passage metaphorically, to signify that he was constituted the type or example to all mankind of obtaining justification. This method of justification was revealed to him, not as a special instance of divine favour to himself as an individual, but as a pattern or example of the manner in which all men may obtain this blessing, an instance of the principle on which alone any of the fallen race of mankind can be justified. In the first instance the covenant, as the divine promise is often called, was made with Abraham. But it having been declared in the covenant itself that Abraham in this transaction was the father or type of all believers, the promise extends to all men, and is as immutably certain to every human creature who walks in the steps of Abrahams faith as it was to the patriarch himself. Now this promise, says the apostle, was not given to Abraham and to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. The expression the law is apt to suggest the law of Moses. But this cannot be the meaning, for the law of Moses did not then exist. Therefore by the law the apostle means generally the law of God, both moral and ceremonial, whether made known by revelation or written on the heart; and the force of his observation is, that the reward was not promised to Abraham and his seed in consequence of their meriting it by obedience to the divine law, but because God of His own free will was pleased to count their faith to them as righteousness, or to accept the imperfect righteousness of faith as if it were an unsinning fulfilment of His law.Ritchie.

Canaan typical.We know that the earthly Canaan was, in express terms, promised to Abraham and his seed. And that the promise of the heavenly Canaan was couched under this is scarcely less plain, from the two following simple considerations. First: Abraham himself, and the other believing patriarchs, so understood it; for, on the footing of this promise, they looked for the heavenly countryfor the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (see Heb. 11:8-10; Heb. 11:13-16). This country was the object of their hope, as being the subject of divine promise. But no promise of it is to be found, unless it was couched under that of the earthly Canaan, as a type; connected with the declaration, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; which also includes the promise of eternal inheritance; and, indeed, considered as the glorious sum of the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant. The whole of the gospel revelation was then, and for many ages afterwards, under the veil of figurative language, and of typical rites, objects, and events. To have given, in clear and explicit terms, the full promise of the eternal inheritance, would not have been consistent with the divine scheme of gradual development, nor with the fact of life and immortality being brought to light by Jesus Christ. But that the promise was given is manifest from the apostles manner of expressing himself in the passages above alluded to, and from his saying of the patriarchs, who had gone to the better country, that through faith and patience they inherited the promises (Heb. 6:12). Secondly: This is still further evident, from believers in all ages and countries being called heirs, according to the promise of inheritance given to Abraham. So they are spoken of in Gal. 3:18; Gal. 3:29. If ye be Christs, says the apostle in Gal. 3:29, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promisei.e., the promise of the inheritance mentioned in Rom. 4:18 : If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. So also, in Heb. 6:17-20, the heirs of promise, who derive strong consolation from the word and oath of God to Abraham, are those who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them: which hope entereth within the veil; whither the forerunner is entered, even Jesus. But as the word here rendered world is one which usually, if not uniformly, when it occurs without any restrictive noun, is used to denote the whole inhabited earth, I cannot help thinking that there is here a reference to the whole earth becoming the possession of Abrahams seed, of which the possession of Canaan was but a small prelude. There is an obvious difference between a right and actual possession. The whole earth may be, by the gift or promise of God, the property of this seed, although they are not yet, and may not be for a good while to come, invested with the actual possession of it. When promises are made to a seed which is to come into existence in the successive ages of the world, it is not necessary to their fulfilment that they should be enjoyed in the same manner and in the same degree, by all, from the first period to the last; for with this, in the present instance, facts do not accord. We certainly possess the blessings contained in the divine promises in a more eminent degree than the saints of old: God having provided better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect (Heb. 11:40). Both temporal and spiritual blessings will be possessed, in a much higher degree of perfection than even now, during the period of the millennial glory of the Church. And as to these who shall be alive on the earth at the coming of Christ, they shall escape the sentence of mortality. But such differences in the enjoyment of the promises, at different periods, do not render them void of effect to any. All the seed have the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. All being finally put in possession of the heavenly country may be said then to inherit the promises in their full extentthis being their grand sum, their glorious completion. Moses and Aaron inherited the promises, although, as a judgment for failing to sanctify the name of the Lord at the waters of Meribah, they were sentenced to finish their course short of the earthly Canaan.Wardlaw.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 4

Rom. 4:3. A lantern refused.If, then, we have a light for our souls, and we will not use it, who can wonder if we suffer injury? This reminds me that something of this kind actually happened. It was not so long ago that I happened to be visiting in a great castle situated 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 the castle, late one night, in the midst of a violent thunderstorm, when it 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 very well do 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, and the next day the lifeless body of that foolish woman was found washed ashore from the swollen stream. How many such foolish ones are there, who, when the light is offered, and they have only to say, 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! Oh, how many souls will be found in the last day who have tumbled over the cliff in the darkness of ignorance and unbelief, and who have perished because they have refused the light of Gods truth, which would have guided them on the road to heaven!

Rom. 4:3. Influence of the Bible.It is hazarding nothing to say that, other things being equal, the political power and promise of nations is in direct ratio with their fidelity to the word of God. When a pagan ambassador asked Queen Victoria the secret of Englands national greatness she gave him a Bible, and said, That is the secret of the greatness of England. In the Centennial letter which the President of the United States addressed to the American Sunday Schools, he said To the influence of the Bible we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilisation. Froude says, in his essay on Calvinism, All that we call modern civilisation, in a sense which deserves the name, is the visible expression of the transforming power of the gospel.

Rom. 4:3. Boy would not part with his Bible.Let me just mention a story. I remember once hearing of a little lad in a town in Lancashire, where I first began my work of preaching. He lay upon the steps of a door, in the middle of the night, in the great town of Warrington, and the policeman, or rather watchman, coming up to him, said, What are you doing here? The boy replied, I am without father and mother; I have travelled thus far, and I have no food, no money, no place to lie down in. There was something in the boys jacket which attracted the watchmans eye, and when he touched it he thought he had found a thief. What have you here? he asked. The boy then put his hand into his pocket, and brought out a small pocket Bible. Well, said the watchman, if you are so badly off, I will give you a few pence for your Bible; I will take it home to my children, and you will be able to get your bed and food for the night. But the lad, young as he was, knew that the Bible was true; he had an experimental knowledge of the Bible, and he was ready at once with his reply. Thank you, sir, he said, but I wont give it up. Why, you are starving, said the watchman. Yes; but this is the word of God, and it tells me, When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up. Here was the experimental knowledge of the power of the promises. The watchman showed his humanity, his kindness, and gentleness towards the fatherless boy. He took him home and fed him, and God prospered that boy who relied on the promises. And, believe me, that is just the experience of hundreds and thousands who have found their extremity to be Gods opportunitywho had found when they were very low that God could extend to them His everlasting arms, could lift them up, and bless them and preserve them.

Rom. 4:3. There is no fear now.Lord Shaftesbury, speaking on behalf of the South American Missionary Society, said, I remember a missionary from Fiji telling me an anecdote. You have all heard how the Fijians were raised in the scale of social life when Christianity had been introduced among them. Well, a missionary told me that this came under his observation. A ship having been wrecked off one of the islands of Fiji, a boats crew that had got ashore from the wreck were in the greatest possible terror lest they should be devoured by the Fijians. On reaching land they dispersed in different directions. Two of them found a hut, and crept into it; and as they lay there wondering what would become of them, one suddenly called out to his companion, All right, Jack, there is a Bible on this chair; theres no fear now. This poor, despised book, which this man would probably have scorned to look at, and which he didnt believe could do any one any good, be was glad enough now to hail as a proof that his life was safe. He was sure that those who cared to have and to read a Bible would not wish to eat him. I remember reading a somewhat similar story of a traveller who came to a rough hut which was owned by a very rough-looking man. The owner of the hut gave him a meal, and prepared such a bed for him as he could, but the travelers only idea of spending the night was to keep his eyes open and his pistol near. But when the rough owner of the hut took down a Bible from its resting-place, and read a chapter, and then offered a short prayer, and then went to bed himself, the traveller knew that no danger was to be apprehended there, and quietly went to sleep.

Rom. 4:4. Gentleness of Charles V.We are told that on one occasion a swallow having built its nest on the tent of Charles V., he generously commanded that the tent should not be taken down until the young birds were ready to fly. Truly, if he, a rough soldier, could have such gentleness in his heart towards a little bird, how much more will the Lord have it to all those who flee to Him for shelter in loving trustfulness. He that builds his nest upon a divine promise, says one, shall find it abide and remain until he shall fly away to the land where promises are lost in fulfilments. Believers should be the more emboldened to do this from the fact that what God has already done for them is designed to be a sure and blessed earnest of all the grander things to be done for them in the future. He never lifts any from the pit only to cast them in again. Men may do such a thing, but the Lord never does.

Rom. 4:4. Mr. Hewitsons advice to Dr. Macdonald.In one of his prized letters his friend Mr. Hewitson once said to Robert Macdonald, D.D., Have faith in God. Faith will be staggered by loose stones in the way if we look manward; if we look Godward faith will not be staggered even by seemingly inaccessible mountains stretching across and obstructing our progress. Go forward! is the voice from heaven; and faith, obeying, finds the mountains before it flat as plains.

Rom. 4:9. Christian happiness.In this verse there is a declaration of the Christians blessedness. The New Testament use of the word throws light upon Christian happiness, and will help us to understand such songs of trust as that which closes thus:

There are briars besetting every path

That call for patient care;

There is a cross in every lot,

And an earnest need for prayer.

But a lowly heart that leans on Thee

Is happy everywhere.

Rom. 4:16-17. Brave negro lad.Courage is not confined to race or colour. A negro lad of nineteen will be remembered as the hero of the Washington disaster a short time ago. When the floors of the Government offices fell in, burying some hundreds of clerks in the ruins, this brave youth climbed to the top of a lofty telegraph pole which stood near. He drew up a ladder, one end of which he lashed to the pole, and holding the other end to the third-story window of the tottering building, saved the lives of fifteen young men. Certainly faith is not confined to race or colour. Members of Abrahams family are found everywhere. The colour of the skin is no barrier to faith. The inward spirit triumphs over the mere external.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Text

Rom. 4:1-8. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God. Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Rom. 4:6 Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works, Rom. 4:7 saying,

Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered.

Rom. 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin.

74.

If man is justified by faith and not by law, to what conclusion does this lead us?

75.

How does the gospel establish the law?

REALIZING ROMANS, Rom. 4:1-8

134.

Why does Paul introduce Abraham?

135.

According to the flesh in Rom. 4:1 means what to you?

136.

I thought James said Abraham was justified by works (Jas. 2:21-24). Here Paul says he was not. Reconcile the difference.

137.

Both James and Paul refer to the Old Testament statement, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. What did he believei.e., about or from God? Give the circumstance of this statement.

138.

How could a man be righteous if he did not keep the law of God?

139.

What argument in favor of justification by faith is advanced in Rom. 4:4?

140.

In what sense are we to understand the phrase worketh not in Rom. 4:5 a?

141.

Why call David in to testify on this subject?

142.

Tell the meaning of the world blessed as in Rom. 4:7 a. How would David be especially acquainted with such blessedness?

Paraphrase

Rom. 4:1-8. Ye Jews think ritual services meritorious, because they are performed purely from piety. But what do we say Abraham our father obtained by works pertaining to the flesh? That he obtained justification meritoriously? No.

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified meritoriously by works of any kind, he might boast that his justification is of no favor, but a debt due to him: But such a ground of boasting he hath not before God.

Rom. 4:3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, when he promised that his seed should be as numerous as the stars, and his belief of that promise was counted to him for righteousness.

Rom. 4:4 Now it is evident, that to one who, for a stipulated hire, worketh all that he binds himself to work, the reward is never counted as a favor, but is paid as a debt.

Rom. 4:5 But to one who does not work all that he is bound to do, but implicitly believeth the promise of him who gratuitously justifies the sinner, his faith is counted to him for righteousness as a favor. (The words, as a favor, are supplied from Rom. 4:4.)

Rom. 4:6 In like manner also, David (Psa. 32:1.) declareth that man blessed, as Abraham was, to whom God counteth righteousness without his having performed works of law perfectly:

Rom. 4:7 Not saying, Blessed are they who obey the law of God perfectly: That he knew to be impossible: But saying, Blessed are they whose omissions are forgiven, and whose commissions are covered by an atonement.

Rom. 4:8 And, deeply affected with the goodness of God in pardoning sin, he says a second time, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not count sin.

Summary

Abraham was not justified by deeds. If so, he had ground to boast that he merited justification. On the contrary, his belief was counted to him for justification. Justification by deeds is like a debt, but justification by belief is matter of favor. David describes justification to be the same as the forgiveness of sins.

Comment

Realizing the fact that this thought of justification through faith apart from meritorious works would be somewhat of a shock, the inspired writer now hastens to point out that the principle of justification by faith is not new, for the great father of the faithful was so justified. That Abraham was justified was admitted by all. Now the apostle poses the question: How did this justification take place? You say by law; I say by faith. Let us look into the case. What did Abraham obtain through the works of the flesh? If he had fulfilled to the letter all the demands of God he would have been justified by works and would then have had reason to glory. However he did not so perform his obedience. This being true, he has no reason for self glory. Do you remember what the Scripture says about this matter? It says, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. So you can see that the faith Abraham exercised in God provided the ground for his justification, not his imperfect works. It is easy to see then that the justification granted Abraham was given because of the favor, or grace of God, through the belief of father Abraham. Rom. 4:1-3.

76.

Was there any question as to whether Abraham was justified or not? If not, why not?

Just think a moment. When a man works and does all the employer asked him to do, his pay is not given because of the grace of the employer, but rather because of the merit of the employee. You have seen that Abraham was counted righteous only because of Gods grace received by faith; so then your idea that he worked, and through his work, earned justification is out because it excludes the element of grace. Here is the thought:to the man who has not fulfilled all the demands of law, but yet has a great faith in the one who can justify the ungodly, justification is made possible through his belief. It is even as David has said concerning that happy man to whom the Lord granted justification apart from works. Hear him: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. Rom. 4:4-8 cp. Psa. 32:1-2 a

77.

How did the Jew think Abraham was justified?

78.

Could Abraham have been justified by works?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) To come back to the question of Rom. 3:1, repeated in Rom. 3:9, in what did the superiority of Abraham, the great representative of the Jewish race, really consist?

As pertaining to the flesh.The construction of these words appears to be determined by their position in the sentence. According to the best MSS. they are distinctly separated from hath found and joined with our father. They would therefore mean simply our father according to the flesh, i.e., by natural descent, as in Rom. 1:3.

Hath found.Hath got, or gained, by way of advantage.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

IV.

(1-25) The subject of the chapter is an application of the foregoing to the special (and crucial) case of Abraham, with particular reference to two ideas that are continually recurring throughout the last chapter: (1) the supposed superiority of Jew to Gentile (and, fortiori, of the great progenitor of the Jews); (2) the idea of boasting or glorying based upon this superiority. Following out this the Apostle shows how even Abrahams case tells, not against, but for the doctrine of justification by faith. Indeed, Abraham himself came under it. And not only so, but those who act upon this doctrine are spiritually descendants of Abraham. It is entirely a mistake to suppose that they of the circumcision only are Abrahams seed. The true seed of Abraham are those who follow his example of faith. He put faith in the promise, they must put their faith in the fulfilment of the promise.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 4

THE FAITH WHICH TAKES GOD AT HIS WORD ( Rom 4:1-8 )

4:1-8 What, then, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather from whom we take our human descent, found? If Abraham entered into a right relationship with God by means of work, he has some ground for boasting–but not in regard to God. For what does scripture say? “Abraham trusted in God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” The man who works does not receive his pay as a favour; he receives it as a debt due to him. But, as for the man who does not depend on work, but who trusts in the God who treats the ungodly as he would treat a good man, his faith is accounted as righteousness. Just so, David speaks of the counting happy of the man to whom God accounts righteousness apart from works–“Happy they whose transgressions are forgiven and whose sins are covered! Happy the man to whom God does not account sin!”

Paul moves on to speak of Abraham for three reasons.

(i) The Jews regarded Abraham as the great founder of the race and the pattern of all that a man should be. Very naturally they ask, “If all that you say is true, what was the special thing that was given to Abraham when God picked him out to be the ancestor of his special people? What makes him different from other people?” That is the question which Paul is going on to answer.

(ii) Paul has just been seeking to prove that what makes a man right with God is not the performance of the works that the law lays down, but the simple trust of complete yieldedness which takes God at his word and believes that he still loves us even when we have done nothing to deserve that love. The immediate reaction of the Jews was, “This is something entirely new and a contradiction of all that we have been taught to believe. This doctrine is completely incredible.” Paul’s answer is, “So far from being new, this doctrine is as old as the Jewish faith. So far from being an heretical novelty, it is the very basis of Jewish religion.” That is what he is going on to prove.

(iii) Paul begins to speak about Abraham because he was a wise teacher who knew the human mind and the way it works. He has been talking about faith. Now faith is an abstract idea. The ordinary human mind finds abstract ideas very hard to grasp. The wise teacher knows that every idea must become a person, for the only way in which an ordinary person can grasp an abstract idea is to see it in action, embodied in a person. So Paul, in effect, says, “I have been talking about faith. If you want to see what faith is, look at Abraham.”

When Paul began to speak about Abraham, he was on ground that every Jew knew and understood. In their thoughts Abraham held a unique position. He was the founder of the nation. He was the man to whom God had first spoken. He was the man who had in a unique way had been chosen by God and who had heard and obeyed him. The Rabbis had their own discussions about Abraham. To Paul the essence of his greatness was this. God had come to Abraham and bidden him leave home and friends and kindred and livelihood, and had said to him, “If you make this great venture of faith, you will become the father of a great nation.” Thereupon Abraham had taken God at his word. He had not argued; he had not hesitated; he went out not knowing where he was to go ( Heb 11:8). It was not the fact that Abraham had meticulously performed the demands of the law that put him into his special relationship with God, it was his complete trust in God and his complete willingness to abandon his life to him. That for Paul was faith, and it was Abraham’s faith which made God regard him as a good man.

Some few, some very few, of the more advanced Rabbis believed that. There was a rabbinic commentary which said, “Abraham, our father, inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith whereby he believed in the Lord; for it is said, ‘And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.'”

But the great majority of the Rabbis turned the Abraham story to suit their own beliefs. They held that because he was the only righteous man of his generation, therefore he was chosen to be the ancestor of God’s special people. The immediate answer is, “But how could Abraham keep the law when he lived hundreds of years before it was given?” The Rabbis advanced the odd theory that he kept it by intuition or anticipation. “At that time,” says the Apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 57:2), “the unwritten law was named among them, and the works of the commandment were then fulfilled.” “He kept the law of the Most High,” says Ecclesiasticus ( Sir_44:20-21 ), “and was taken into covenant with God…. Therefore God assured him by an oath that the nations should be blessed in his seed.” The Rabbis were so in love with their theory of works that they insisted that it was because of his works that Abraham was chosen, although it meant that they had to argue that he knew the law by anticipation, since it had not yet come.

Here, again, we have the root cleavage between Jewish legalism and Christian faith. The basic thought of the Jews was that a man must earn God’s favour. The basic thought of Christianity is that all a man can do is to take God at his word and stake everything on the faith that his promises are true. Paul’s argument was–and he was unanswerably right–that Abraham entered into a right relationship with God, not because he did all kinds of legal works, but because he cast himself, just as he was, on God’s promise.

“If our love were but more simple,

We should take him at his word;

And our lives would be all sunshine,

In the sweetness of our Lord.”

It is the supreme discovery of the Christian life that we do not need to torture ourselves with a losing battle to earn God’s love but rather need to accept in perfect trust the love which God offers to us. True, after that, any man of honour is under the life-long obligation to show himself worthy of that love. But he is no longer a criminal seeking to obey an impossible law; he is a lover offering his all to one who loved him when he did not deserve it.

Sir James Barrie once told a story about Robert Louis Stevenson. “When Stevenson went to Samoa he built a small hut, and afterwards went into a large house. The first night he went into the large house he was feeling very tired and sorrowful that he had not had the forethought to ask his servant to bring him coffee and, cigarettes. Just as he was thinking that, the door opened, and the native boy came in with a tray carrying cigarettes and coffee. And Mr Stevenson said to him, in the native language, ‘Great is your forethought’; and the boy corrected him, and said, ‘Great is the love.'” The service was rendered, not because of the coercion of servitude, but because of the compulsion of love. That also is the motive of Christian goodness.

THE FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL ( Rom 4:9-12 )

4:9-12 Did, then, this pronouncing of blessedness come to Abraham when he was circumcised? Or when he was uncircumcised? We are just saying, “His faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.” Under what circumstances was it then accounted? Was it while he was circumcised? Or was it while he was uncircumcised? It was not while he was circumcised, but while he was uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of that relationship to God whose source was faith while he was still uncircumcised. This happened that he might be the father of all who believe while they are uncircumcised, so that the accounting of righteousness may come to them too; and that he might also be the father of those who are circumcised, and by that I mean, not those who are circumcised only, but who walk in the steps of that faith which our father Abraham showed when he was still uncircumcised.

To understand this passage we must understand the importance that the Jew attached to circumcision. To the Jew a man who was not circumcised was quite literally not a Jew, no matter what his parentage was. The Jewish circumcision prayer runs: “Blessed is he who sanctified his beloved from the womb, and put his ordinance upon his flesh, and sealed his offspring with the sign of the holy covenant.” The rabbinic ordinance lays it down: “Ye shall not eat of the Passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.” If a Gentile accepted the Jewish faith, he could not enter fully into it without three things–baptism, sacrifice and circumcision.

The Jewish objector, whom Paul is answering all the time, is still fighting a rear-guard action. “Suppose I admit,” he says, “all that you say about Abraham and about the fact that it was his complete trust that gained him an entry into a right relationship with God, you will still have to agree that he was circumcised.” Paul has an unanswerable argument. The story of Abraham’s call, and of God’s blessing on him, is in Gen 15:6; the story of Abraham’s circumcision is in Gen 17:10 ff. He was not, in fact, circumcised until fourteen years after he had answered God’s call and entered into the unique relationship with God. Circumcision was not the gateway to his right relationship with God; it was only the sign and the seal that he had already entered into it. His being accounted righteous had nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with his act of faith. From this unanswerable fact Paul makes two great deductions.

(i) Abraham is not the father of those who have been circumcised; he is the father of those who make the same act of faith in God as he made. He is the father of every man in every age who takes God at his word as he did. This means that the real Jew is the man who trusts God as Abraham did, no matter what his race is. All the great promises of God are made not to the Jewish nation, but to the man who is Abraham’s descendant because he trusts God as he did. Jew has ceased to be a word which describes a nationality and has come to describe a way of life and a reaction to God. The descendants of Abraham are not the members of any particular nation, but those in every nation who belong to the family of God.

(ii) The converse is also true. A man may be a Jew of pure lineage and may be circumcised; and yet in the real sense may be no descendant of Abraham. He has no right to call Abraham his father or to claim the promises of God, unless he makes that venture of faith that Abraham made.

In one short paragraph Paul has shattered all Jewish thought. The Jew always believed that just because he was a Jew he automatically enjoyed the privilege of God’s blessings and immunity from his punishment. The proof that he was a Jew was circumcision. So literally did some of the Rabbis take this that they actually said that, if a Jew was so bad that he had to be condemned by God, there was an angel whose task it was to make him uncircumcised again before he entered into punishment.

Paul has laid down the great principle that the way to God is not through membership of any nation, not through any ordinance which makes a mark upon a man’s body; but by the faith which takes God at his word and makes everything dependent, not on man’s achievement, but solely upon God’s grace.

ALL IS OF GRACE ( Rom 4:13-17 )

4:13-17 It was not through law that there came to Abraham or to his seed the promise that he would inherit the earth, but it came through that right relationship with God which has its origin in faith. If they who are vassals of the law are heirs, then faith is drained of its meaning, and the promise is rendered inoperative; for the law produces wrath, but where law does not exist, neither can transgression exist. So, then, the whole process depends on faith, in order that it may be a matter of grace, so that the promise should be guaranteed to all Abraham’s descendants, not only to those who belong to the tradition of the law, but also to those who are of Abraham’s family in virtue of faith. Abraham who is the father of us all–as it stands written, “I have appointed you a father of many nations”–in the sight of that God in whom he believed, that God who calls the dead into life, and who calls into being even things which do not exist.

To Abraham God made a very great and wonderful promise. He promised that he would become a great nation, and that in him all families of the earth would be blessed ( Gen 12:2-3). In truth, the earth would be given to him as his inheritance. Now that promise came to Abraham because of the faith that he showed towards God. It did not come because he piled up merit by doing works of the law. It was the outgoing of God’s generous grace in answer to Abraham’s absolute faith. The promise, as Paul saw it, was dependent on two things and two things only–the free grace of God and the perfect faith of Abraham.

The Jews were still asking, “How can a man enter into the right relationship with God so that he too may inherit this great promise?” Their answer was, “He must do so by acquiring merit in the sight of God through doing works which the law prescribes.” That is to say, he must do it by his own efforts. Paul saw with absolute clearness that this Jewish attitude had completely destroyed the promise. It had done so for this reason–no man can fully keep the law; therefore, if the promise depends on keeping the law, it can never be fulfilled.

Paul saw things in terms of black and white. He saw two mutually exclusive ways of trying to get into a right relationship with God. On the one hand there was dependence on human effort; on the other, dependence on divine grace. On the one hand there was the constant losing battle to obey an impossible law; on the other, there was the faith which simply takes God at his word.

On each side there were three things.

(i) On the one side there is God’s promise. There are two Greek words which mean promise. Huposchesis means a promise which is entered into upon conditions. “I promise to do this if you promise to do that.” Epaggelia ( G1860) means a promise made out of the goodness of someone’s heart quite unconditionally. It is epaggelia ( G1860) that Paul uses of the promise of God. It is as if he is saying, “God is like a human father; he promises to love his children no matter what they do.” True, he will love some of us with a love that makes him glad, and he will love some of us with a love that makes him sad; but in either case it is a love which will never let us go. It is dependent not on our merit but only on God’s own generous heart.

(ii) There is faith. Faith is the certainty that God is indeed like that. It is staking everything on his love.

(iii) There is grace. A gift of grace is always something which is unearned and undeserved. The truth is that man can never earn the love of God. He must always find his glory, not in what he can do for God, but in what God has done for him.

(i) On the other side there is law. The trouble about law has always been that it can diagnose the malady but cannot effect a cure. Law shows a man where he goes wrong, but does not help him to avoid going wrong. There is in fact, as Paul will later stress, a kind of terrible paradox in law. It is human nature that when a thing is forbidden it has a tendency to become desirable. “Stolen fruits are sweetest.” Law, therefore, can actually move a man to desire the very thing which it forbids. The essential complement of law is judgment, and, so long as a man lives in a religion whose dominant thought is law, he cannot see himself as anything other than a condemned criminal at the bar of God’s justice.

(ii) There is transgression. Whenever law is introduced, transgression follows. No one can break a law which does not exist; and no one can be condemned for breaking a law of whose existence he was ignorant. If we introduce law and stop there, if we make religion solely a matter of obeying law, life consists of one long series of transgressions waiting to be punished.

(iii) There is wrath. Think of law, think of transgression, and inevitably the next thought is wrath. Think of God in terms of law and you cannot do other than think of him in terms of outraged justice. Think of man in terms of law and you cannot do other than think of him as destined for the condemnation of God.

So Paul sets before the Romans two ways. The one is a way in which a man seeks a right relationship with God through his own efforts. It is doomed to failure. The other is a way in which a man enters by faith into a relationship with God, which by God’s grace already exists for him to come into in trust.

BELIEVING IN THE GOD WHO MAKES THE IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBLE ( Rom 4:18-25 )

4:18-25 In hope Abraham believed beyond hope that he would become the father of many nations, as the saying had it, “So will be your seed.?” He did not weaken in his faith, although he was well aware that by this time his body had lost its vitality (for he was a hundred years old), and that the womb of Sarah was without life. He did not in unfaith waver at the promise of God, but he was revitalized by his faith, and he gave glory to God, and he was firmly convinced that he who had made the promise was also able to perform it. So this faith was accounted to him as righteousness. It was not only for his sake this “it was accounted to him for righteousness” was written. It was written also for our sakes; for it will be so reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus, our Lord, from the dead, who was delivered up for our sin and raised to bring us into a right relationship with God.

The last passage ended by saying that Abraham believed in the God who calls the dead into life and who brings into being even things which have no existence at all. This passage turns Paul’s thoughts to another outstanding example of Abraham’s willingness to take God at his word. The promise that all families of the earth would be blessed in his descendants was given to Abraham when he was an old man. His wife, Sarah, had always been childless; and now, when he was one hundred years old and she was ninety ( Gen 17:17), there came the promise that a son would be born to them. It seemed, on the face of it, beyond all belief and beyond all hope of fulfilment, for he was long past the age of begetting and she long past the age of bearing a son. Yet, once again, Abraham took God at his word and once again it was this faith that was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.

It was this willingness to take God at his word which put Abraham into a right relationship with him. Now the Jewish Rabbis had a saying to which Paul here refers. They said, “What is written of Abraham is written also of his children.” They meant that any promise that God made to Abraham extends to his children also. Therefore, if Abraham’s willingness to take God at his word brought him into a right relationship with God, so it will be with us. It is not works of the law, it is this trusting faith which establishes the relationship between God and a man which ought to exist.

The essence of Abraham’s faith in this case was that he believed that God could make the impossible possible. So long as we believe that everything depends on our efforts, we are bound to be pessimists, for experience has taught the grim lesson that our own efforts can achieve very little. When we realize that it is not our effort but God’s grace and power which matter, then we become optimists, because we are bound to believe that with God nothing is impossible.

It is told that once Saint Theresa set out to build a convent with a sum the equivalent of twelve pence as her complete resources. Someone said to her, “Not even Saint Theresa can accomplish much with twelve pence.” “True,” she answered, “but Saint Theresa and twelve pence and God can do anything.” A man may well hesitate to attempt a great task by himself; there is nothing which he need hesitate to attempt with God. Ann Hunter Small, the great missionary teacher, tells how her father, himself a missionary, used to say: “Oh! the wickedness as well as the stupidity of the croakers!” And she herself had a favourite saying: “A church which is alive dares to do anything.” That daring only becomes possible to a man and to a church who take God at his word.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

Faith-justification shown by Abraham’s Case to lie at the Foundation of the Jewish, as well as of the Christian, Church , Rom 4:1-25 .

Abraham himself was gratuitously justified by faith, (Rom 4:1-5😉 with a justification whose blessedness is attested by David, (Rom 4:6-8😉 and which was conferred upon him in his Gentilism, and afterward sealed by circumcision, (Rom 4:9-11😉 rendering him the father of the faithful by faith, (Rom 4:12-17,) insomuch that from that faith sprang by miraculous birth the very race of Israel, (Rom 4:18-22😉 a faith identical with justifying faith in Christ, (Rom 4:23-25.)

ABRAHAM was to the Jew the most nearly divine of all human names. His venerable form, to their imagination, rose loftily from the mists of an early antiquity as the founder of their race, securing it a divine preeminence in this world, and a certain salvation in the world to come. He connected their lineal pedigree with Adam, which was yet to culminate in the Messiah. Hence, when Paul identified the Christian faith with the Abrahamic, he based Christianity on the deepest possible foundations, and showed that a great epoch in sacred history had here commenced. (Note Act 7:2.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1. What A question not put by the Jew as objection, (as Stuart supposes,) but stated by the apostle to start his argument.

The flesh In opposition to the spirit, as in Gal 3:3, where the flesh refers to legal works as a means of justification, and the spirit refers to spiritual faith as the means. Hence the present question signifies, What in the matter of justification did Abraham attain by legal works? The phrase as pertaining to the flesh cannot, according to the Greek, qualify father. (See note on Rom 9:8.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh?’

Paul now relates what he has demonstrated, to the Scriptures concerning the life of Abraham. The unbelieving Jews (as opposed to the believing Jews who were Christians) saw Abraham’s life as the perfect example of the man who was acceptable to God because of his works, and this especially because of his willingness to offer up his son Isaac. In so far as they made any effort at all they thus strove to be like him. Paul now intends to dispute their position, and he begins with a question, as he does so often in Romans (Rom 2:3-5; Rom 3:1-9; Rom 3:27-31; Rom 4:9-10; Rom 6:1; Rom 6:15; Rom 7:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13; Rom 8:31; Rom 8:33-35; Rom 10:18-19; Rom 11:1; Rom 11:11; often accompanied by ‘let it not be so’). His question is, ‘What then has Abraham our forefather found?’

Our first problem here is as to whether ‘according to the flesh’ should be attached to ‘our forefather’, or to ‘has found’, or should be omitted altogether. Different manuscripts suggest differing alternatives. The first alternative, ‘Has found according to the flesh’ (that is, ‘what has Abraham found as a human being in accordance with his natural powers without the grace of God being active?’) is the reading of K, L, P, Theodoret etc. The second alternative, ‘Abraham our forefather according to the flesh’, (contrasting Abraham’s fatherhood with that of God’s), is the reading of Aleph, A, C, D, E, F, G etc. The third alternative is to omit it altogether. That is the reading of B, 47*, 1739 and possibly Chrysostom. Fortunately, whichever way we take it, it does not greatly affect the argument in Rom 4:2.

Accepting the text as we have it above the question is, ‘what has Abraham found if we just consider him according to his natural abilities without the grace of God being active?’ And he concedes that, looking from a human point of view, Abraham could in fact have been recognised as ‘in the right’ by men, as they saw the tenor of his life. They might well, as the Jews had done, have concluded that he was blessed because of his works. That indeed is always man’s tendency, for man, especially in religious matters, almost always thinks of doing service and getting rewarded. He sees God as he sees himself.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Way Of Justification Through Faith Illustrated In Abraham And Announced By David (4:1-8).

Paul now demonstrates that Abraham’s acceptability with God was by faith, not works, something which is then further confirmed by David. This thus confirms that Abraham was not justified by his works. This went totally contrary to contemporary Jewish teaching which was that Abraham was justified by his works which were pleasing to God. And Paul stresses that it is on the basis of Scripture.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

What Paul Has Just Described Is Now Seen To Be In Accordance With Ideas Related To Abraham And David (4:1-25).

No one was of more importance to the Jews than Abraham. It was to him that God had given promises concerning both the land and the people (Gen 12:1-3). It was because they were ‘sons of Abraham’ that they saw themselves as special. Indeed, many considered that because they were sons of Abraham God must look on them with favour and could never therefore reject them. That was why John the Baptiser had had to remind them that God could ‘from these stones raise up sons of Abraham’ (Mat 3:9).

Their high view of Abraham comes out in Jewish literature. ‘Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well pleasing in righteousness all the days of his life’ (Jubilees 23:10). ‘No one has been like him in glory’ ( Sir 44:19 ). That these citations should not be taken too literally comes out in the fact that we do know of times when God would not have been pleased with Abraham. For example, when he deceived Pharaoh about his wife (Gen 12:10-20). Or with regard to his treatment of Hagar (Gen 16:6). Or when he deceived Abimelech about his wife (Gen 20:2). But their general aim is in order to bring out the high level of Abraham’s conformity to the will of God. That would, however, have been Paul’s point. That even Abraham did come short of the glory of God.

We must remember that the large majority of Jews were not literally sons of Abraham, and that very few could trace their descent back very far. For, as the Old Testament makes clear, ‘Israel’ included people descended from Abraham’s multiplicity of ‘servants’ (of which 318 were fighting men); from a mixed multitude which left Egypt with Israel who were united with Israel at Sinai and would have been circumcised on entering the land (Exo 12:38; Joshua 5); and from many who joined with Israel and became Israelites on the basis of Exo 12:48. Thus Israel were not on the whole physical ‘sons of Abraham’. Those were very much a minority of Israel from the start, even though all Israel no doubt claimed to be. Sonship of Abraham in a natural sense was a myth. But from their own point of view the Jews were confident of their situation. To them therefore the example of Abraham was crucial.

Nor must we overlook the fact that in the following argument Paul is not trying to argue that certain things can be transferred from Israel to the church. The argument is between faith and works of the Law, not Israel and non-Israel. To Paul the church was Israel. It was founded on the Jewish Messiah, established on Jewish Apostles, and initially composed only of Jews. The church was the true remnant of Israel, ‘the true vine (Joh 15:1-6), the Messiah’s ‘congregation’ (Mat 16:18). The inclusion of Gentiles who responded to the Messiah was simply a matter of incorporating proselytes into the true Israel, something which had always happened. That was why the question of whether they should be circumcised was seen as so important. All saw these Gentiles as being incorporated into Israel when they became Christians, the only question was whether they all needed to be circumcised. Paul’s reply was that they were already circumcised because they had been circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands in ‘the circumcision of Christ’ (the Messiah – Col 2:11). But he himself continually confirmed that the church was the true Israel and that it was unbelieving Israel that had ceased to be Israel (Rom 2:28-29; Rom 11:17-28; Gal 3:29; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11-22; see also 1Pe 2:9; 1Pe 1:1; Jas 1:1). Thus that was not a problem to be dealt with here.

It will be noted that this chapter takes up many of the points previously stated in Rom 3:27-30. Abraham has no right to boast (Rom 4:1-2, compare Rom 3:27 a). Abraham was justified by faith and not works (Rom 4:3-8; compare Rom 3:27 b). God accepts both circumcised and uncircumcised (Rom 4:9-12; compare Rom 3:29-30). Both Jew and Gentile are involved together (Rom 4:16-18; compare Rom 3:29). It thus sets out to demonstrate that these principles have been recognised in Israel from the beginning.

It is also important to note that what is stated in this chapter would not have the same force had it not been preceded by the arguments in chapters 1-3. For Paul and the Jews were looking at things very differently. Paul was seeing righteousness from God’s point of view, as something equatable with ‘the glory of God’ (Rom 3:23). To be truly righteous was to have lived fully according to the Law of God in every detail. It was to have not come short of the glory of God. To the Jews, however, righteousness involved obedience to the Law in so far as man was seen as capable. That is why the Jews could see Abraham as accepted by God as righteous. It was because Abraham’s life came so far above the norm. But even they would have hesitated to say that Abraham had never sinned. If Paul was right, and he has demonstrated it quite clearly in chapters 1-3, then Abraham’s righteousness could not in itself be sufficient to make him acceptable to the Judge of all men, for Abraham came short on a number of occasions. If, however, the Jews were right then Abraham might well have been seen by God as acceptable because of his godly life. Thus the question of how Abraham was justified before God was a crucial one.

The chapter can be divided into three parts, although having said that it must be recognised that the theme of Rom 4:3 continues throughout the chapter binding the parts together, and it is again underlined in the concluding verses. The divisions can be seen as follows:

1) The Way Of Justification Through Faith Illustrated In Abraham And Announced By David (Rom 4:1-8).

2) How Circumcision Affects The Issue As Illustrated In The Life Of Abraham (Rom 4:9-12).

3) Abraham’s Life Illustrates The Fact That God’s Greatest Gifts Do Not Come To Us Because We ‘Obey The Law’, But Because We ‘Believe In The Lord’ (Rom 4:13-25).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

God Has Provided A Way By Which Men Can Be Accounted As In The Right Before God (3:21-4:25).

Paul has spent a considerable time, from Rom 1:18 onwards, in demonstrating that all are under sin (weighed down under it and condemned by it). And he has shown that this includes the common herd of idolaters (Rom 1:18-27); the generality of people (Rom 1:28-32); those who for one reason or another see themselves as above the norm (philosophers, judges, Rabbis, Jews – Rom 2:1-16); and especially the Jews with their wild claims (Rom 2:17 to Rom 3:8). He has demonstrated that all as they are in themselves come under the condemnation of God. None can claim to be in the right on the basis of their own lives (Rom 3:9-20). Now Paul seeks to demonstrate the difference that has been made by the coming of Christ, for in Christ God has provided a righteousness which is sufficient to ‘put in the right with God’ all who truly believe in Him. In Rom 1:17 Paul had told us about it, but in order for us to appreciate it fully it was necessary for us to recognise man’s condition. Now that he has achieved that he will expand on Rom 1:17, ‘therein is the righteousness of God (which makes men accounted as righteous) revealed from faith unto faith’.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Example of Justification Before the Law In Rom 4:1-3 Paul uses Abraham as an example of God’s standard of justification for mankind before the Law. God may have spoken to a number of individuals through the course of ancient history, but Abraham became the first man to hear and obey God’s voice. He was the first to respond to God’s voice in obedience, trust His word, and yield to God’s divine providence and provision. Abraham became the first man in history to demonstrate genuine faith in God. As such, he became the father of all who will believe in God.

Rom 4:1  What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Rom 4:1 Comments – Abraham discovered God’s plan for justifying mankind. The phrase “Abraham hath found” reflects this patriarch’s spiritual journey of progressive revelation of God’s plan of redemption for mankind. Abraham begin in obedience to God’s command while yet lacking the understanding of his redemption before God. God spoke to him on a number of occasions and revealed to him how a man is justified before God. He dwelt in a land of idolatry, in the midst of a people seeking to appease their gods. Yet, Abraham discovered how to walk in friendship with the true and living God. He discovered the way of reconciliation and peace with God, while all of humanity was struggling in pagan idolatry.

Rom 4:2  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Rom 4:3  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:3 Comments – Rom 4:3 is a quote from Gen 15:6 when God appeared to Abraham and promised him a son that would be his heir.

Gen 15:6, “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

As we examine chapters 4 and 5 of Romans, we come to realize that Abraham’s faith in God was established at the time God gave him a word of promise, but we must also understand that his faith had to withstand the test of thirty-nine years of tribulation, patience, experience, and finally hope (Rom 5:1-5). Abraham entered the Promised Land at the age of seventy-five, and Sarah did not give birth to Isaac until Abraham was one hundred years old. When Isaac was fourteen years old, Abraham took him up to mount Moriah in obedience to God’s command, for a total of thirty-nine years. Thus, Abraham’s faith withstood these tests and this faith was brought to perfection, as stated in James, during this process of time.

Jas 2:22-23, “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Justification by Faith Alone: The Examples of Abraham and David In Rom 4:1-8 Paul goes back to the Old Testament and finds several verses that clearly distinguish between justification by faith verses works. He finds two witnesses to prove his point, using examples in the lives of two patriarchs, Abraham and David. Abraham was a man who trusted in God’s promises and found favor and right standing with Him before the Law was instituted. David, who lived under the Law, was a man who partook of the blessedness of his sins being forgiven. It is interesting to note that the same Hebrew word ( ) (H2803), translated “impute,” or “count,” is used in both of the two Old Testament quotes used by Paul to explain justification by faith.

Gen 15:6, “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

Psa 32:1-2, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.”

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Example of Justification Before the Law Rom 4:1-3

2. The Example of Justification Under the Law Rom 4:4-8

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Righteousness Imputed Under the Old Covenant In Rom 4:1-25 Paul spends some time in the Old Testament explaining exactly how Abraham was justified by faith apart from his works. Paul will follow this passage by explaining how righteousness is imputed under the new covenant (Rom 5:1-21).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Justification by Faith Alone: The Examples of Abraham & David Rom 4:1-8

2. Righteousness by Faith for Uncircumcised & Circumcised Rom 4:9-12

3. The Promise Came to Abraham by Faith Rom 4:13-16

4. God’s Promise to Abraham Described Rom 4:17-22

5. Righteousness by Faith for Us Today Rom 4:23-25

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Doctrinal Message: The Doctrine of Justification (An Exposition of The Gospel of Jesus Christ) In Rom 1:8 to Rom 11:36 Paul the apostle gives an exposition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; but it is presented from the perspective of the office and ministry of God the Father as He makes a way of justifying mankind and bringing him into his eternal glory in Heaven. Thus, we can describe Rom 1:8 to Rom 11:36 as an exposition of the doctrine of justification through faith in Jesus Christ. The body of the epistle of Romans discusses God the Father’s method of justification for mankind (Rom 3:21 to Rom 8:16), while His predestination is emphasized in the introduction (Rom 1:1-7), His divine calling introduces this section of doctrine (Rom 1:8 to Rom 3:20), and His plan of glorification for the Church (Rom 8:17-28) and for Israel are given (Rom 9:1 to Rom 11:36) are given last.

In this grand exposition of the doctrine of justification through faith in Jesus Christ Paul uses a number of examples to explain God’s way of justifying mankind. For example, Abraham’s faith is used to explain how we also put our faith in Christ to be justified before God. The analogy of Adam being a type and figure of Christ is used to explain how divine grace takes effect in the life of the believer. He uses the example of the laws of slavery and freedmen to explain our need to walk in our new lives, no longer under the bondages of sin. The illustration of marriage and widowhood is used to explain how we are now free from the Law and bound to Christ. It is very likely that the Lord quickened these examples and analogies to Paul while he sought to understand and explain this doctrine of justification in the synagogues and to the Gentiles during his years of evangelism and church planting. So, when he sat down to write out an exposition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul drew upon many of the examples that he had used over the years under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Calling of Gentiles Rom 1:8 to Rom 3:20

2. God’s Righteousness Revealed In Christ Rom 3:21 to Rom 8:16

3. Glorification by Divine Election: Glorification Rom 8:17-28

4. Summary of God’s Divine Plan of Redemption Rom 8:29-39

5. Divine Election and Israel’s Redemption Rom 9:1 to Rom 11:32

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

God’s Righteousness (or Justification) Revealed Through The Gospel of Jesus Christ: Justified by Faith in Christ – Having established the fact that all are under sin and subject to God’s eternal wrath (Rom 1:18 to Rom 3:20), Paul then presents the answer of how man finds a right standing with God, which has been revealed since the Old Testament patriarchs (Rom 3:21 to Rom 4:25). Righteousness has always come by faith in God apart from works, and today it comes by faith in Jesus Christ alone (Rom 3:21-31). Paul then supports this statement by looking at the example of Abraham’s faith (Rom 4:1-25). His justification with God did not come by works (Rom 4:1-8), nor by circumcision and the Law (Rom 4:9-12), but by faith in the promises of God (Rom 4:13-25).

1. Righteousness by Faith in Christ Alone Rom 3:21-31

2. Righteousness Imputed Under the Old Covenant Rom 4:1-25

Sections Breaks in the Greek Text – The section break at Roman Rom 3:21 was chosen against another popular section break of Rom 3:19 because of the differences in the Greek text. While Rom 3:19 begins with the weaker conjunction , the stronger conjunction begins Rom 3:21.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Righteousness of God Demonstrated from History.

The justification of Abraham:

v. 1. What shall we say, then, that Abraham, our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

v. 2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.

v. 3. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

v. 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

v. 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Paul had taught that we are justified by faith. to demonstrate and confirm this doctrine, as well as to anticipate a probable objection on the part of the Jews, he now refers to the case of Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. What, then, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh? How must his case be judged? What did he gain according to the flesh, by his obedience to the Law and to all the commands of God, especially the rite of circumcision? If he obtained the unusual blessings he enjoyed, particularly his justification, on the strength of his outward observance of the Old Testament sacrament, then the Jews would certainly be entitled to consideration for the same reason. The answer is implied: We must say that Abraham was not justified by works. This conclusion the apostle defends. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has reasons for expecting glory and praise, he might indeed assert his claim to the confidence and favor of his fellow-men; but he would have no reason for boasting before God. The argument, which is contracted, would read in full: If Abraham was justified by works, he could boast of his merits: but now he has nothing which he could adduce as being worthy of praise; therefore he was not justified by works. That Abraham had no ground for boasting in relation to God, Paul proves from Scriptures. For what does the Scripture say, Gen 15:6? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. According to this infallible authority, Abraham was declared to be righteous and just; justification was credited to his account, since he accepted it by faith. In this way the faith of Abraham, in itself anything but righteousness, in itself without merit, was counted to him for righteousness. Although he had neither inherent nor habitual righteousness, he was looked upon and treated by God as righteous. The value of Abraham’s faith, therefore, did not lie or ‘consist in any subjective quality, but in its object and content; because the faith was directed to God, and, in God, to Christ, the Redeemer, therefore the righteousness of Christ was imputed to Abraham as his own, and he was declared to be acceptable in the sight of God.

This the apostle explains more fully in verses 4 and 5. Now to him that works, that keeps the Law with the idea of obtaining an equivalent reward, adequate wages for his labor, the reward is reckoned not of grace, but of debt. But to him who does not work, does not make his works a basis of hope toward God, but believes in Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. There are only two possibilities that we can consider at all, to be justified and saved by works and by faith; there is an absolute contrast between righteousness of works and righteousness of faith. In the case of Abraham, therefore, who was justified by faith, the other possibility, righteousness by works, was excluded. The apostle here does not argue the matter that a complete and adequate righteousness of works is impossible for all men, as a simple matter of fact. If a workman has done his work according to specifications, he receives the promised and stipulated wages, as his due reward, which he can justly claim. So also in the spiritual field: If one that is active in works of the Law intends to satisfy the demands of God and keeps all the commandments, then God will give to him the promised reward, righteousness, as a matter of justice, provided, of course, that he has rendered a perfect obedience. The very opposite of such a man is the person that puts his faith, not as a mere assent, but as an act of trust, in Him that justifies the ungodly, that is, he that has violated the divine right, that has refused God the proper obedience, that has lacked all reverence toward Him. When a godless person of this kind stands before the judgment-seat of God, he can, by human computation, expect nothing but the sentence of everlasting condemnation. But instead of pronouncing this expected sentence, God declares the sinner to be just and righteous, Isa 1:18. It is not the purpose of Paul to show here just how this sentence is possible, that the sinner must feel and acknowledge his guilt, that he must rely on the mercy of God in Jesus, his Savior: St. Paul deliberately makes the contrast as great as possible in order to bring out the unequaled consolation of the doctrine of justification. Truly, He is a wonderful God, as He has revealed Himself in Christ, in the Gospel, the God that justifies the ungodly, that imputes the sinner’s faith for righteousness. “It is a miracle. It is a thing that only God can achieve, and that calls into act and manifestation all the resources of the divine nature. It is achieved through an unparalleled revelation of the judgment and the mercy of God. The miracle of the Gospel is that God comes to the ungodly with a mercy which is righteous altogether, and enables them through faith, in spite of what they are, to enter into a new relation to Himself, in which goodness becomes possible for them. There can be no spiritual life at all for a sinful man unless he can get an initial assurance of an unchanging love of God deeper than sin, and he gets this at the Cross. He gets it by believing in Jesus, and it is justification by faith. ” Note: The act of justification, the imputation of righteousness, in itself has nothing to do with the moral character of those concerned. To declare that justification is the infusion of moral righteousness, as the Papists do, is to confuse justification and sanctification, Law and Gospel.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Rom 4:1-25

(5) Abraham himself shown to have been justified by faith, and not by works, believers being his true heirs.

The main points of the argument may be summarized thus: When Abraham obtained a blessing to himself and to his seed for ever, it was by faith, and not by works, that he is declared to have been justified so as to obtain it. Thus the promise to his seed, as well as to himself, rested on the principle of justification by faith only. The Law, of which the principle was essentially different, could not, and did not, in itself fulfil that promise; and that its fulfilment was not dependent on circumcision, or confined to the circumcised, is further shown by the fact that it was before his own circumcision that he received the blessing and the promise, Hence the seed intended in the promise was his spiritual seed, who are of faith such as his was; and in Christ, offering justification through faith to all, the promise is now fulfilled.

Rom 4:1

What then shall we say that Abraham our father according to the flesh hath found? The connection, denoted by , with the preceding argument is rather with verses 27, 28 of Rom 3:1-31., than with its concluding winds, . This appears, not only from the drift of Rom 4:1-25., but also from the word in Rom 4:2, connecting the thought with ; in Rom 3:27. The line of thought is, in the first place, this: We have said that all human glorying is shut out, and that no man can be justified except by faith: how, then (it is important to inquire), was it with Abraham our great progenitor? Did not he at least earn the blessing to his seed by the merit of his works? Had not he, on that ground, whereof to glory? No, not even he; Scripture, in what it says of him, distinctly asserts the contrary. There is uncertainty in this verso as to whether “according to the flesh” ( ) is to be connected with “our father” or with “hath found.” Readings vary in their arrangement of the words. The Textus Receptus has . But the great preponderance of authority is in favour of . The first of these readings requires the connection of with ; the second allows it, but suggests the other connection. Theodoret, among the ancients, connecting with , explains thus: “What righteousness, of Abraham’s, wrought before he be- lieved God, did we ever hear of?” Calvin suggests, as the meaning of the phrase (though himself inclining to the connection with ),“ naturaliter vel ex seipso.” Bull, similarly (‘Harmonic Apostolica,’ ‘Disputatio Posterior,’ c. 12.14-17), “by his natural powers, without the grace of God.” Alford, following Meyer, says that is in contrast to , and that it “refers to that department of our being from which spring works, in contrast with that in which is the exercise of faith.” Difficulty is avoided if (as is the most natural inference from the best authenticated reading) we take in connection with or , in the sense of our forefather in the way of natural descent, the question being put from the Jewish standpoint; and this in distinction from the other conception of descent from Abraham, according to which all the faithful are called his children (cl. Rom 1:3; Rom 9:3, Rom 9:5, Rom 8:1 Rom 10:18). Among the ancients Chrysostom and Theophylact take this view. For the import of , cf. Luk 1:30 ( ) and Heb 9:12 ( ).

Rom 4:2

For if Abraham was justified by works, be hath whereof to glory; but not before God. Many commentators take this verse to imply that, even if he was justified by works, he still had no ground of glorying before God, though he might have before men. But the drift of the whole argument being to show that he was not justified by works at all, this interpretation can hardly stand. “Not before God” must therefore have reference to the whole of the preceding sentence, in the sense, “It was not so in the sight of God.” Before God (as appears from the text to be quoted) he had not whereof to glory on the ground of being justified by works, and therefore it follows that it was not by works that he was justified.

Rom 4:3

For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned Unto him for righteousness. This notable text (Gen 15:6), declaring the ground of Abraham’s acceptance, is similarly quoted in the cognate passage, Gal 3:6. It has a peculiar cogency in the general argument from being in connection with, and with reference to, one of the Divine promises to Abraham of an unnumbered seed; so that it may be understood with an extended application to those who were to inherit the blessing, as well as to the “father of the faithful,” and so declaring the principle of justification for all the “children of the promise.” Further, it would be peculiarly telling as addressed to the Jews, who made such a point of their descent from Abraham as the root of all their position of privilege (cf. Psa 105:6; Isa 41:8; Isa 51:2; Mat 3:9; Luk 3:8; Joh 8:39). The two significant expressions in it are (denoting faith, not works) and The whole phrase, the apostle proceeds to say, implies that the reward spoken of was not earned, but granted.

Rom 4:4, Rom 4:5

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt (literally, according to grace, but according to the debt, i.e. according to what is due). But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. The expression, “him that worketh” ( ), evidently means him that works with a view to a reward which he can claim; or, as Luther explains it, “one who deals in works;” or, as we might say with the same signification, “the worker.” (For a like use of the present participle, cf. Gal 5:3, .) So also in Rom 4:5, means one who does not so work. Thus there is here no denial of the necessity of good works. It is the principle only of justification that is in view. “Neque enim fideles vult esse ignavos; sed tantum mercenarias esse vetat, qui a Deo quicquam reposcant quasi jure debitum” (Calvin). One view of the meaning of is that it is equivalent to , being meant as an illustration, thus: The workman’s wage is due to him, and not granted as a favour (so Afford). But this notion does not suit the in the following verse. The strong word (“ungodly”) is not to be understood as designating Abraham himself, the proposition being a general one. Nor does it imply that continued is consistent with justification; only that even the are justified through faith on their repentance and amendment (cf. Rom 5:6, ).

Rom 4:6-8

Even as David also describeth the blessedness. We might render, “David tells of the blessing on the man,” etc.) of the man unto whom God reckoneth (, as before. Imputeth in the Authorized Version suggests the idea of a different word being used) righteousness apart from works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon (, as before, and so throughout the whole passage) sin (Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2). The introduction of this testimony of David to the same principle of justification serves not only to explain it further, but also to show that under the Law too it continued to be recognized; and by David himself, the typical king and psalmist under the legal dispensation. But the argument from Abraham is not discontinued, being resumed in the next verse, and continued to the end of the chapter. If it be said that these verses from Psa 32:1-11. do not in themselves declare a general principle applicable to all, but only the blessedness to sinners of having their sins forgiven, it may be replied, firstly, that the way in which the verses are introduced does not require more to be implied. All that need be meant is that the ground of justification exemplified in Abraham’s case is the same as is spoken of by David as still available for man, and crowned with blessing. But, secondly, it is to be observed that these verses represent and suggest the general tenor of the Book of Psalms, in which human righteousness is never asserted as constituting a claim to reward. “My trust is in thy mercy,” is, on the contrary, the ever-recurring theme. St. Paul’s quotations from the Old Testament are frequently given as suggestive of the general scriptural teaching on the subject in hand, rather than as exhaustive proofs in themselves.

Rom 4:9, Rom 4:10

Cometh this blessedness then (properly, is then this blessing) upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How (i.e., as the context shows, under what circumstances) was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Faith, and not works, having been shown to be the principle of Abraham’s justification, and those who were under the Mosaic Law, represented by David, having been seen to have shared the blessing of being so justified, the question still remains, whether it may not be confined to them only, or to Abraham’s circumcised descendants only. That this cannot be is shown in two ways: firstly (Rom 4:10-13), from the fact that Abraham was himself uncircumcised when he was spoken of as being thus justified, so that neither the capability nor the inheritance of such justification can be viewed as dependent on circumcision; and, secondly (Rom 4:13-16), it is argued that the Law could not appropriate the privilege to his carnal descendants, the very principle of law being the opposite of that on which Abraham is said to have been justified. Thus the seed, innumerable as the stars, to be understood as inheritors of the promise made to him, and sharers in his blessing, are not his circumcised descendants, but a spiritual seedthey which are of faith being the true children of Abraham (Gal 3:7).

Rom 4:11, Rom 4:12

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision (this was all that circumcision wasa visible sign and seal to his own descendants of the righteousness that is of faith; but not confining it to them, or in itself conferring it) that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them also. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision. The intention of Rom 4:12 is to express that, though the faithful who are not of Israel are Abraham’s children, yet his circumcised descendants have not lost their privilege. They are already his children according to the flesh, and his spiritual children too, if they walk in the steps of his faith (cf. Joh 8:37, “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed,” compared with Joh 8:39, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham”).

What now follows is to show (as above explained) that the Law could not be the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, or appropriate its blessing to the Jews.

Rom 4:13-15

For not through law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be the heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith, For if they which are of law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. For the Law worketh wrath: for where no law is, neither is there transgression. The point of the argument is that the principle of law is essentially different from that on which Abraham was justified, and which is hence to be understood in the fulfilment of the promise to him and his seed. How this is so is shortly intimated in Rom 4:15, the idea being more fully expounded in Rom 7:1-25. The idea is (as has been already explained) that law simply declares what is right, and requires conformity to it; it does not give either power to obey, or atonement for not obeying. Hence, in itself, it worketh, not righteousness, but wrath; for man becomes fully liable to wrath when he comes to know, through law, the difference between right and wrong (cf. Joh 9:41, “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin”). Exactly the same view of the impossibility of the Mosaic Law being the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham is found in Gal 3:1-29., where also the real purpose of the Law, intervening thus between the promise and its fulfilment, is further explained. The expression in Gal 3:13, “that he should be the heir of the world,” has reference to the ultimate scope of the Abrahamic promises (see Gen 12:2, Gen 12:3; Gen 13:14-16; Gen 15:5, Gen 15:6, Gen 15:18; Gen 17:2-9; Gen 18:18; Gen 22:17, Gen 22:18). Now, it is true that in some of these promises the language used seems to denote no more than the temporal possession by Israel of the promised land, with dominion (actually realized under David and Solomon) over the whole country from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, as in Gen 13:14, Gen 13:15; Gen 15:18, etc. But their full scope transcends any such limited fulfilment, as where it is said that the promised seed should be as the stars of heaven, and as the dust of the earth that cannot be numbered, and that in it all the nations of the earth should be blessed. The prophets accordingly recognized a far larger ultimate fulfilment in their frequent pictures of the Messiah’s universal dominion; and there was no need for the apostle to prove here what the Jews already understood. The only difference between the view current among them and his would be that they would mostly have in view a universal worldly sovereignty with its local centre on the throne of David at Jerusalem, while he interpreted spirttually, seeing beyond the outward framework of prophetic visions to the ideal they imply. “Heres mundi idem est quod pater omnium gentium, benedictionem accipientium. Totus mundus promissus est Abrahae et semini ejus per totum mundum conjunctim. Abrahamo obtigit terra Canaan, et sic aliis alia pars; atque corporalia sunt specimen spiritualium. Christus beres mundi, et omuium (Heb 1:2; Heb 2:5; Rev 11:15), et qui in eum credunt Abrahae exemplo (Mat 5:5) (Bengel). It is to be observed that, though Abraham himself in Gen 15:13 is spoken of as “the heir of the world,” yet the preceding expression, “to Abrabam or to his seed,” sufficiently intimates that it is in his seed, identified with him, that he is conceived as so inheriting.

Rom 4:16, Rom 4:17

Therefore it is of faith, that it may be according to grace ( , as in Rom 4:4); to the end the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all, (as it is written, A father of many nations have I made thee,) before him whom he believed, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth the things that are not as though they were. Rom 4:16 introduces no new thought, being but a summing up of what has been said, except that, in Rom 4:17, the text Gen 17:5 is adduced in support of the extended sense in which “the seed of Abraham” has been understood. In Gen 17:17, too, the thought is introduced of how Abraham evinced his faith; and this with a view of showing it to have been in essence the same as the justifying faith of Christians.

Rom 4:18-21

Who against hope in hope believed ( an oxymoron. For a similar use of , see 1Co 9:10; also below, Rom 5:2. Its position in the Authorized Version might suggest its dependence on “believed,” which is grammatically possible (cf. Rom 9:33; Rom 10:11), but unallowable here, since hope cannot well be regarded as the object of belief) to the end he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be (Gen 15:5, viz. “as the stars”). And being not weak in faith, he considered not (i.e. paid no regard to as a hindrance to faith. The codices relied on by our recent Revisers omit ) before , and they accordingly translate, “he considered his own body,” thus making the idea to be that he was fully aware of the apparent impossibility of his having a son, but believed notwithstanding. But the reading of the Textus Receptus has good support, and especially that of the Greek Fathers, and gives the best sense) his own body now dead (already deadenedi.e. with respect to virility. So, with the same reference, Heb 11:12), when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb; but he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong (rather, was strengthened) in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform. With regard to the construction of Rom 5:20, we may observe that, though in the Authorized Version, which is followed above, the prepositions put before “unbelief” and “faith” are varied, both words are datives without a preposition in the Greek, and apparently with the same force of the dative in both cases, the sense being, “With regard to the promise, etc., unbelief did not cause him to waver ( ), but faith made him strong ).” The purport of the whole passage is to show, with reference to Gen 17:15-22; Gen 18:9-16, how Abraham’s faith in the promise of a seed through Sarah, which seemed impossible in the natural course of things, corresponded in essence to our faith in “him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Gen 18:24). It was faith in a Divine power above nature, able to quicken into supernatural life that which humanly is dead. And as Abraham’s faith in this promised birth of Isaac involved a further faith in the fulfilment through him of all the promises, so our faith in the resurrection of Christ involves faith in all that is signified and assured to us therebyin “the power of a Divine life” in him, to bring life out of death, to regenerate and quicken the spiritually dead, and finally in “eternal redemption” and the “restitution of all things” (cf. Joh 3:6; Joh 5:25; Rom 6:3-12; 1Co 3:21-23; Eph 1:18-23; Eph 2:4-8; Rev 1:18; to which many other similarly significant passages might be added). It may be observed that, not only in the instance here adduced, but in his whole life as recorded in Genesis, Abraham stands forth as an exemplification of habitual faith in a Divine order beyond sight, and trust in Divine promises. In this consists the religious meaning of that record for us all. Notably so (as is especially set forth in Heb 11:17, etc.) in his willingness to sacrifice the son through whom the promise was to be fulfilled, retaining still his faith in the fulfilment.

Rom 4:22-25

Wherefore also it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned to him; but for our sake also, to whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord front the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised for our justification. It is to be observed that the word here and elsewhere translated “justification“ is , corresponding with . The correspondence is lost in English. The Vulgate preserves it by justitia and justificatio; and the Douay Version has, here as elsewhere, “justice” for . But “righteousness“ expresses the meaning better.

HOMILETICS

Rom 4:11

The fatherhood of Abraham.

It is remarkable that the whole of this chapter deals with Abrahama proof, not only of the greatness of Abraham’s character, the conspicuousness of his position in the history of mankind, and the hold the grand figure of the patriarch possessed of the imagination of the apostle, but also of Abraham’s real importance in the development of the leading ideas of true religion. We are reminded that Abraham was the father of many nationsthe father of the chosen people Israel, the ancestor of the Messiah, the promised Seed. But especially father is it brought before us here that Abraham is the of the faithful, inasmuch as he afforded an early and illustrious example of the virtue upon which St. Paul dilates at length in this Epistle to the Romansthe virtue of faith.

I. ABRAHAM IS THE FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL IN THAT HE IS AN EXAMPLE OF FAITH IN ITS SUPERIORITY TO SENSE AND TO HUMAN JUDGMENT. The ancestor of the Hebrew nation received repeated assurances of the purpose of the Eternal with regard to himself and his posterity. There was no human likelihood of the fulfilment of these assurances; in themselves they were opposed to all reasonable probability, and there were special circumstances which increased a hundredfold their inherent unlikelihood. But they were, in Abraham’s belief, the assurances of God himself, and that was sufficient to command his immediate and unquestioning acceptance. The Divine is the proper object of human faith. Let a declaration be from God; then it should be received with an absolute and unhesitating trust.

II. ABRAHAM IS THE FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL IN THAT HIS FAITH WAS INDEPENDENT OF EXTERNAL RITES AND PRIVILEGES. St. Paul lays great stress upon the historical fact that the exercise of Abraham’s faith in God preceded the institution of the symbolic rite of circumcision. This may seem to us an immaterial consideration; but from the point of view of the apostle it has great importance. He is arguing against an external, ceremonial view of religion, such as was too customary among the Jews, and indeed is too customary among all people through all time. And he made a “point” when he brought forward the fact that Abraham exercised faith in God whilst still uncircumcised; for this is a proof that the essence of religion does not depend upon external privileges, even though they be of Divine appointment. A lesson which we need to learn today, even as did the contemporaries of St. Paul.

III. ABRAHAM IS THE FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL INASMUCH AS HE EXHIBITED THE POWER OF FAITH TO POSSESS THE MORAL NATURE AND TO CONTROL THE LIFE. The patriarch was not a man to yield the assent of the lips, and to withhold the practical acknowledgment which is the best proof of sincere profession. It is enough, in support of this, to remark that his whole subsequent life was affected and governed by his belief of God’s promise. He confessed himself a pilgrim in the land, but whilst for himself he sought a heavenly inheritance, he lived as one persuaded that Canaan was the destined property of his posterity. Faith without works is dead; Abraham’s faith was living. As Christians, we are called upon, not only to believe, but to live by faith, to show our faith by our works, and, if we believe God’s promises, to give them a place so prominent in our heart that they may sway our conduct and govern our actions. The life which we live in the flesh is to be by the faith of the Son of God. Only thus can we prove ourselves to be true children of faithful Abraham.

IV. ABRAHAM IS THE FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IN HIM FAITH WAS SHOWN TO BE THE SPRING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. We are told by the apostle that Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. This doctrine of imputation has been misunderstood, when it has been inferred from the teaching of the apostle that, faith being present, righteousness may be dispensed with. The real teaching of St. Paul aims at removing religion from outward actions to inward dispositions. The righteousness which God values is not the performance of services or the submission to rites, so much as the pure thoughts and intents of the heart. So far as what is external is valuable, it is as an indication of what is deep-seated within. Faith brings the soul into right relations with God, and these secure habits of obedience and subjection which display themselves in the words, the deeds, and the course of moral life by which a man is judged by his fellow-men.

Rom 4:18

Hope against hope.

Faith and hope are allied, though separate, exercises and habits of created, finite mind. Neither of the two is possible to God, who is independent and eternal, and can neither confide in a superior nor anticipate a future. Man’s highest welfare depends upon faith, which is the principle of a high and noble life. Hope is less necessary, yet it belongs to a complete development of human nature, which looks forward to the future as well as upward to the unseen. Faith must have an object, and hope must have a ground. Faith is in a person; hope has respect to experience anticipated. If there be faith in a Being who has given definite promises, there will be hope in whatever is the matter of those promises. He who believes in God will hopefully expect the fulfilment of Divine assurances.

I. THERE IS HOPE WHICH IS BASED UPON NATURAL HUMAN EXPERIENCES. TO some extent, hope is a matter of temperament; circumstances which to a despondent man seem to afford no gleam of comfort in looking forward to the future, will arouse the brightest expectations on the part of the man of sanguine disposition. Still, hope is often precluded by the stern teaching of constant experience; and a man would prove himself mad if, in certain circumstances, he should look forward hopefully to the enjoyment of health, honour, or riches. Abraham, in the circumstances referred to in the context, might hope for many blessings; but, if illumined only by the experience of his own life and by the experience of preceding generations, he could not hope for a posterity which should take possession of the land of Canaan as their inheritance. And we, if enlightened only by earthly wisdom, could not venture to anticipate blessings which the gospel, upon Divine authority, assures to the believing and obedient. Human hope could not so far delude us.

II. THERE IS HOPE WHICH IS BASED UPON THE FAITHFUL PROMISES OF THE ETERNAL. With God nothing is impossible; from God nothing is concealed. Therefore, when he deigns to reveal his purposes to men, and when those purposes are purposes of mercy, those to whom they are made are justified in embracing them and in acting upon them. In the case of Abraham, that which human hope would have had no ground for anticipating was assured by the firm and unchanging promises of the Supreme; and Divine hope justly prevailed. He hoped in God against any hope or failure of hope which might be natural to him as man. And Abraham did not hope in vain. He embraced and believed the promises. He and his family, “not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” Hope triumphed, even over the bitter trial connected with the sacrifice of Isaac. Looking forward to the future with the bright and piercing eye of hope, our father Abraham saw the day of the Messiah, and he rejoiced and was glad.

APPLICATION. Often the Christian, if reduced to the limits of earthly anticipations, might give way to discouragement and fear. But he has hope, as “an anchor to his soul,” by means of which he may ride out the storms of time. Let him hope against hope, and his confidence shall be justified, and his anticipations shall be realized. His is a hope which, in the beautiful language of the Apocrypha, is “full of immortality.”

Rom 4:20

“Strong in faith.”

There is nothing upon which men are more given to pride themselves than upon their strength. The athlete boasts of his strength of muscle and of bodily constitution, the thinker of his strength of intellect, the monarch of his strength in war, the self-confident man of his strength of character. Such boasting is vain. Man’s estimate of his own powers may seem absurd to other beings; in the presence of the Eternal and Almighty it is profane. Well did the prophet speak the familiar words of warning, “Let not the strong man glory in his strength.” There is one respect, however, in which man may be strong. Weak in body in the presence of natural laws, weak in mind before the difficulties of life, man may nevertheless be “strong in faith.” Here no limits can be set; it is faith that

“Laughs at impossibilities,
And cries, ‘It shall be done!'”

I. STRONG FAITH IS REQUIRED BY THE EXIGENCIES OF HUMAN NATURE AND HUMAN CIRCUMSTANCES. The apostles drew their examples of virtue, of practical religion, from the history of the fathers of their nation; the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews recounts the triumphs of faith as apparent in the life of their illustrious progenitors; and St. Paul in this passage, with a view to encourage his readers to the exercise of a living and mighty faith, quotes the example of Abraham, whom be terms “the father of us all.” Certainly, there seemed, to human judgment, little likelihood of the fulfilment of Jehovah’s promise to the patriarch that the land of Canaan should be the possession of his seed. There was an antecedent improbability, so far as man’s foresight could penetrate. And there were special difficulties in the family circumstances of Abraham, which seemed insuperable. Yet, St. Paul reminds his readers, Abraham “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.” There is very much in our character and in our life which can only be successfully dealt with by the exercise of strong faith. Our sins, our sorrows, our privations, our ignorance and uncertainty with regard to the future, all call for faith. Intellectual doubts stand in the way of some men’s progress and welfare; temptations to worldliness and selfishness are formidable obstacles in the way of others. All have occasion to complain that the light of nature, of reason, is sometimes dim. All are tempted sometimes to discouragement and to despondency. When our hearts are weak and our knowledge is limited, and all our resources fail us, as must often happen in our human existence, where shall we look? Experience is at fault, reason hesitates, man’s help is vain. What we need at such times is “strong faith.”

II. STRONG FAITH IS JUSTIFIED BY THE ATTRIBUTES AND THE PROMISES OF GOD. Reflection and reason may teach us something of the Supreme; but the clearest light is shed upon his character and purposes by revelation; and it is in Christ Jesus that he has made himself most fully known to us; for “he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father.” If we have the assurance that God is wise and all-powerful, much of our doubt and difficulty will disappear, for we shall enjoy the conviction that our lot is not ordered by chance or fate, but by an overruling Providence. If we are encouraged upon satisfactory authority to believe that God is good and merciful, faithful and compassionate, such belief will relieve us from many apprehensions aroused by a feeling of our own innumerable errors and follies. Such a revelation has been vouchsafed to us. It should ever be borne in mind that the value of faith depends upon the object of faith. Placed upon feeble and fallible men, faith may often fail us; but settled and fixed upon infinite wisdom, righteousness, and love, it can sustain, direct, and cheer us throughout life’s pilgrimage. To Abraham certain direct and personal promises were given by God; and Abraham’s faith is recorded by the apostle in the statement that he was “fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able to perform.” The promises given to mankind through Jesus Christ are no less explicit, and are far more interesting, precious, and far-reaching. We may have, and justly, a very moderate measure of faith in assurances given to us by our fellow-men, a very qualified confidence in themselves. But this ought not to be the case when the eternal and faithful God and his gracious promises are in question. Upon him and his words we may “build an absolute trust.” “Believe in God,” says Christ; “believe also in me.”

III. STRONG FAITH IS RECOMPENSED IN THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD‘S PEOPLE. It was so in the case of Abraham, who became the father of many nations, whose posterity inherited the land of Canaan, and to whom his personal faith was “imputed for righteousness.” It has ever been so with Christians who have walked, not by sight, but by faith. Confidence in an unseen, but ever-present, Divine, almighty Helper, has been the principle of every truly Christian life. It has brought pardon and peace to the heart of the penitent; it has caused many “out of weakness to wax strong;” it has brought light to those in darkness, and leading to those in perplexity, safety to those in danger, comfort to those in sorrow, and hope to those who were ready to perish. “This is the victory which overcometh the world, even your faith.” Nor is this inexplicable; for by faith we lay hold of the strength that is irresistible and invincible, and the might of the believer is not his own, but God’s.

Rom 4:21

Promise and performance.

How condescendingly and graciously does our heavenly Father deign to communicate with his children! What proofs does he give of his interest in us, his sympathy with us! No better illustration of this can be found than in the promises of the holy Word. Stooping, as it were, to our level, God addresses to us not merely precepts to direct our conduct, but promises to sustain our courage and to animate our hope. Exceeding great and precious are the Divine promises uttered and fulfilled for the benefit of the spiritual family dependent upon the bounty, forbearance, and tender mercy of the Most High.

I. DIVINE PROMISES. The promise given to Abraham was of a special character, but both in itself, and in the way in which it was received and acted upon, it is peculiarly instructive to us as Christians.

1. The Giver of the promises upon which we, as believers in God’s Word, are called upon to rely, is the Being whose infinite resources, omniscient acquaintance with his people’s needs, and unfailing fidelity, place all his assurances apart from and altogether above those of others.

2. The matter of the Divine promises deserves our special attention; they have regard rather to spiritual than to temporal good, and whilst varied in their character, they are singularly adapted to the condition and necessities of men.

3. The receivers of these promises are creatures dependent altogether upon the Divine favour, with no resources of their own, and no hope save that which is based upon the faithfulness of God.

4. The purpose of the Divine promises is to remove natural fear and depression concerning the future, and in place thereof to instil a calm confidence, a bright and peaceful hope. If men were left to their own forecastings of the future, gloomy forebodings would often take possession of their souls; the promises of God are fitted to reassure and reanimate the downcast and cheerless.

II. DIVINE PERFORMANCE.

1. This is assured and certain. We read of God that “he cannot lie.” Abraham’s confidence was justified, when he was “fully assured that, what God had promised, he was able also to perform.”

2. It is complete, satisfactory, and effectual. Abraham was removed from earth before the appointed time arrived for the fulfilment of the promises made to him and to his seed. Yet he foresaw with the clear vision of faith what in due season came to pass. His descendants received and possessed “the land of promise.” It is so with all the performances of Eternal Wisdom and Compassion. Not one word that God has spoken shall fail; his promises are “all Yea and Amen in Christ Jesus.”

3. God’s performance of his plighted word of assurance is such as to justify his people’s unhesitating confidence. How can we question either his ability or his willingness?

“The voice that rolls the stars along
Spake all the promises”

HOMILIES BY C.H IRWIN

Rom 4:1-25

Abraham’s faith.

We have already seen how the apostle has prepared the way for the great doctrine of justification by faith. He showed in the first two chapters that man has no righteousness of his own, that he could not justify himself, but, on the contrary, that both Jew and Gentile are all under sin. “There is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Now, in this fourth chapter, he shows that this great factthe necessity for justification by faithhas already been recognized by Abraham and David. He is writing to Jews, and he takes the case of two men of God with whose lives they were familiar, and whom they held in high respect. He shows that neither Abraham nor David rested in his own righteousness. They rested entirely in the sovereign grace and mercy of God. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Rom 4:3). So David also describes the blessedness of those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered; of the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sin (Rom 4:6-8). No two cases more appropriate or more telling could the apostle have selected in illustration of man’s universal need of a Divine righteousness. Here were two saints of God, the one called the friend of God, the other the sweet singer of Israel, and yet they both rested, not on their own good works, but on the mercy and free grace of God. True, David had grievously sinned against God, but he did not trust for forgiveness to any penances or works of merit which he might have done in atonement for his sin, but solely to the pardoning mercy of the Lord. Abraham’s faith, however, is the main subject of the chapter.

I. ITS REASONABLENESS. The subject of faith is not merely an abstract theological question. Abraham’s faith, in particular, is not something which concerned Abraham but has no interest for us. We are told in the close of this chapter that “it was not written for his sake alone, that his 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 our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification” (Rom 4:23-25). What, then, do we mean by faith? Faith is a strong inward persuasion manifesting itself in outward acts. We could have no better illustration of it than the life of Abraham. “Abraham believed God.” His life was a life of faith in God. He trusted God’s word, and he took God’s way. Here, then, we have a simple definition of what faith meanstrusting God’s word and taking God’s way. Is not this an eminently reasonable course for a human being to take? So Abraham thought. He was a man of experience when we have the first record of God speaking to him. He was seventy-five years old when God’s first command reached himthe command to leave his country and his father’s house. It would appear as if Abraham had begun before that time to look beyond the seen to the unseen. His spiritual instincts and his reason told him that those idols which the people round him worshipped could not represent the great Creator of the world. He had already a conviction that there was a Goda reasonable conviction based on the evidence of natural laws. He knew something of that almighty Being’s power, and wisdom, and immortality, and unchangeableness. And so he reached the conclusion, which became an irresistible conviction, that “what God had promised he was able also to perform” (Rom 4:18-21). He was “fully persuaded.” Upon this Abraham based his faith. For these reasons he trusted God’s word and took God’s way. Is it not still more reasonable that we should have faith in God? We too have had experience, and not merely our own experience, but the experience of thousands of others from Abraham’s day till now, who have trusted God, and found that what he hath promised he is able also to perform. The history of the ages teaches us that heaven and earth may pass away, but that God’s words do not pass away; that men will change and die, and mighty empires crumble into dust, but that the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him. It teaches us also this lesson, that God’s way is always best, and that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Abraham’s faith was a reasonable faith. It is a reasonable thing that we also should trust God’s word and take God’s way.

II. ITS RESULTS.

1. Abraham’s faith led him to unfaltering obedience. It was a strange and apparently a harsh command which God gave to him, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee” (Gen 12:1). But Abraham did not hesitate. He knew whom he had believed. It was God, the living God, his heavenly Father, who was speaking to him, and he felt he must obey. He knew that God would provide for him; he knew that God would lead him right. How many of us under similar circumstances would show such unhesitating, unfaltering obedience to God’s command? How many of us are willing to trust God to take care of us when we are doing his will? Alas! is it not true that we often hesitate to do his will, just because we cannot trust him to take care of us, to bring us safely through the difficulties and to crown our labours with success? But, then, it must be admitted that there is a real, practical difficulty here which sometimes perplexes God’s people. Some one may say, “Well, I am quite willing to do God’s will, to follow the path of duty, if I could only tell what it was. There are so many cases where I cannot see my way. If I could only hear God speaking to me as he did to Abraham, there would be no difficulty about it.” I think the way to meet that difficulty is this. Saturate your mind with the spirit of the gospel, with the teachings of the Word of God, with the spirit of Christ. A Christian is one who has the spirit of Christ. And, while there will be inconsistencies, as a rule we can depend upon the Christian. A remarkable illustration of this was given in Abraham’s own case. Before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord” (Gen 18:17, Gen 18:19). God had confidence in Abraham doing what was right, although in one case Abraham acted sinfully and inconsistently. So we can trust the Christian to act in a Christian way. There will be mistakes, inconsistencies, in his life. But there are some things we know he will not do. He will not be among the sabbath-breakers, among the profane, the foul and filthy speakers, among the intemperate, among those who defraud or those who defame their neighbour. And all this we know, because we know him to have the spirit of Christ. We must cultivate this spirit, then, if we would know what the path of duty is.

2. Abraham’s faith led him to unflinching self-sacrifice. There are two grand scenes in his life that illustrate this. One was when he gave Lot the permission to choose what portion of the land he would have. Abraham had the right to choose, but he relinquished his own rights in favour of his nephew. The other was when God called on him to offer up as a sacrifice his son Isaac. What a spirit of faith Abraham showed then! He trusted God, and so he took God’s way. He had himself said once before, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25). And now when God, who gave him his son, asks him to give him back again, his faithful servant is ready to do what God asks. It was enough. The Lord himself had provided a lamb for the burnt offering. But Abraham showed the greatness of his faith by the sacrifice he was ready to make. There is a process in mathematics called the elimination of factors. The factor self had been eliminated from Abraham’s character and life. So it will be with the true Christian. The spirit of self-sacrifice is the spirit of Christ, the spirit of Christianity. “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” We must be ready to make sacrifice of self for Christ’s sake. Such, then, was Abraham’s faith. It was a reasonable faith, and a faith that resulted in unfaltering obedience and in unflinching self-sacrifice. He trusted God’s word, and he took God’s way. That is the way of salvation for every sinner. Such faith is the condition of all righteousness. If we are to please God, if we are to get to heaven, we must take God’s way. The manner of Abraham’s justification is an encouragement for every sinner, whether Jew or Gentile. If salvation had been by the Law, only those who had the Law, or who kept it, could be saved. But it is “of faith, that it might be of grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham“ (Rom 4:16). The Jews’ beast that they were Abraham’s seed showed a narrow idea of what the promise was. Abraham was “the father of many nations” (Rom 4:17, Rom 4:18). Abraham’s true spiritual children are those who imitate Abraham’s faith.C.H.I.

HOMILIES BY T.F. LOCKYER

Rom 4:1-8

A test case.

Abraham was their father (Joh 8:1-59.)this they were proud to acknowledge; but what was his relationship to God?

I. ABRAHAM‘S RIGHTEOUSNESS. Righteousness must be either absolute or imputed; e.g. a servant in employ, on the one hand tried and true, on the other hand false, but penitent and received again. Which was Abraham’s?

1. If of works, it was absolute, and therefore he was in a position of proud integrity before God. Was it so? The whole history proved the contrary. Humble dependence.

2. If imputed, it could only be as he accepted God’s promises, and lived by faith in them. And so saith the Scripture (Rom 4:3).

II. ABRAHAM‘S FAITH. What was the faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness?

1. Renunciation of self. (Gen 15:1-21., 17.) He could do nothing.

2. Reliance on God. (Gen 15:1-21., and implied in 17.) God could do all things.

Such the general principle: faith is the laying hold of all God’s mighty love. Hence the spring of all righteousness. In Abraham’s case, faith in promises for the future pertaining to the kingdom of God. Virtually, it was the faith of his spiritual salvation. Was not David’s case the same? There are iniquities, sins; man can never undo them; God can cover them. So with us. Not of debt, but of graceon God’s part; therefore, not of works, but of faithon man’s part. And hence no arbitrary condition; the appropriation of all the wealth of good offered in God and by God. Well is it said, “Blessed are they,” etc.T.F.L.

Rom 4:9-22

All things are of faith.

The position is now established that righteousness is through faith. But, they might say, through the faith of a circumcised man; and the promise of the inheritance was through the Law; and surely the posterity of Abraham came according to the flesh. He answersRighteousness, heritage, posterity, by faith alone.

I. RIGHTEOUSNESS.

1. The righteousness of faith without circumcision. In Gem 15. we have the record of Abraham’s justification; the institution of circumcision is narrated in Gen 17:1-27., fourteen years after. Abraham, therefore, was justified “in his Gentile-hood” (see Godet). Therefore, he is the father of Gentile believers; and in so far as he is the father of Jewish believers, it is because they are believers, not because they are Jews.

2. Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith. God strengthens man’s faith by visible signs and seals of the faith and of its results. So to Abraham circumcision was an abiding pledge that God accepted his faith for righteousness. And likewise the existence of a separated nation was a testimony to the world. But it was the faith alone that was effectual; circumcision did but attest.

II. HERITAGE. The whole world is promised to the heirs of Abraham as a heritage; this of itself might suffice to show that the heirs are not merely descendants according to the flesh. But the condition of such inheritance shall show the meaning.

1. If the heritage were through Law, then faith and the promise fail.

(1) “Faith is made void;” for it cannot grasp an impossibility, nor can it rightly lay hold of that which must be worked for.

(2) “And the promise is made of none effect;” for an unfulfilled Law works God’s wrath towards man, which is in utter contrariety to the fulfilment of a promise of love.

2. Therefore the heritage is of faith, that it may be according to grace, etc.

(1) Faith the sole condition of promise, that while God’s grace gives freely, man may freely receive.

(2) Faith the sole characteristic of the heirs of the promise, that so the seed may be, not merely that which is of the Law (even combined with faith), but that which is of faith (apart from Law), comprising beth Jews and Gentiles who are the spiritual children of the great believer.

III. POSTERITY. But it might be objected that an Israel according to the flesh was necessary, in order that the spiritual Israel might be at last accomplished. Truly. But, to cut away the last ground of boasting, even the Israel according to the flesh was the gift of God through faith.

1. The obstacles to such faith. “His own body,” etc. And this all full in view: “he considered.”

2. The warrant of faith. While viewing the obstacles, he staggered not.

(1) God’s promise “A father of many nations.” “So shall thy seed be.

(2) God’s power. “Able to perform;” “quickeneth the dead,” etc. “Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.” As before, it was virtually the faith of his spiritual salvation; yes, the very faith which laid hold of the promise of posteritya posterity that they deemed according to the flesh. Let us learn that by faith we may be righteous, by faith we may possess the earth, By faith we may impress for good the generations following. What an heirship is possible through the faith of one believer!T.F.L.

Rom 4:23-25

Our faith and righteousness.

Abraham’s faith was virtually faith in the saving love of God; the special manifestation of that love to him was the raising up of a holy seed. Our faith is a faith in the ultimate Seed of Abraham which has been raised up as the supreme Manifestation of God’s love.

I. OUR FAITH. Our faith and Abraham’s are one in thisthat they lay hold upon God, and God at work for us.

1. The one supreme Object of our faith. God! Whatever God may say to us, whatever he may do for us, the essential Object of our faith is himself. Yes, himself in all his saving love. And though in successive ages he may have revealed more and more of his purposes as men were able to bear it, yet he himself has been ever the same, the Object of man’s trust. And though now his purposes and past actions may be variously conceived by men, and though indeed they may be more or less misconceived, yet if he himself, as the Good One, the saving God, be trusted, all is well. We “believe on him.”

2. The special subject-matter of our faith. “That raised Jesus,” etc. It was not revealed to Abraham how God would eventually work out salvation for mankind, but such salvation as he could grasp was promisedthe raising up of a posterity which should possess the world. To us the full meaning of that promise has been made known.

(1) The “delivering up” of Jesus “for our trespasses.” Man’s sin the necessitating cause: “that he might be just,” etc. (Rom 3:26). God’s love the efficient cause: “so loved the world,” etc. (Joh 3:16).

(2) The “raising” of Jesus “for our justification.” The death did its work; man was justified (i.e. potentially). But if so, the justification of man through the death of Christ demanded his resurrection, just as the trespasses demanded his death. God raised him; our Lord of life for evermore. And it is this grandly operative love that claims our faith.

II. OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

1. An objective righteousness, complete now by reason of our faith in the atoning work of Christ. What was potential for all men is actual to us, who have received it with humble heartseven justification through Christ.

2. A subjective righteousness, pledged by the faith which trusts the living Lord. The faith itself the germ also of future righteousness, and therefore “reckoned” for what it will more and more perfectly bring forth.

To us? Oh, simple conditionbelieve on him!T.F.L.

HOMILIES BY S.R, ALDRIDGE

Rom 4:6-8

A happy man.

It is essential in argument to have common ground where the debate can be carried on. The apostle could count on the agreement of his Jewish readers with his reference to the Scriptures as the court of final appeal. And whilst some modern hearers reject the claims of the Bible, the majority receive it as an inspired authority, so that the preacher’s business generally is to prove his case therefrom, and to press home its statements showing what is the appropriate action they involve. Having mentioned Abraham as an instance of justification by faith, the apostle proceeded to summon David as a witness to the same truth in the thirty-second psalm.

I. GOD‘S MERCIFUL TREATMENT OF PENITENT SINNERS.

1. Three expressions are employed in the verses cited, respecting sin. It is said to be forgiven, like a debt remitted, the score against us being erased. It is covered, as the mercy-seat hid the Law from view, or as a stone flung into the depths of the sea is buried in its waters, or as a mantle of fleecy snow conceals the defilements of a landscape. Likewise it is act reckoned against the delinquents, as if God turned a deaf ear and unseeing eye when complaint is lodged against him concerning the transgressions of the culprits. He smooths the wax tablets so that none can read the bill of indictment.

2. These expressions signify a complete pardon. The king may not care much for the presence of the pardoned rebel at his court, but the father is joyful at the return of the prodigal son. No intermediate state of indifference is possible in God’s attitude towards his creatures; when he forgives, there is full reconciliation. No look, no tone, hints at past unworthiness!

3. These expressions teach plainly gratuitous justification. No mention is made of human merit. Man’s repentance cannot obliterate or atone for the past; forgiveness means a wrong condoned, not undone, Man is a slave, who cannot purchase his freedom; he has thrown himself into bondage, and his only hope lies in free manumission.

II. THE HAPPINESS OF THE FORGIVEN.

1. The penalties of sin are averted. This does not mean that all the consequences of past wrong-doing are prevented from following, but that the wrath of God rests no longer upon the sinner. The future sentence against evil is withheld, and the burden of guilt is thus removed.

2. Justification brings with it admission into a state of Divine favour. Acquittal includes more than a negative result, that of no condemnation; there is likewise a positive entrance into the kingdom of heaven, with all its sacred privileges and relationships. Filial love takes the place of the spirit of fear.

3. The blissful consciousness of a right condition. Instead of slurring over sin, trying vainly to forget it, the fact has been faced, the truth admitted, and the touch of God has rolled the load for ever from the conscience. The Scriptures assume the possibility of knowing ourselves forgiven. Faith opens the inner hearing to rejoice in the assurance, “Go in peace.” The devout Israelite had the ceremonies of the temple to symbolize God’s plan of mercy as well as the declarations of inspired teachers. The Christian has words of Christ to rest upon, as also the apostolic commentaries upon the sacrifice and mission of Christ. “I’m in a new world,” said one who realized his altered position God-wards. Peaceful in mind during life, serene in the prospect of death, with God as his Portion through eternity, surely this is happiness worthy of the eulogy of the psalmist.S.R.A.

Rom 4:16

Obtaining an inheritance.

An honourable lineage is not to be despised. Many advantages accrue from the law of heredity, by which progenitors transmit distinguishing qualities to their descendants. But the text invites to an unusual course of begetting an ancestry and thus winning a noble inheritancenothing less than claiming Abraham as our father. The qualification is to exhibit like faith with the father of the faithful. Faith is thus like the horn of Egremont Castle

“Horn it was which none could sound,
No one upon living ground
Save he who came as rightful heir.”

I. THE SIMILARITY OF ABRAHAM‘S FAITH TO THAT REQUIRED BY THE GOSPEL.

1. Each has God as its supreme Object, and rests on some promise of God. As the patriarch had respect to the word and power of the Almighty, so the Christian’s faith regards the wonder-working might of him who “raised up Jesus from the dead.” That in the latter case we look back, not forward, makes no difference as to the essence of faith, and this resurrection becomes itself the ground of believing expectancy in relation to our own future salvation.

2. The subject of faith thereby differentiates himself from his fellows. Out of a world in a condition of rebellion and distrust, Abraham stood forth a monumental pillar of faith. Sin first entered in the guise of a doubt of God’s Word, and faith is the throwing off of all suspicion and the adoption of a right attitude before God. Men find it hard to trust God’s assurance of pardon and life.

3. The effect of faith is the same. The believer is justified, for God rejoices in the altered state. The implicit credence honours him, and is for his creatures’ lasting good. Christ’s mission was to show us the Father, revealing his displeasure at sin, and his self-sacrificing sympathy with the sinner.

II. THE PROMINENCE OF GRACE.

1. That the inheritance is won by faith involves the absence of valid merit on the part of the recipient. He receives not the wages of a workman, but the free donation of his King. Pride is pulled up by the roots in this manifestation of the kindness of God. Justification is an exercise of clemency for established reasons.

2. The same truth is recognized in the use of the term “promise.” We are entitled to claim the heritage on the ground of God’s own declaration, not on the score of our personal worthiness.

3. Only by such a method could the promise to Abraham be fulfilled, that is, “made sure to all the seed.” If dependent on physical connection, who but the Israelites could hope for the inheritance? If dependent on obedience to the Law, neither Jew nor Gentile could show conformity to the conditions. A world-wide blessing means the removal of both local and universal restrictions.

III. THIS DIVINE PLAN JUSTIFIED BY ITS RESULTS. Complaints of arbitrariness and indifference vanish before this apprehended scheme of mercy. Faith tends to produce a righteousness of life which the stern threatenings of Law could never effect. The despairing criminal begins to see that past transgressions and failures need not debar him from hope of the prize, and with the entrance of this thought, new energy is infused into his soul. The greater contains the less. If God promise to save, he will not withhold minor temporal blessings. Let us, like Abraham, view the land of promise, look away from all in our surroundings that would check faith in God, and say, “I will trust, and not be afraid.”S.R.A.

Rom 4:23, Rom 4:24

The gospel in Genesis.

The story takes us back to that starry night when the twinkling lamps of the firmament were Abraham’s arithmetical calculator concerning the numerous posterity that should trace their descent to him. His faith triumphed over all the obstacles of sense, over all the arguments of improbability which reason suggested. He was a true servant of God, a holy man, yet does the historian speak of him as justified, not on account of his devoted life, his blameless conduct, but by his unwavering acceptance of the promise of the Almighty. Faith was indeed the root-grace out of which his virtues sprang; it was the secret sustaining power which supported him under the trials of a pilgrim and sojourner. The significant statement in Genesis was fastened on by the apostle and triumphantly wielded as a weapon to slay all Jewish prejudices against the gospel doctrine of justification by faith. What could be more convincing than to find the cardinal principle of Christianity in a place where no suspicion could attach to itin the very account of Divine honour conferred on the great progenitor of the Hebrew nation? It was like finding in an old book an account of an experiment forestalling a modern discovery.

I. THE SCRIPTURES A RECORD OF REVELATION. The distinction between the revelation and its history is important, many theories of inspiration failing to recognize the human side visible in the record. The Bible contains the account of the way in which God has revealed and gradually achieved his great purpose of redemption, selecting the man, the family, the tribe, the nation, to be the channel of blessing to the world, till in the fulness of time there appeared the representative Man, Christ Jesus, consummating the revelation and its gracious effects. The Old Testament is not to be identified with Mosaism; it includes the Law, and more. The patriarchal dispensation and the prophetical teachings must be equally regarded. Nor was there any discrepancy between the grace of the patriarchal covenant and the rigour of the Law. The Law was a stern process of education, necessary to the continuity of development, as the green fruit is acid prior to its maturity. And when the Jew contemned Christianity as a bastard growth, the apostle pointed to the prediction of the gospel clearly presented in God’s dealings with Abraham, justifying Christianity as a legitimate scion of Judaism; the grandchild, as often happens, displaying features of likeness to the grandparent not so marked in the intermediate generation.

II. ADVANTAGES OF A WRITTEN RECORD. A particular instance here of the general statement in Gen 15:1-21. that “these things were written aforetime for our learning.” Writing is the natural complement of articulate utterance, the chief instrument of the progress of the race. It perpetuates the memory of noble thoughts and deeds, enabling each generation to commence where its predecessor left off. Printing is improved writing, facilitating the multiplication of copies. The impression of a speech weakens and fades like the water-ripples caused by a stone, but the written page is powerful to the last, like the inhaling of the fragrance of a rose. Latest readers may compare their ideas with the earliest receivers of a revelation, and misunderstandings are corrected. To peruse the story in Genesis is to note how the bud by its markings afforded promise of the full-grown flower. In the child were seen glimpses of the manhood of religion, when there should be a system freed from burdensome ordinances, and adapted to every clime, race, and age. And since “no man liveth unto himself,” the record of Abraham’s faith stimulates the faith of every subsequent reader. The patriarchal hero has had posthumous glory from the narrative, beside the comfort of the assurance divinely communicated that his faith was reckoned for righteousness. The unity of the Divine character is attested by the same method of justification being adopted in the olden days. Cf. with the apostle’s appreciation of a written record the puerile remarks of Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna: “Let the mind hold and the memory guard this decree of salvation, this symbol of life [the Creed], lest vile paper depreciate the gift of Divinity, lest black ink obscure the mystery of light.”

III. MEANS OF PERSONALLY BENEFITING BY THE RECORD. Frequent perusal and the application by analogy of the principle implied in the history wilt show that the Christian, like Abraham, has demands made upon his faith by the wonders of the gospel narrative, and by reliance on God can he likewise remain steadfast in obedient righteousness. We have a promise to lean on as Abraham had. We have the resurrection of Christ to proclaim God’s power and intent to save, his satisfaction with the work of Christ and his ability to give life from the dead to every sinful soul that trusts him. Humbly yet thankfully and firmly clasp this declaration to your breast.S.R.A.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Rom 4:1-25

Abraham justified by faith alone.

We have just seen in last chapter the utility of Judaism, the universal depravity of the race, the new channel for Divine righteousness which had consequently to be found, and the confirmation of law which is secured by faith. The apostle in the present chapter illustrates his argument from the history of Abraham. He was reckoned by the Jews as “father of the faithful;” his case is, therefore, a crucial one. Accordingly, Paul begins by asking, “What shall we then say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found, as pertaining to the flesh?” By this is meant virtually this: “What merit before God did Abraham acquire in the use of his natural human faculties, or, in other words, by his own works?” (cf. Shedd, in loc.). Now, to this a negative answer is expected; and, as if it had been supplied, Paul goes on to state the case thus: “For if Abraham were justified by works, he has a subject for glorification; but, vis-a-vis, of God, he has no reason for glorification.” This he proceeds to show from the history. Now, there are three things mentioned in this chapter which Abraham got, and in each case it was by exercising faith. These were righteousness (Rom 4:3-12), inheritance (Rom 4:13-17), and a seed (Rom 4:18-25). Let us direct our attention to these in their order.

1. ABRAHAM RECEIVED RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH FAITH. (Rom 4:3-12.) The apostle begins here with a scriptural quotation; it is from Gen 15:6, to the effect that “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” We see from the context in Genesis that what Abraham believed was that God’s promise about a Seed who would prove a blessing to all nations would yet be fulfilled. He bettered God’s naked promise, and looked forward prophetically to his Seed as the medium of universal blessing. His faith was thus fixed in a Seed of promisein Christ to come. Now, this act of faith without works was “reckoned unto him” (Revised Version) for righteousness. Because of this act of faith, he was regarded by God as having fulfilled the Law and secured righteousness through a perfect obedience. Such a reckoning of righteousness to Abraham’s credit was a great act of grace upon God’s part. Assuming for the moment that God could justly reckon faith for righteousness, it must be regarded as a gracious gift on the part of God. But the apostle would leave us in no doubt as to the principle involved. One who trusts in his works for acceptance claims reward as a debt; he who trusts, not in his works, but in his God for justification, receives reward as a matter, not of debt, but of grace. This was Abraham’s exact position. And David follows his father Abraham in this respect, celebrating in the Psalms the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works; saying, “Blessed arc they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin” (Revised Version). Abraham and David had by faith entered into that blissful position where God not only was felt to forgive them all their iniquities and to cover all their sin, but also would not reckon sin unto them. It was as if they had been transfigured before God into men innocent of all sin. The past was cancelled, and they stood before God accepted as righteous in his sight. But this is not all. The apostle points out particularly that this pardon and acceptance of Abraham on the ground of his faith happened before his circumcision. As a matter of fact, it happened fourteen years before. So that circumcision could constitute no ground of acceptance. It was simply a divinely appointed sign and seal of the previously imputed righteousness. Accordingly, Abraham was in a position to be the father of uncircumcised believers or of circumcised believers, as the case may be; showing us at once faith as exercised in uncircumcision with its resultant righteousness, and faith also exercised after his circumcision with its continued justification.

II. ABRAHAM RECEIVED AS INHERITANCE THROUGH FAITH. (Verses 13-17.) Now we have to observe that Abraham received net only righteousness through faith, but also an inheritance. As a matter of fact, he became “heir of the world.” We must not restrict justification, therefore, to deliverance from deserved penalty, but must attach to it the further idea of inheritance. As one writer has well remarked, “Justification is a term applicable to something more than the discharge of an accused person without condemnation. As in our courts of law there are civil as well as criminal cases; so it was in old time; and a large number of the passages adduced seem to refer to trials of the latter description, in which some question of property, right, or inheritance was under discussion between the two parties. The judge, by justifying one of the parties, decided that the property in question was to be regarded as his. Applying this aspect of the matter to the justification of man in the sight of God, we gather from Scripture that whilst through sin man is to be regarded as having forfeited legal claim to any right or inheritance which God might have to bestow upon his creatures, so through justification he is restored to his high position and regarded as an heir of God.’ Now, this designation of Abraham to the heirship of the world was at the same time as the reckoning to him of righteousness. The Law afterwards given to his posterity had nothing to do with this inheritance. It came solely through faith. It was the gift of Divine grace signalizing the patriarch’s trust in God as faithful Promiser. Hence the patriarch was called the “father of many nations,” because he felt assured that God, who raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, could give him through his seed the inheritance of the world. In the universal triumph of righteousness, the believing descendants of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile, should “inherit the earth”

III. ABRAHAM RECEIVED A SEED THROUGH FAITH, (Verses 18-25.) Now, the inheritance centred itself, as the history shows us, in a “seed of promise,” and for years this was unlikely. Abraham is ninety and nine, and Sarah ninety, before the promised seed is given. For a quarter of a century it seemed hopeless; but the patriarch hoped against hope, and eventually the God who can raise the dead granted to Sarah’s dead womb a living son of promise. Here was the strength of the patriarch’s faith in hoping in spite of all appearances. We have thus set before us in Abraham’s case, as received through faith alone, righteousness, inheritance, and a seed of promise. But the apostle at once reminds us that all this is written for us also, to whom the same righteousness and the same inheritance shall be secured if we exercise the same faith. And the analogy he traces out in the closing verses is very striking. Jesus, the Seed of Abraham, lay for a season in Joseph’s tomb. He was to all appearances hopelessly dead. But God raised him from the dead, just as he had brought Isaac from the dead womb of Sarah. In the God who can thus “call those things which be not as though they were” we ought to believe. Let us believe in the Father who raised Christ from the dead; and then we can rejoice in the two great facts, that Jesus was delivered because of our offences unto death, and then raised out of death as the sign of our justification. Christ’s resurrection is thus seen to be the sign and pledge of our personal justification. May we enter into all these privileges through the exercise of faith!R.M.E.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Rom 4:1. What shall we then say In the foregoing chapter the Apostle has proved, that neitherJews nor Gentiles have a right to the blessings of God’s peculiar kingdom, otherwise than by grace, which is free to the one, as well as the other. In this chapter he advances to a new argument, admirably adapted to convince the Jew; to shew the believingGentile in a clear light the high value of the mercies freelybestowed upon him in the Gospel, and at the same time to display the wondrous plans of the providence and grace of God. His argument is taken from Abraham’s case. Abraham was the father and head of the Jewish nation. God pardoned him through faith, and took him and his seed into his especial covenant, and bestowed upon them many extraordinary blessings above the rest of the world. Thus he was justified through faith; and it is evident he was justified not upon the footing of obedience to law, or the rule of right action, but in the only way a sinner can be justified,by the favour of the Law-giver. Now this is the very same way in which the Gospel saves the believing Gentiles, and gives them a part in the blessings of God’s covenant. Why then should the Jews so violently oppose the Gentiles being interested in those blessings?Especially if it be farther observed, that the believing Gentiles are actually included in the promise made to Abraham, and the covenant established with him; for at the time God entered into covenant with Abraham, he considered him as the head, not of one nation only, but of many nations (Gen 17:4.). As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be, with regard to this my covenant, the father of many, or a multitude of nations; consequently, the covenant being made with Abraham, as the head or father of many nations, all in any nation, who should stand upon the same religious principle with him, were his seed, and with him interested in the covenant that God made with him: but he stood only upon the footing of faith in the mercy of God through the seed of the woman, pardoning his sins and graciously bestowing extraordinary blessings; and upon this footing also the believing Gentiles stand in the Gospel; therefore they are the seed of Abraham, and included in the covenant of promise made to him. Now to all this the Apostle knew very well it would be objected, that it was not faith alone which gave Abraham a right to the blessings of the covenant; but his obedience to the law of circumcision; which, being peculiar to the Jewish nation, gave them also, and them alone, an interest in the Abrahamic covenant: consequently, whoever among the Gentiles would be interested in that covenant, ought to embrace Judaism, and, as the only ground of their right, perform obedience to the law of circumcision, and so come under the obligations to the whole law. With this objection the Apostle introduces his argument, ver. l, 2.; shews that, according to the Scripture account, Abraham was justified by faith, Rom 4:3-5.; explains the nature of that justification by a quotation out of the Psalms, Rom 4:6-9.; proves that Abraham was justified long before he was circumcised, Rom 4:9-11.; that the believing Gentiles are his seed, to whom the promise belongs, as well as to the believing Jews, Rom 4:12-17.; and describes Abraham’s faith, in order to explain the faith of the Gospel; Rom 4:17 to the end. See Locke.

Abraham our father Father is of an extensive and emphatical signification in the Hebrew: amongst other things, it signifies a person who is first in the invention, use, or enjoyment of any thing, with regard to those who imitate him, or derive from him any particular custom or advantage. Gen 4:20-21. Jabal was the father of shepherds; Jubal was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Abraham is the father of all them that believe, Rom 4:11 and the father of us all, Rom 4:16.: namely, as he was the first to whom the grant or promise of extraordinary blessings was made upon his faith, and as all that believe are included in that promise, and are justified in the same way that he was. In this sense the Jew here calls Abraham our father; meaning, not only as the Jews were naturally descended, but as they heldall their privileges from him, were included in the promises made to him, and must be justified as he was. Thus we must understand our father, to give the Jew’s argument its proper sense and force; and this he meant according to his own narrow notion, as if Abraham, in this respect, was father to the Jews only, and to no other people. But the Apostle proves that he was, in this respect,namely as the head and pattern of justification,the father of all them that believe, whether

Heathens or Jews. The expression, as pertaining to the flesh, or with respect to the flesh, evidently relates to circumcision, and the obligation it laid upon the Jews: for in the flesh,after the flesh,or appertaining to the flesh, are thus frequently used;Gal 6:12. 1Co 10:18. 2Co 5:16; 2Co 11:18. Php 3:3. This was the Jew’s glorying in the flesh, and is sufficient to point out the sense of Abraham’s finding or obtaining, as appertaining to or after the flesh, that whereof he had , to glory. See chap. Rom 3:27 and on Rom 2:17. It is what the Jews suppose he procured from God, for his obedience to the law of circumcision, and for answering the peculiar obligations he was thereby brought under; as farther appears from Rom 4:9-12 where, arguing against the Jew’s objection started here in the first and second verses, he asks, How was faith reckoned to Abraham?when he was in circumcision or uncircumcision?Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision, &c. Now as this reason is undoubtedly full to the purpose of the Jew’s objection, it confirms, or rather makes necessary, the sense we have given of the phrase before us.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 4:1 . ] Accordingly , in consequence of the fact that we do not abrogate the law through faith, but on the contrary establish it. [954] This brings in the proof to be adduced from the history of Abraham (“confirmatio ab exemplo,” Calvin), for the just asserted (Rom 3:31 ), in the form of an inference . For if we should have to say that Abraham our father has attained anything (namely, righteousness) , that would presuppose that the law, which attests Abraham’s justification, in nowise receives establishment (Rom 3:31 ). Hence we have not here an objection, but a question proposed in the way of inference by Paul himself, the answer to which is meant to bring to light, by the example of Abraham, the correctness of his . His object is not to let the matter rest with the short and concise dismissal of the question in Rom 3:31 , but to enter into the subject more closely; and this he does now by attaching what he has further to say to the authoritatively asserted, and in his own view established, in the form of an inference . Moreover, the whole is to be taken as one question, not to be divided into two by a note of interrogation after ; in which case there is harshly and arbitrarily supplied to (by Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Wetstein, and Michaelis) , or at least (van Hengel) the pronoun it representing that word, which however ought to have been immediately suggested by the context, as in Phi 3:12 (comp Ngelsbach on Il. 1, 76, 302, Exo 3 ). In the affirmation itself . is the subject ( quid dicemus Abrahamum nactum esse ?). Th. Schott, by an unhappy distortion of the passage, makes him the object (“ why should we then say that we have gained Abraham in a fleshly, natural sense for our ancestor ?”) This misconception should have been precluded by attending to the simple fact, that in no passage in our Epistle (and in other Epistles the form of expression does not occur) does the in mean why . Hofmann, who had formerly ( Schriftb. II. 2, p. 76 ff.) apprehended it in substance much more correctly, now agrees with Schott in so far that he takes as a question by itself, but then explains likewise as the object, so that the question would be, whether the Christians think that they have found Abraham as their forefather after the flesh ? “The origin of the church of God, to which Christians belong, goes back to Abraham. In fleshly fashion he is their ancestor, if the event through which he became such (namely, the begetting of Isaac ) lie within the sphere of the natural human life; in spiritual fashion , on the other hand, if that event belong to the sphere of the history of salvation and its miraculous character, which according to the Scripture (comp Gal 4:23 ) is the case.” This exposition cannot be disputed on linguistic grounds, especially if, with Hofmann, we follow Lachmann’s reading. But it is, viewed in reference to the context, erroneous. For the context, as Rom 4:2-3 clearly show, treats not of the contrast between the fleshly and the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in the case of Christians, but of the justification of the ancestor, as to whether it took place or by faith. Moreover, if . was intended to be the object, Paul would have expressed himself as unintelligibly as possible, since in Rom 4:2-3 he in the most definite manner represents him as the subject , whose action is spoken of. If we take Hofmann’s view, in which case we do not at all see why the Apostle should have expressed himself by , he would have written more intelligibly by substituting for this the simple , so that . would have been the subject in the question, as well as in what follows. Finally the proposition that Abraham, as the forefather of believers as such , was so not , was so perfectly self-evident, both with reference to the Jewish and the Gentile portion of the , that Paul would hardly have subjected it to discussion as the theme of so earnest a question, while yet no reader would have known that in he was to think of the miraculous begetting of Isaac . For even without the latter Abraham would be the of believers , namely, through his justification by faith , Rom 4:9 ff.

. .] “fundamentum consequentiae ab Abrahamo ad nos,” Bengel. Comp Rom 4:11 f. however (comp Jas 2:21 ) is said from the Jewish standpoint, not designating Abraham as the spiritual father of the Christians (Reiche, Hofmann, Th. Schott), a point that is still for the present (see Rom 4:11 ) quite out of view.

] is, following the Peschito, with most expositors to be necessarily joined to .; not, with Origen, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Photius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Toletus, Calvin, whom Hofmann, Th. Schott, Reithmayr, Volckmar in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1862, p. 221 ff., follow, to . . (not even although Lachmann’s reading were the original one); for the former, and not the latter, needed the definition. Abraham has really attained righteousness, only not , and in Rom 4:2 corresponds to the . Besides with our reading the latter connection is impossible.

The on its ethical side [959] is the material-psychic human nature as the life-sphere of moral weakness and of sinful power in man, partly as contrasted with the higher intellectual and moral nature of the man himself , which is his along with the (Rom 1:9 , Rom 7:18 ; Rom 7:25 , and see on Eph 4:23 ), and partly as opposed to the superhuman divine life-sphere and its operation, as here; see the sequel. Hence is: conformably to the bodily nature of man in accordance with its natural power , in contrast to the working of divine grace, by virtue of which the would not be , but , because taking place through the Spirit of God. Comp on Joh 3:6 . Since the are products of the human phenomenal nature and conditioned by its ethical determination, not originating from the divine life-element, they belong indeed to the category of the , and is the correlative of (wherefore also Paul continues, Rom 4:2 , . . . [961] ), but they do not exhaust the whole idea of it, as has often been assumed, following Theodoret ( , , ), and is still assumed by Reiche. Kllner, limiting it by anticipation from Rom 4:4 , holds that it refers to the human mode of earning wages by labour . Entirely opposed to the context, and also to the historical reference of Rom 4:3 , is the explanation of circumcision (Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, Estius, and others; including Koppe, Flatt, Baur, and Mehring), which Rckert also mixes up, at the same time that he explains it of the . Philippi also refers it to both.

On ., adeptum esse , comp , Soph. El. 1297, , Dem. 69, 1. The middle is still more expressive, and more usual; see Krger, 52, 10, 1, Xen. ii. 1, 8, and Khner in loc [963] The perfect infinitive is used, because Abraham is realised as present; see Rom 4:2 .

[954] Observe, in reference to ch. 4 (with Rom 3:31 ), of what fundamental and profound importance, and how largely subject to controversy, the relation of Christianity to Judaism was in the Apostolic age, particularly in the case of mixed churches. The minute discussion of this relation, therefore, in a doctrinal Epistle so detailed, cannot warrant the assumption that the church was composed mainly of Jews , or at least (Beyschlag) of proselytes .

[959] The most recent literature on this subject: Ernesti, Urspr. d. Snde , I. p. 71 ff.; Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, 3; Hahn, Thol. d. N. Test. I. p. 426 ff.; Delitzsch, Psychol . p. 374 ff.; Holsten, Bedeutung des Wortes im N. Test . 1855, and in Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 365 ff.; Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 96 ff.; and Neut. Theol. p. 142 f.; Wieseler on Gal. p. 443 ff.; Beck, Lehrwiss . 22; Kling in Herzog’s Encykl . IV. p. 419 ff.; Hofmann, Schriftbew . I. p. 557 ff.; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes , p. 80 ff.; also Ritschl, altkath. Kirche , p. 66 ff.; Luthardt, vom freien Willen , p. 394 ff.; Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. 1870, p. 8 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. 93; Philippi, Glaubensl . III. p. 207 ff., and the excursus thereon, p. 231 ff., Exo 2 . For the earlier literature see Ernesti, p. 50.

[961] . . . .

[963] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Rom 3:31 to Rom 4:24 . The harmony of the doctrine of justification by faith with the law, illustrated by what is said in the law regarding the justification of Abraham .

The new chapter should have begun with Rom 3:31 , since that verse contains the theme of the following discussion. If we should, with Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Melancthon, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, Tholuck, Kllner, Rckert, Philippi, van Hengel, Umbreit, and Mehring, assume that at Rom 4:1 there is again introduced something new, so that Paul does not carry further the , v. 31, but in Rom 4:1 ff. treats of a new objection that has occurred to him at the moment, we should then have the extraordinary phenomenon of Paul as it were dictatorially dismissing an objection so extremely important and in fact so very naturally suggesting itself, as . . [932] , merely by an opposite assertion, and then immediately, like one who has not a clear case, leaping away to something else. The more paradoxical in fact after the foregoing, and especially after the apparently antinomistic concluding idea in Rom 3:30 , the assertion must have sounded, the more difficult becomes the assumption that it is merely an anticipatory declaration abruptly interposed (see especially Philippi, who thinks that it is enlarged on at Rom 8:1 ff.); and the less can Rom 3:20 , . . be urged as analogous, since that proposition had really its justification there in what preceded. According to Th. Schott, is not meant to apply to the Mosaic law at all, but to the fact that, according to Rom 3:27 , faith is a , in accordance with which therefore Paul, when making faith a condition of righteousness, ascribes to himself not abrogation of the law, but rather an establishment of it, setting up merely what God Himself had appointed as the method of salvation. The discourse would thus certainly have a conclusion, but by a jugglery [933] with a word ( ) which no reader could, after Rom 3:28 , understand in any other sense than as the Mosaic law. Hofmann explains substantially in the same way as Schott. He thinks that Paul conceives to himself the objection that in the doctrine of faith there might be found a doing away generally of all law , and now in opposition thereto declares that that doctrine does not exclude, but includes, the fact that there is a divine order of human life (?).

[932] . . . .

[933] This objection in no way affects the question , ver. 27 (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) where the very placed along with it requires the general notion of .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Eighth Section.Second proof of the righteousness of faith: from the Scriptures, and particularly from the history of the faith of Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews. Abraham is the father of faith to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, because he was justified in uncircumcision as a Gentile, and because he received circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of faith. David is also a witness of the righteousness of faith. (He is particularly so, since his justification was that of a great sinner.) Abraham, by his faith in the word of the personal God of revelation, and particularly in the promise of Isaac, is a type of believers in the saving miracle of the resurrection.

Rom 4:1-25

1What [, then,] shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found [found according to the flesh]?1 2For if Abraham were [was] justified by works [as is assumed by the Jews], he hath whereof to glory [he hath ground of boasting];2 but not before God. 3For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted [reckoned] unto [to] him for righteousness 4[Gen 15:6]. Now to him that worketh [to the workman]3 is the reward not reckoned of [according to, or, as a matter of] grace, but of 5[according to, as a] debt. But to him that worketh not,4 but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted [reckoned] for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness [happiness]5 of the man, unto whom God 7imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed [Happy] are they whose 8iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered [atoned for]. Blessed [Happy] is the man to whom the Lord will not impute [reckon] sin [Psa 32:1-2].6

9Cometh this blessedness [happiness] then upon the circumcision only, or [also] upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received [Gen 17:2] the [a] sign of circumcision,7 [as?] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised [of the faith in the uncircumcision, , or, of the faith which he had while in uncircumcision]: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised [while yet in uncircumcision]; that righteousness might be imputed [reckoned also] unto them also:8 12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised [which he had while in uncircumcision].9

13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law [For not through (the) law is the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world], but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if they which [who] are of the law [ ] be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none [no] effect [rendered powerless]: 15Because the law worketh wrath: for where10 no law is, there 16is no transgression [but where there is no law, neither is there transgression of the law]. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end [in order that] the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations [A father of many nations have I set thee; Gen 17:5],) before him whom he believed,11 even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be [are] not as though they were:

18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the [omit the] father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be 19[Gen 15:5]. And being not weak in faith, he considered not12 his own body now [already]13 dead, when he was [being] about a hundred years old, neither 20yet the deadness of Sarahs womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief [But with regard to the promise of God he wavered, or, doubted not in unbelief]; but was [made] strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And14 being fully persuaded, that what he had [hath] promised, he was [is] 22able also to perform. And therefore [Wherefore also]15 it was imputed [reckoned] to him for righteousness.

23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed [reckoned] to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed [reckoned], if we believe on him that [who] raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered [up] for our offences, and was raised again [omit again] for our justification.16

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

General Remarks.The theocratical Scripture proof for the righteousness of faith promised to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Enlargement of the Mosaic economy of particularism by the development of the germ-like universality of the Abrahamic religion. Survey: 1. Abrahams justification was a justification by faith, and excluded justification by works. It was therefore only a justification of the sinner, as is shown by the beatitude prononuced by David (Rom 4:1-8). The opposite is the Jewish righteousness of works. 2. It was independent of circumcision and the law. Abraham did not obtain the blessedness of justifying faith in circumcision, but in uncircumcision; circumcision was then added to it as a seal of justification. Abraham was thereby set forth to be the father of the faithful, as well of the uncircumcised as of the circumcised (Rom 4:9-12). The opposite is Jewish particularism. 3. Justification is as universal as the promise, which constitutes even an antithesis to the law. Abrahams justification is to him and to his seed a promise of the inheritance of the world. This promise is not limited by the law. Such a limitation would make the promise void; for the law produces that wrath (), which looks rather to the destruction than the inheritance of the world. The promise is both conditioned and established by faith and grace (Rom 4:13-17). The opposite is Jewish legalism. 4. Abraham and Christians have in reality the same righteousness of faith. The analogy between Abrahams faith and that of his believing children,Christians: a. In relation to the same wonder-working God (Rom 4:17). b. In relation to the same conduct of faith: looking away from the contradiction of the natural life; strong confidence in the Divine word of revelation and promise (Rom 4:18-21). c. In reference to the same operation (Rom 4:22-25). The opposite is the external and superficial contemplation of the worldly sense.Or also: a. The faith of Abraham (Rom 4:17-22); b. Application to the faith of Christians (Rom 4:23-25). The opposite, in general, is the hierarchical formalism and ceremonialism.

First Paragraph, Rom 4:1-8

[Paul exhibits Abraham as a truly evangelical character, as a man of faith, in order to confirm the doctrine that the ground of our salvation lies not in us, but outside of us in the free grace of God, and that this must be apprehended first by faith, before we can do any good works. James, on the other hand (Rom 2:21 ff.), in opposition to a barren orthodoxy and mere notional belief, represents Abraham as a man of holy obedience, who proved his faith by works. In the one case he appears as the champion of the righteousness of faith, in the other as the champion of the righteousness of life. Both views are right. Paul goes to the root of the matter, the vital principle, which animated Abraham; James looks at the fruit produced thereby. Faith and works, righteousness and holiness, are as inseperable as light and heat, as the tree and the fruit, as cause and effect. Paul himself, after laying the only true foundation, as strongly insists upon a holy life as James. There is, in the Old Testament, an evangelical as well as a legal element; and the gospel, or promise, precedes the law which came in between the promise and the fulfilment (Rom 4:20). Abraham represents the evangelical element, as Moses does the legal. Abrahams faith differs from the Christian faith, as the promise differs from the fulfilment of the gospel salvation, and as hope differs from fruition; but the essential element, the ethical keynote, in both is unconditional confidence and trust in Gods truth and Gods mercy.P. S.]

Rom 4:1. What, then, shall we say. The announces an inference from the previous statement (Rom 3:29), that God is the God of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles, considered in relation to Abrahams history and its significance. But our inference is not a corroboration (Meyer), or confirmatio ab exemplo (Calvin). We have here rather a new proof, as deduced from the foregoing, namely, the explanation of Abrahams history and of Davids words of faith. Likewise Tholuck observes, the cannot be explained if, in accordance with the view of recent expositors, this verse be connected immediately with Rom 3:31 of the previous chapter.The construction: It may be asked, first, whether the question should be read as one question, or two? Grotius and others have placed an interrogation mark after , and thus made two questions out of the sentence. Then is supplied to .If the be taken absolutely in the sense of the Grecian philosophy, this division could be made more easily. Yet the chief question here is not, what should be said, but what is Abrahams advantage?It may further be asked, whether relates to () or to . Lachmanns reading: , &c., [see Textual Note1], is the one most favored by the Codd. (A. C. D., &c., and also the Sin.). The suspicion that the transposition of the [of rather.P. S.] is to be laid to the charge of the copyist, is strengthened when we see that such expositors as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Gennadius in cumenius, who read , nevertheless connect the latter with (Tholuck, p. 167). De Wette, Meyer [Tholuck, Alford, Wordsworth, Hodge], and most commentators, with the Peshito, connect , with , and not (according to Origen, Ambrose, Calvin,17 &c.) with . But in Rom 4:9 ff., the subject is circumcision; while in Rom 4:1-8, it is only the contrast between righteousness by works and righteousness by faith. Therefore, according to Meyers construction, should correspond to the , yet not so that the two ideas should be identical, but that works should be embraced in the more general idea of . The , in antithesis to the divine , should then denote humanity given up to itself. Pelagius, Ambrose, and others, refer to circumcision. Rckert understands the word as embracing both circumcision and . While Tholuck consents to the now customary connection of the with , he does not grant that the works of faithful Abraham were ; although Flacius would include likewise the opera renati, as performed by men and not imputed by God, in the opera carnis; and Bullinger and others would make equal to . Tholuck therefore arrives at the conclusion, that Paul did not design to apply Christian justification in all its consequences to the patriarch. But how could he represent him here as the father of the faithful, if he would belittle or limit his justification? We go upon the supposition that, in accordance with the best Codd., (Rom 4:1) is an antithesis to , &c. (Rom 4:11), and to (Rom 4:16). The principal subject is, therefore, Abraham, the natural ancestor of the Jews; and if it be asked, What hath he found? the emphasis rests on , and this refers to the (Rom 3:28), and especially to Rom 3:29 also. As God is a God of the Jews and Gentiles, Abraham, the of the Jews, has become a of Jews and Gentiles.

Rom 4:2. For if Abraham was justified [] by works [in the opinion of the Jews]. The answer assumes that the view that Abraham was justified by the works of the law, was already denied in the question. Yet this very thing was believed by the legalistic Jew. In the Talmud it was even deduced from Gen 26:5, that Abraham observed the whole Mosaic law (Meyer).18 The answer does not therefore assume an [omitted before ] or an (Tholuck), because [Rom 4:1] does not stand in connection with , [? comp. Textual Note1.P. S.] To the question, Which of the two kinds of righteousness? it assumes the conclusion, that it was not the imaginary righteousness of works, but the true righteousness of faith. The supposition is so plain, that the Apostle proceeds at once to the proof.Was justified by works. The sense can be: if he should be so justified, it could only be at a human tribunal, and not at the tribunal of Godas has been already described. But it can also be understood thus: if Abraham, according to the national prejudice of the Jews, has been really justified by works. This is the more obvious view. Conceding this kind of justification, Abraham has a (materiam gloriandi), but not before God. Not before God, first, because no flesh is justified by works in His sight (Rom 3:20); second, because we know definitely from the Scriptures that Abraham was justified in Gods sight, or at His tribunal, by faith. The is made by Beza, Grotius, and others, to refer to a general opinion pronounced on Abraham; but by Calvin, Calov., and others, to an imaginary opinion, under the supposition of an incomplete conclusion (the major: he who is justified by works hath whereof to glory. The minor: but not before God. The necessary concluding statement: therefore Abraham is not justified by works).19 Tholuck thinks, with Meyer, that reference to God cannot disappear from , and he follows him, with Theodoret, in explaining thus: For if Abraham has been justified by God through works, he has certainly receivedthe perfect fulfilment of the law being granted,glory, but not a divine glory, so far as such glory could not be traced back to Gods grace. This explanation contradicts the previous suppositions: 1. That no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law (Rom 3:20); 2. That no external fulfilment of the law in the sense of is conceivable, but only in the sense of . A plain remark may aid in the understanding of this difficult passage: that , always refers to a definite tribunal, but that this tribunal may be very different according to the different relations of . Thus the tribunal of Jewish national prejudice already mentioned was very different from that of the theocratical communion of faith itself, which the passage in Jam 2:23 has in view (see the Commentary on James, chap. 2. Also, Psa 106:31, on the justification of Phinehas). It has been counted to him for righteousnessfrom generation to generation, see Tholuck, p. 172, thereon. What Theodoret says is certainly true: that true justification before God must glorify the love of God; but for this very reason no other mode of justification before God is conceivable. (Singular explanation of Semler and others: Has he glory? No; before God, not! Protestation.)

Rom 4:3. For what saith the Scripture? Paul makes a true representation of Abraham in accordance with the Scriptures, in opposition to the false representation of the Jews.20[But Abraham believed God, and it (viz., the believing, , which must be supplied from ) was reckoned to him for righteousness, , . Gen 15:6, Sept. The emphasis lies on , placed first, or the faith of Abraham as distinct from works and as excluding merit on the part of man. , to reckon, or count, or impute to any one as righteousness, and consequently to treat him as righteous, is identical with (see p. 130). On the controversy whether Abraham was justified per fidem (through the instrumentality of faith), as the Protestants rightly teach, or propter fidem (on account of the merit of his faith), as the Romanists assert; compare the remarks of Tholuck, p. 173 ff.; also the note of Alford in loc. Hodge enters here into a lengthy discussion of the doctrine of imputation, pp. 164175, partly polemical against Olshausen.P. S.] The quotation of Gen 15:6, is from the Seputagint which has changed the active verb into the passive . Paul uses the more prominent expression instead of the of the Septuagint. Different explanations: 1. Rckert: Paul incorrectly used the passage for his purpose. 2. Roman Catholic expositors (and Bucer): Abraham submitted to the authority of Gods word, and that gave value to his faith. 3. Faith in the promise of a large posterity was, in view of its object, faith in the promise of the Messiah who was to come forth from his posterity (A Lapide, Calvin, Gerhard, Calov., and others). 4. Implicit faith in the Divine promise (Bullinger, and others). Tholuck adopts this view, though with hesitation. Delitzsch, on Gen 15:5, having more regard for the historical interpretation, says: Every thing was contained in the person of Jehovah and in the promise of a numerous posterity to Abraham, which was separately disclosed and fulfilled in the New Testament time of redemption. But faith in a numerous posterity cannot effect the same nova obedientia as faith in a Christus satispatiens and satisfaciens can effect. [Tholuck, p. 173.] Further particulars on the nova obedientia of Abraham may be read in Genesis 22. According to Tholuck, we should not introduce into the faith of Abraham the faith in the Messiah. But yet we must not reject it. According to the promise in Gen 12:3, the question in Gen 15:5the passage here in mindcould not be the promise of a merely natural posterity. It is certainly consistent with the principles of historical interpretation, when we are considering later decisions, to look back at the earlier ones which lie at their root. Meyer [p. 161] more appropriately remarks: In the on the part of Abraham, Paul has perceived nothing really different from Christian ; since Abrahams faith referred to the Divine promise, and Indeed to the promise which heone who was the friend of God, and illuminated by Himhas perceived to be the promise which embraced the future Messiah (Joh 8:56).

Yet, under the supposition of the substantial identity between the faith of Abraham and that of Christians, we shall need to lay stress on the difference in form: The faith of Abraham is the essential beginning of the specific faith of salvation in the Old Testament; the faith of Paul and his companions is the completion of the same in the New. Faith in general, as well as in each of its particular parts, undergoes a great metamorphosis in its passage from that initial point to this terminal point.
But it remains the same faith in substance. And the peculiarity of this substance is, that the Divine object, and its human organic reception, constitute an indissoluble christological synthesis. The objective parts are: a. The personal God of revelation in His revelation; and especially as the creative, wonder-working God, who can call forth new salvation and life; b. His word of promise; c. The import of His word of promisethe future salvation of the nations with the seed of Abraham. Corresponding with these, are the subjective parts: a. The living knowledge, perception, and reception of the revealed God; b. Confident submission to the words of promise, against all the contradiction of sense and worldly appearance; c. The appropriation of the object of the promise as the principle and energy of the renewed life.

The operations correspond to this harmony of object and subject: 1. Justification. Freedom of conscience before God, according to the measure of the condemnation of conscience. The peace of God, Gen 15:2. The sacramental, symbolical seal, Genesis 17, see Rom 4:11. 3. Confidence, and acquirement of new life from condemnation to death, or even from death itselfinternal death.

All these separate parts exist as germs in Abrahams faith. De Wette, after an ill-founded remark on the Apostles arbitrary dialectics and scriptural application, admirably says: When the Apostle in this way unites the climax of religious development with the historical point of connectionfor the developing series commenced with Abrahamhe gives evidence of great historical penetration. Comp. the Commentary on Genesis , 1 Gen 5:1-12.

Rom 4:4. Now to the workman [ , Lange: Dem aber, welcher den Werkdienst treibt]. The statements of Rom 4:6-7 are two sentences, which establish the doctrine of justification by faith, as well in its divine as in its human character. The work does not reach up to God, His grace, or His heaven; but it belongs to the sphere of gain, and makes the remunerator the debtorwhich cannot be said of God without impiety. But as Gods grace is exalted above the claims of merit, so is mans faith exalted. The believer does not rely on merit, but on the gracious strength of Him who justifies the ungodly, and he receives the righteousness in proportion to his faith. The first sentence establishes negatively, that Abraham, according to his relation to God, could not be justified by works; the second sentence establishes positively, that justification presupposes a relation of Gods grace to the sinner. It is therefore clearly intimated that Abraham was a sinner; besides, the introduction of David and his testimony proves conclusively that the justification is that of the sinner. But the root of the antithesis is in the and the ; it is the continuation of the contrast in Rom 2:7-8. Those who strive untiringly, seek God as their only end; but partisans oppose God by their claims. The is not the active man, whose characteristic is works (Meyer), but he whose righteousness consists only of works, who relies on the merit of his works, and whose basis of confidence and pride are works. Therefore, his counterpart is not an , but a .

Is the reward () not reckoned according to (as a matter of) grace ( ). That is, the earned reward, in accordance with the law of wages and labor. The is a very flexible idea; in the case of works, denoting a literal settling up, a payment, according to the external quantitative relations; and in the case of faith, a respectful valuation or reward, according to the internal qualitative relations. But even in the latter case, there is no fiction, no untruth, but a decision in strict conformity with the actual condition. He who makes God his debtor for service rendered, reverses the poles of spiritual life; he conceits that God exists for his sake, and for the sake of his external work. Therefore, the mere worker becomes a culpable debtor in the judgment of God. Faith is the return to the normal relation with God. Here God is the absolute majesty, the justifier, the source, the giver of all things, the infinitely merciful; and before Him the believer stands in the sense of absolute need, dependence, poverty, impurity, and guilt. But when the believer commits himself to the burning and delivering arms of Gods love, his guilt vanishes as the cloud before the sun.Not according to grace, but according to (as a) debt. The really declines grace; he claims a reward for his merit. And in the same way will his reward be reckoned according to his debt. , the debitum, according to the relations of reward.It is plain that such a relation did not apply to Abraham, from the fact that, according to Rom 4:3, he obtained Gods grace; and this in a definite case, where the question could not be one of merit (Genesis 15.).

Rom 4:5. But to him that worketh not (for hire), &c. Meyer properly remarks, in opposition to Reiche, who refers the statement directly to Abraham,21 that the sentence is a locus communis, and that it is left to the reader whether he will include Abraham in it or not. But, according to Paul, Abraham has certainly included himself. In the same way, Meyer properly observes that , ungodly, must not be diluted into , unrighteous. Faith perceives that the foundation of the is the (Rom 1:21), alienation from God; and, because of its deeper knowledge of sin, applies to the grace of God. The cannot merely denote a faith in the direction toward some one, but a believing self-surrender on the ground of Gods grace (Act 16:31, &c).

Rom 4:6. Even as David. The introduction of David completely establishes the fact that the justification of man is a justification of the sinner, and that the believer perceives his sins; for, in relation to David, both his guilt and pardon were conceded by the Jews. And now David must also testify to this truth. Even as () indicates that David is quoted for the elucidation and proof of what has been said already in Rom 4:4-5. He is quoted, not as a universal example of justification in general, but in special proof that it is such a justification of the sinner as excludes the merit of works. [Rom 4:7-8 prove clearly that the forgiveness of sins belongs to justification; but this is only the negative part, with which is inseparably connected the positive part, namely, the imputation and application of the righteousness of Christ, and this contains the germ and power of sanctification.P. S.] Tholuck: By the negative statement, Calvin was led to insist that the idea of the justificatio is exhausted with the condonatio peccatorum (Inst. iii. 11). The same thing is done by the Protestant doctrinal theology before the Formula Concordiwhich first expressly added the , which is really included therein. Compare, however, the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 60.22 The beatitude from Psa 32:1-2 is quoted from the Septuagint. [See Textual Note6] The choice of verbs in Rom 4:7 corresponds to the substantives. The is a debt doomed to prison; it is released, and thus abolished; the is the ground of it, and is covered from Gods eye ( ,)that is, abolished by Him.

Second Paragraph (Rom 4:9-12)

Justification applies also to the Gentiles. It is a justification for all.

Rom 4:9. (Is) this blessedness [ , the pronouncing happy, congratulation, Seligpreisung], then, upon the circumcision. The question now is, whether the beatitude described by David applies only to the Jews. The expositors have supplied different words: Tholuck [Stuart, Philippi, Meyer, ed. 4.], and others, ; Meyer23 [Fritzsche, De Wette, Alford, Hodge], [comp. Heb 7:13; Mar 9:12], with reference to Rom 4:6 (others, [Theophylact], [cumenius], [Olshausen], ). The has less foundation than . [It is always safer to supply the simplest word.P. S.]Or also upon the uncircumcision? The also shows that the previous clause is to be understood in the exclusive sense: upon the circumcision only. [Some MSS. add, .P. S.]For we say. The presupposes that the Apostle has already mentally expected an affirmative reply to the question, Or upon the uncircumcision also? [The form of the question, too, with , presupposes an affirmative answer to the second clause, and this implied affirmation is made the ground of the argumentation, Rom 4:10-12. De Wette and Alford.P. S.] The . is certainly emphatic, as Fritzsche, De Wette [Alford], and others, maintain, though Meyer denies it; for the whole of the following argument proceeds from the person of Abraham. [For we say that to Abraham faith was reckoned for righteousness.P. S.]

Rom 4:10. Not in circumcision, but. According to Genesis 15, Abraham was justified about fourteen years before his circumcision, Genesis 17 [Consequently his circumcision was not the effective cause and condition, but the Divine ratification of grace already received.P. S.]

Rom 4:11. And he received a sign of circumcision [ 24]. Genitive of apposition [i.e., a sign which consisted in circumcision. Van Hengel and Hofmann, preferring the reading to , explain: As a sign he receiver circumcision, as a seal ( in apposition to ). Meyer objects that in the first case, , in the second, , ought to have the article, and explains: Ein Zeichen mit welchem er durch die Beschneidung versehen ward, cmpfing er als Siegeli.e., a sign, with which he was provided in circumcision, he received as seal. But the article is sometimes omitted where the reference is specific, and where there is no danger of mistake; comp. Winer, p. 118 f. , sign, token, symbol, . Circumcision was the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, Gen 17:11; God, on His part, promising the Messianic (Gen 15:5; Gen 15:18), and Abraham, on his part, exercising the obedience of faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). Hence Paul represents it as a seal of the righteousness of faith. This was not only a legitimate dogmatic inference (Meyer), but, as Tholuck remarks, a historical necessity, since the sign of the covenant was granted in consequence of the faith previously shown.P. S.]The seal. The seal denotes here the symbolical and sacramental sealing; from this, the real sealing of Abraham, which was given him after the offering of Isaac, Gen 22:1, is still to be distinguished (see the Biblework on Genesis 22.). It is also represented in the Talmud as the sign and seal of the covenant. See Schttgen and Wetstein in loc. These words belonged to the formula of circumcision: Benedictus sit, qui sanctificavit dilectum ab utero, et signum () posuit in carne, et filios suos sigillavit () signo fderis sancti; Beracoth, f. Rom 13:1. Meyer [foot-note]. Christian writers [Acta Thom, 26; Grabe, Spicileg. Patr. i., p. 333] speak in the same way of the water of baptism as a seal [ . A seal here means a mark of Divine ratification of a justification already received, a signaculum rei act, not a pignus rei agend; comp. 1Co 9:2; 2Ti 2:19. We have here an intimation of the true idea of sacraments: they are signs, seals, and means of grace, but not the grace itself. Circumcision is not the covenant, neither is baptism regeneration. A sign and seal can never be the substitute for the thing signed and sealed, nor should it be made a ground of confidence and hope; but it is all-important as a Divine ratification, and gives, so to say, legal validity to our claims, as the governmental seal to a written instrument. Without the seal of circumcision, Abraham would have had no certain guarantee of the Divine favor; and if justification by faith is abstractly separated from the church and the means of grace, it becomes a subjective fiction of man.P. S.]That he might be the father. The spiritual father is meant here. Abraham is the father of faith. The conception of author, founder, is also contained in that of father; comp. Job 38:28; Gen 4:21; 1Ma 2:54; Tholuck.On the idea of Abrahams spiritual children, see Mat 3:9; Joh 8:37-38. Gal 3:8; Gal 3:29. is a parallel.That righteousness might be reckoned also to them. This means the sense in which Abraham, as a believing Gentile, has become the father of believing Gentiles.

Rom 4:12. And the father of circumcision. Prominence is here given to the life of faith, the proof of faith, in connection with circumcision for faith. We remark on the language: 1. must be mentally repeated after . 2. , the dative commodi [for those], comes in the place of faith. 3. Instead of , we should expect without the article. Tholuck: The is an unexampled solecism in the Apostles language. Theodoret, Hervus, Luther, and others, have assumed a transposition: , instead of . Meyer and Tholuck reject this. Rckert defends the supposition of a transposition; Fritzsche excuses the article; Reiche defends it [so does Stuart; both regard it as a resumption of the sentence begun with the preceding , and interrupted by the , .P. S.] It may be asked, whether , could be said. And this would certainly be practicable, if we could place after . They are not only the people of the circumcision, but also those who walk, &c. The faith of the real Jews is not only here made prominent, but also their life of faith; no doubt with reference to the fact that these believing Jews, like Abraham, should be the humane publishers of salvation to the Gentiles. [ , the dative after is not local, but normative; comp. Gal 5:16; Gal 5:25; Gal 6:16; Php 3:16; Meyer.P. S.]

Third Paragraph (Rom 4:13-17)

Rom 4:13. For not through (the) law is the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should he the heir of the world. (See Galatians 3.) Rom 4:13 does not simply establish the preceding (Meyer), since that is established of itself. The foregoing statement is indeed strengthened by the discussion which now follows (therefore: for); but the latter also sets forth a new privilege of the righteousness of faith, namely, its release from the law. See De Wette.Not through the law. The law declared only the possession of Canaan by the Jews; but the promise which Abraham received pledged to him and his believing children the whole earth as an inheritance.Through the law; that is, not per justitiam legis (Pareus, and others), but with the Mosaic legislation. [De Wette and Afford: , not, under the law, nor, by works of the law, nor, by the righteousness of the law; but, through the law, so that the law should be the ground, or efficient cause, or medium, of the promise.P. S.]The promise (sc. ) to Abraham, or to his seed. This is the great Messianic . The , or, expresses the indivisibility of the promise to Abraham and his seedthat is, his believing seed (Gal 3:9)and cannot be replaced by , or be divided thus: neither to Abraham nor his seed (Meyer). Abraham inherits with his seed, and his seed inherits with Abraham (see Mat 8:11; Hebrews 11). According to Estius, Olshausen, and others, the seed is Christ, conformably to Gal 3:16. Meyer says: Not Christ; which is just as incorrect as the limitation of the seed to Christ.That he should be the heir of the world [ ]. The introduces an explanatory declaration of the import of the promise. The refers to Abraham, because he, in his person, represents also his seed. In the promises, Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8; Gen 22:17-18, the blessing bestowed on Abraham in chap. 11. is expressly transferred to his seed; Tholuck. It may be asked now, Where has this promise of the possession of the world been given to Abraham? The promises which the Old Testament furnishes in reference to the hereditary possession of Abraham seem to include only the land of Canaan; Gen 12:7 : Unto thy seed will I give this land (Canaan); Gen 13:14-15 : Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever; Gen 15:18 : From the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates; Gen 17:8; All the land of Canaan; Gen 22:17 : Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies (comp. Gen 26:3, the repetition of the promise to Isaac; and Exo 6:4, the legal establishment). In all these there is no promise of the inheritance of the world. It is not correct to consider and as identical. Thus Meyer says: The hereditary possession of the land of Canaan, which was promised to Abraham and his posterity (Gen 12:7, &c.), was regarded in the Jewish christology as the government of the world by the Messianic theocracy, which was supposed to be typically indicated in Genesis 22. Abrahamo patri meo Deus possidendum dedit clum et terram; Tanchuma, p. 163, 1; see also Wetstein. The idea of the Messianic sovereignty of the world, which underlies this Jewish particularistic view, is not set aside in the New Testament, but it is brought out by Christ Himself (Mat 5:5) in allegorical form (Mat 19:28 ff.; Luk 22:30; Mat 25:21), divested of its Judaistic notion, and elevated to christological truth. It is necessary, because of the universal sovereignty to which Christ Himself is exalted (Mat 28:18; Joh 17:5; Php 2:9; Eph 4:10, &c.); and because of the necessary communion between His disciples and Himself. But we can hardly suppose that the Apostle would here apply against the Jews the promise of the land of Canaan to the Jews, in its higher signification. We must keep in view the significant passage, Gen 22:17-18 : Blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemy. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Here we have the germ of the same promise (Origen, Chrysostom, Bengel, and others). Superiority is declared by the very position of the one who blesses, and the earth itself is meant by the nations of the earth. Tholuck remarks, on the contrary, that by we must then understand the itself, so far as it is led to faith, and that this cannot be regarded at once as and . But the , as the organ of the worlds conversion, must be distinguished from the , as the converted world. God is the inheritance of believers, as believers are the inheritance of God. De Wette, in summing up the different explanations, says: is not an indefinite allegorical blessedness (Flatt); not the reception of all nations into the theocracy (Melanchthon, Beza, Bengel, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c.); not the possession of Canaan and some adjacent countries, qu felicitas arcanam gerebat imaginem tern felicitatis (Grotius); nor of the earth (Rosenmller, Koppe, Kllner, Rckert), in the sense of the political sovereignty of the world; nor is it a possession of the future world (Calov.25); still less of the beneficia spiritualia (Bald.), or sub typo terr Canaan non modo spes clestis vit, sed plena et solida Dei benedictio (Calvin); but it is the dominion over the world, which, with all its opposing forces, shall be subjected to Christ and the Christians (Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche). Obviously too many negations!We must bear in mind, that in the Messianic promise given to Abraham the struggle and the dominion are indicated only finally; the chief idea is the blessing. If all the nations of the earth were to be really blessed by Abrahams seed, then his seed must be able to dispose of a world of blessing. [The promise will be literally fulfilled when the kingdoms of the world are given to the people of the Most High, and Christ will rule with His saints forever and ever; Dan 7:27; Rev 11:15; Rev 12:10; Mat 5:5; 2Ti 2:12.P. S.]By the righteousness of faith. This was the fundamental gift by which the promise of the world was conditioned. Meyer thinks that, because of the date of the justification, Genesis 15. [i.e., after the promise had been given; Gen 12:3; Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15-16.P. S.], Paul must have here in mind only later passages [Rom 15:18; Gen 17:8, where the promise is repeated.P. S.]. But, according to Genesis 12., Abrahams life of faith had begun at the time of his emigration. [The faith of Abraham covered the whole period of the promise, which was made and repeatedly confirmed to his faith.P. S.]

Rom 4:14. For if they who are of the law. Proof that Abrahams believing children, but not they who, in contrast with them, rely on the law and its deeds, shall inherit the world. The , according to Flatt, the moral law; according to Meyer, the Mosaic law; both, according to Tholuck. The Apostle is certainly not concerned here exclusively with the idea of the Mosaic , as such, but rather with the idea of the legal standpoint, or of the law, considered abstractly in itself, and in contrast with the promise. And it may be said of the natural moral law, too, that it worketh wrath. () are not people who are still under the law as such, but whose life-principle is the law, and who wish to be justified by the law. [ , those of law = adherents of the law, legalists. This periphrase is of frequent occurrence; comp. , those of self-seeking = self-seeking partisans; Rom 2:8; , the circumcised; Rom 4:12; Tit 1:10; Act 10:45; Act 11:2; , the believers; Gal 3:7; Gal 3:9; Rom 4:16; , the Israelites; Rom 9:6; &c.; comp. Xenoph., Anab. Rom 1:2; Rom 1:18, , the market people. The preposition (out of) indicates here the origin and character.P. S.]Be heirs, faith is made void. At the time when this decisive word was uttered, it had not only a great spiritual, but also a great prophetical meaning. Judging from external signs, it was more probable that the Jews, rather than the Christians, would inherit the earth. They had a powerful prominence, wide dissemination, and synagogues all over the world. But the Apostle was sure of his cause, and wished clearly to distinguish the future of faith from the future of that darkened legalism. Yet his thought is not; if the legalists are heirs, believers cannot be; but if the legalists are heirs, there will be no inheritance of the promise at all. Faith is made voidthat is, it loses its import, the righteousness of faithby wrath in the conscience; the promise is made powerless by the wrath of historical judgments, because it was only intended for faith.

Rom 4:15. Because the law worketh wrath. The operation of the law is to reveal sin and to represent it as transgression, as well in the conscience as in the life itself. Therefore it produces wrath, which, according to the Divine sentence and government, bursts forth from the internal and external life as the severe judgment of dissolution and of death. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression (of the law); and where there is no transgression, there is no wrath. But inversely, the law fully reveals transgression, and, with transgression, wrath and condemnation to death. The proof that the law worketh wrath, is therefore negative. This operation is meant to apply first of all to the Mosaic law, as is proved by Rom 5:13-14, particularly by the distinction between and (see 1Ti 2:14; Gal 3:19). Tholuck quotes Augustine: Sine lege potest esse quis iniquus, sed non prvaricator, and says that this difference has generally been observed ever since. But where it has not been observed, such have arisen, as with Luther (on Gal 3:19), who introduces, from Rom 7:5; Rom 5:20, the thought that the lust of sin is dormant without the law. Tholuck also properly remarks, that the axiom of Rom 5:13, , can be understood only relatively of a less quantity of guilt, as is proved by the judgment of the Deluge, and other judgments. He quotes Thomas Aquinas: Et tamen omne peccatum potest dici prvaricatio, in quantum legem naturalem transgreditur. [But Thomas adds: Gravius tamen est transgredi simul legem naturalem et legem scriptam, quam solam legem natur. Et ideo lege data crevit prvaricatio et majorem iram promeruit.] Yet the of Rom 5:13 is to be emphasized so as to denote Gods real reckoning with the sinner by His law, which first causes the natural punishment of the sinner to assume the clear blaze of wrath. Man can obtain salvation only by this passage through the judgment of death. For this reason the Apostle does not deny the necessity of the law; but with him it is a means for an end, and constitutes the pedagogic point of transition for the pious under the law ( , Rom 6:14-15). But people of the law ( ), who seek justification (Rom 4:2) because they are in feeling (Rom 2:8), make the means an end. They seek their life in the single precepts and observance of the law, in pride in the possession of the law, and in the settlement of their account with God; and by this course they find their existence in the fire of wrath, but, unlike the salamander, they find no comfort in the fire. They do not make the law their preparation for faith, but the antithesis of faith; and they endeavor, by the fire of their fanaticism, to entice from a joyous and bright life those who are happy in faith, and to draw them into their own gloomy heat. For other explanations of , see Tholuck. Cocceius: The ceremonial law is the emanation of wrath; J. Mller: must be understood subjectivelythe consciousness of wrath; Melanchthon: The is the sinners wrath toward the avenging God.

Rom 4:16. Therefore it is of faith. The inference from Rom 4:14-15. That cannot be; therefore this must stand true. . Supply: (Beza, Bengel); . (Grotius, Fritzsche, Tholuck in earlier editions, and others); (Luther); or, better, (Meyer, De Wette, and Tholuck, referring to Rom 4:14, where and appear as antitheses). This last seems the most appropriate; yet in Rom 4:14 we read not , but ; and further on it is . Therefore, we must merely supply either r .That it might be by grace. Faith is here plainly denoted the homogeneous organ of grace. It is grace, and not mans faith, that is the source of that general surety of Gods promise; but grace makes faith the organ, just as wrath manifests itself in the work of the law. denotes here the consistency of the principle of faith, which certainly rests upon a Divine determination. Tholuck supplies .

In order that the promise might be sure to all the seed [ ]. The denotes the result designed by Godthat the promise of His grace be communicated to faith. By this determination the fact is secured, that the promise holds good for his collective seedthat is, for his entire spiritual posterity.Not to that only which is of the law, &c. The denotes here the historical origin of the whole body of faithful Jews. The ,as antithesis, denotes the faithful Gentiles. They form a totality by which Abraham is the father of all (see Rom 4:11-12).

Rom 4:17. As it is written. Gen 17:5; where a natural posterity of many nations is promised to Abraham in relation to his name.26 Yet this promise has its ground in his faith (Rom 4:18-19), and hence Paul very properly regarded it as the type of his spiritual posterity. The spiritual relation is also implied in the Divine appointment, .[It was] in the sight of him whom he believed [ 27]. On account of the connection with what has preceded, the difficult word must be here explained [as far as the construction is concerned]. 1. Luther follows the reading [before God, whom thou hast believed] of the Codd. F. G., It., and others, and finds here a continuation of Gods words. An attempt to explain the connection. 2. Bretschneider: in view of which word, sc. . 3. Meyer, Tholuck [Alford, Hodge], and others: The quotation, , is parenthetical [so also in the E. V.], and must be connected with [i.e., Abraham is the father of us all, not physically, but spiritually, in the sight and estimation of God, with whom there are no obstacles of nature or time.P. S.] Meyer [and also Winer, Gramm., p. 156, 7th ed.] thus resolves the attraction: , [i.e., before God, before whom, or, in whose sight he believed], according to the analogous attraction of Luk 1:4; and rejects the more common resolution [adopted also by Fritzsche] of the attraction , [before God, whom he believeda form of attraction with the dative, which is very unusual; see Winer, p. 156, and Meyer in loc.P. S.]. See Meyer, for other attempts at construction. But what are we to understand by the expression: he is the father of us all before God? The idea of a substitution by Abraham, which might easily be inferred from the language, would be foreign to the Apostle. 4. We supply [before ], and explain thus: As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations; it took place in the presence of God, or, it came to pass there, in the place where he stood believing before God, that he was made the father of many nations; before Him, namely, God, &c. He who is justified, who receives Gods promise, stands before God. [Philippi, without parenthesizing , supplies after this quotation: And as suchviz., as father of nationshe stands in the sight of God, &cP. S.]

Fourth Paragraph (Rom 4:17-25)

A.Abrahams Faith (Rom 4:17-22)

Rom 4:17. Before him whom he believed, even God. Explanations of coram [, literally, down over against, opposite to, like the classical ; then = , coram, so here, and often in the LXX., for P. S.]: 1. According to the will (Reiche). 2. According to the decision (Rckert, and others). 3. Vi atque potestate divina (Koppe). 4. Before Gods omniscience (Olshausen). 5. Meyer [p. 173, footnote]: We must leave it without explanation. Abraham is represented as standing before God who has appeared to him. But it denotes the first element of the Abrahamic faith. Abraham, as the friend of God, stands in the view of the living God of revelation, the speaking God, who is at the same time the God of miracles and new creations; and it is while Abraham is there, that he is appointed the father of many nations. (Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, have explained as equal to ; Grotius has divided the sentence into question and answer; see Meyer). , standing before Him, he believed the promise on the spot.

Who quickeneth the dead. [The present tense and is used to indicate the continued manifestation of Gods creative power in every physical and in every spiritual birth.P. S.] The is the solemn characteristic of the omnipotent God, says Meyer. The doctrine of the omnipotence of God, as the wonder-working power of the God of revelation, has been directed from the beginning to the consummation of the revelation in the resurrection of Christ, and subsequently to the special and general resurrection (Eph 1:19 ff.). This is evident from those passages of the Old Testament which represent the wonder-working power of God as a power to bring the dead to life, produced by it (Deu 32:39; 1Sa 2:6; Isa 26:19; Isa 53:10; Eze 37:1 ff.; Hos 13:14; Dan 12:1-2; comp. Book of Wis 16:13; Tob 13:2; Joh 5:21; 2Co 1:9; 1Ti 6:13). The Apostle, with profound penetration, sees this miraculous power which raises the dead to life, foreshadowed already in the promise of Isaac. For he does not have in view the offering of Isaac (according to Erasmus, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), although the stronger expression seems to have been selected also with reference to that last believing act of Abraham. Neither is the awakening of the spiritually dead chiefly meant (according to Origen, Anselm, and others). Nevertheless, we would not, with Meyer, altogether reject these explanations as false; for the external awakenings stand in the most intimate reciprocal relation with the internal. In fact, the former are generally conditioned by the latter; as we see that Abraham had to believe first in the promise given to him.

And calleth those things, which are not, as though they were [literally, calling things not being, as being, . differs from in that it presents the non-existence as conditional: if they are not; or as relative only, inasmuch as all things prexist ideally and subjectively in the Divine mind before they are created and set forth objectively.P. S.]. Two explanations:28 1. Reference to the creative agency of God (Tholuck, and most expositors). often denotes Gods creative call, to summon into being, into existence (Isa 41:4; Isa 48:13; 2Ki 8:1; Book of Wis 11:25; comp. Psa 33:9). Philo [De creat. princ., p. 728 B.]: . This explanation admits of several modifications: a. The first creative act is thought of (Estius). b. Gods continued creation is in mind (Kllner; reference to the particip. prs.). c. A constant attribute of God is denoted (Tholuck). Meyer holds that this whole interpretation is destroyed by the ; for, in the New Testament, is nowhere the same as . Yet Tholuck adduces proof in favor of the signification . [He refers to 1Co 1:8; 2Co 3:6; 1Th 5:23; Jude 24. Comp. Php 3:21, where the accusative , like unto his glorious body, is the accusative of effect = so as to be like.P. S.] De Wette: can indeed not be a substitute for = , but it can be a substitute for , or for (Reiche, and others). 2. Meyer, and others (Rckert, Philippi): Who pronounces his enacting command over what does not exist, as over what does exist.29 It is not necessary to prove that, even in reference to the creation, this is the full sense (see Heb 11:3); the ideal prexistence of things in the mind of God is therewith intimated. Nevertheless, the idea of the to call into existence, or into appearancemust be retained. Meyer holds that the things which are not, that God called into existence, are, according to Genesis 15, the posterity of Abraham. But Abrahams faith undoubtedly presupposed earlier deeds of omnipotence. The elements of Gods creative power, and of His renewing power, are comprehended together in the conception of His miraculous power. The creative word is a symbol and pledge of every new creative word which is spoken subsequently.

Rom 4:18. Who against hope believed in hope [ ]. Faith in miracles, which is itself a miracle, corresponds to the gracious God who worketh miracles. Established on the ground of hope, he believed against the appearance of hope. Meyer solves the oxymoron incorrectly: Abrahams faith was against hope in an objective relation, and yet it was established on hope in a subjective relation. Tholucks view is better: His faith is a Yea established on the word of God, in opposition to the No in the sphere of finite causes. , 1Co 9:10. [ is not adverbial = confidently, but signifies the subjective ground of his faith. Faith is the organ of the supernatural, and holds fast to the Invisible as if it saw Him. Hope is faith itself, as directed to the future.P. S.].

That he might become. Three explanations of : 1. Of the resultso that he might become (Flatt, Fritzsche, and others). 2. He believed that he should be. That is, . is the object of . (Beza, Reiche, and others). 3. It contains the purpose of the . ordained by God (Meyer, and others). This is favored by the following . [So also Alford, Hodge: He believed, in order that, agreeably to the purpose of God, he might become the father of many nations.]According to that which was spoken. See, in Gen 15:5, the reference to the stars of heaven. Codd. F. and G. insert the comparison: as the stars of heaven, and as the sand upon the sea-shore (the latter from Gen 22:17).

Rom 4:19. And being not weak in faith. A meiosis [, diminution], according to Theophylact and Beza [i.e., the negative form for the positive: being strong. So also Tholuck and Meyer.] The sense is rather that, in the long trial, his faith did not grow weary, but stronger, in spite of the difficulties in his path.He considered [not, ], . Tholuck says: The omission of the in important MSS., such as A. C. [to which must be added Cod. Sin. and B.P. S.], the Syriac Version, and others, was occasioned by having regard to Gen 17:17, where Abraham does certainly reflect upon finite causes. For this reason the sense was thought to be, that he reflected without being weak in faith. But Paul had in view only Gen 15:5-6, according to which Abraham accepted the promise at once without hesitation. [So also Meyer.] But Paul means plainly a steadfast faith, which became more vigorous by the trial of many years of waiting, and whose strength was augmented by the temptations occurring in the meantime.30His own body now dead. Abraham was more than ninety-nine years old when the promise was fulfilled (after the circumcision, Gen 17:24), and Sarah was more than ninety years old. The terms and , in reference to generative death (Heb 11:12), must not be taken absolutely, but be considered according to the measure of experience and the usual course of nature. Bengel: Post Semum (Shem) nemo centum annorum generasse Genesis 11 legitur. [The difficulty concerning the later children of Abraham and Keturah, Gen 25:1-2, Augustin (De civit. Dei, 16:28) and Bengel removed, by assuming that the generative power miraculously conferred upon Abraham continued to his death. Bengel: Novus corporis vigor etiam mansit in matrimonio cum Ketura. So also Philippi and Meyer.P. S.]

Rom 4:20. He staggered not at the promise of God. The , which is an expression of antithesis, appears at first sight to favor , the reading of the Codd. A. C., instead of . But it constitutes another antithesis. Rom 4:19 says, that he continued steadfast in faith, in spite of the contradiction of sensuous experience; that he did not regard natural appearance. Rom 4:20, on the contrary, expresses the idea: Neither was he doubtful by unbelief concerning the promise itself. For unbelief is not produced merely by reflecting doubtfully on the contradiction of sensuous experience, but also by an immediate want of confidence in the miraculous promise itself which belongs to the sphere of invisible life. He was not only not weak in faith in his disregard of sensuous improbability, but, while looking at the promise, he grew even stronger in faith; for he overcame the temptation of a subtle misinterpretation of the promise. According to Meyer, the is only explanatory; but Tholuck, and most expositors, regard it as expressing an antithesis. According to Rckert, the article in denotes the unbelief common to man; but it denotes unbelief as such, whose nature is to doubt the promise of God. Therefore other explanations are superfluous (Meyer: in consequence of the unbelief which he would have had in this case).31 The passive form, , arises from his undoubting aim toward the promise. The promise has the effect of always strengthening the faith of him who looks at it. Therefore Grotius disturbs the real meaning of the word, when he takes it in the middle voice, he strengthened himself. Even the intransitive meaning which Tholuck accepts, to grow strong, fails in the same way to satisfy the relation between the promise and the steadfast gaze of faith.

Rom 4:20. Giving glory to God. To give God the glory ( or, ); a mark of faith which God, as the revealed God, can demand. Joh 9:24 was spoken hypocritically; Joh 12:43 is indirectly expressed. Comp. also Luk 17:18-19; Rom 1:21; 1Jn 5:10; Rev 19:7; comp. Philippi and Meyer on this passage, both of whom amplify the meaning. Tholuck says better: Then unbelief is a robbery of Gods glory. It does not easily occur except in a state of trial (?), but it does so occur in such a state. Therefore Calvin says Extra certamen quidem nemo Deum omnia posse negat; verum simulac objicitur aliquid, quod cursum promissionum Dei impediat, Dei virtutem e suo gradu dejicimus.

Rom 4:21. And being fully persuaded. According to Lachmann (contrary to Tischendorf), the before is strongly attested by the Codd. A. B. C., &c. If the is omitted, we have here the reason for the fact that he gave God the glory. With the , the words suitably explain the manner in which he gave God the glory; for he was fully convinced that He was the El Shaddai, and that, by virtue of His omnipotence, He was able to fulfil what He in His truthfulness had promised. It was by this confident looking at the El Shaddais word of promise that he was made strong (heroic; Meyer) in faith. The . denotes intellectual activity, knowledge in living faith.32

Rom 4:22. Wherefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness. We must retain , as authorized by the Codd. A. C. [.], and others. But we must not overlook the fact that we have here a justification of justification in its essential adaptation. The in faith is a return to the paradisaical or angelic (Isa 6:3) attitude to God (Rom 1:21). Since man gives God the glory, he again participates in the which he had lost as a sinner (Rom 3:23). In justification, believers embrace in their hearts the righteousness of Christ as the principle of the (Rom 8:30; comp. Rom 4:18). Therefore the spirit of rests upon them (1Pe 4:14) until the revelation of the of the Lord (1Pe 4:13).

B.The Faith of Christians (Rom 4:23-25)

[Application of the Scripture testimony of Abraham, the father of the faithful, to the believers in Christ. His method of justification is our method of justification. Calvin: Abrah persona specimen communis justiti, qu ad omnes spectat. This completes the argument for the vindication of the law through faith; Rom 3:31.P. S.]

Rom 4:23. Now it was not written for his sake alone. Explanations: 1. Not to his praise, non in ipsius gloriam (Beza, Tholuck). 2. To explain the manner of his justification (Meyer). The sense is this: not only for the purpose of a historical appreciation of Abraham (Rom 15:4; 1Co 10:11; Gal 3:8.), but also to represent him as the type of believers. In the same way the entire Bible has a universal destination for the believers of all times. Meyer quotes Beresh R. 40. Romans 8 : Quidquid scriptum est de Abrahamo, scriptum est de filiis ejus. [The aorist , it was written, denotes the past historical act of writing, and is used here in order to emphasize the design of Gods Spirit at the time of composition: while the more usual perf. , it is written, is used in quotations of Scripture passages as we now find them, and as valid for present purposes. Comp. Philippi.P. S.]

Rom 4:24. But for us also, to whom it [viz., the faith in God, or Christ, ] shall be reckoned [supply: for righteousness, , as Rom 4:22]. The refers to the divine determination of Christianity as righteousness by faith in all time to come; but, contrary to Fritzsche, it does not refer to justification at the general judgment.

If we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. [ specifies the ; and the belief is not a mere historical, but a fiducial belief; Alford.P. S.] Christian faith is specifically a faith in the risen Christ, or also in the living God of resurrection who raised Him from the dead. It is in this its central point that the finished faith of the New Testament is perfectly in harmony with the central point of Abrahams faith. The germ and fruit of this faith are identical in substance, though they differ very much in form and development. The nearest formal analogy to Abrahams faith is the birth of Christ from the Virgin. The highest exhibition of omnipotence was at the same time the highest exhibition of grace. [Christs resurrection was a triumph of Gods almighty power, similar, though much higher, than the generation of Isaac from the dead body of Abraham; by faith in the miracle of the resurrection, the resurrection is spiritually repeated in us, as we become new creatures in Christ, and walk with Him in newness of life; comp. Rom 6:3; Eph 1:19-20; Col 3:1.P. S.]

Rom 4:25. Who was delivered up, &c. [In these words the Apostle introduces the great subject of chaps. 58, Death, as connected with Sin, and Life as connected with Righteousness; Alford and Forbes. Rom 4:25 is a comprehensive statement of the gospel; Hodge. The means in both clauses, on account of, for the reason of, but with this difference, that it is retrospective in the first, prospective in the second: , because we had sinned, or, in order to secure the remission of our transgressions; , not because we had been, but that we might be justified.33 To the first we must supply: for the atonement, or, for the destruction of; to the second: for the procurement of. De Wette: zur Bssungzur Besttigung. , a frequent designation of the self-surrender of Christ to death; Isa 53:12; Rom 8:32; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:25 : . , from , (only here and Rom 5:18, in opposition to ,) justification, i.e., the effective declaratory act of putting a man right with the law, or into the status of , righteousness.P. S.] The antithesis in Rom 4:25 [ , the negative and the positive ] is difficult. Tholuck [p. 194]: This separation, as also that in Rom 10:10, is generally taken as a rhetorical , separating that which is in substance indivisible. Yet, in the contemplation of the Apostle, the certainly is more nearly related to the resurrection of Christ than to His death, as is shown by the climax of Rom 8:34, and by the of Rom 5:10; comp. 2Co 13:4. But the passages cited do not contain the same antithesis. According to Roman Catholic interpretation, refers to sanctification (Thomas Aquinas, and others). The old Protestant explanation, on the contrary, referred the first clause to the destruction of sin, and the second to the ratification of the atonement secured thereby (Calvin). Meyer refers the first part to the expiation of our sins, and the second to our justification; with reference to 1Co 15:17. Tholuck distinguishes between the negative and positive abolition of guilt. In the latterthe Christs intercession is also included; for the Lutheran theology (Quenstedt) denotes the applicatio acquisit salutis as the purpose of the intercessio [the Reformed theology: patrocinium perpetuum coram Patre adversus Satan criminationes]. Melanchthon also remarks in this sense: Quamquam enim Prcessit meritum, tamen ita ordinatum fuit ab initio, ut tunc signalis Applicaretur, cum fide acciperent. We must bear in mind, however, that the antithesis is not: Christs death and resurrection, but the deliverance of Christ for our offences, and his resurrection on Gods part. The principal weight of the antithesis therefore rests upon the Divine deed of Christs resurrection; with which justifying faith was first called into living existence. This justifying faith is analogous to Abrahams faith in the God of miracles, who calls new life into being. To this, the deliverance of Christ to death for our sins (transgressions, falls, ) forms a complete antithesis; and to this corresponds, in the single work of redemption, the antithesis: the abolishment of our guilt, and the imputation of His righteousness. Yet, in reality, these two cannot be separated from each other, and the here means the general and potential justification which is embraced in the atonement itself, and which, in individual justification by faith, is appropriated by individuals only by virtue of its eternal operation through the intercessio, the gospel, and the spirit of Christ. [See Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 10.P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. As Paul has proved from the Old Testament the truth of the New Testament, and especially the doctrine of righteousness by faith, so can the evangelical Church confirm the truth of its confession by the best testimonies of the best fathers of the Catholic Church. The evangelical confession of sin and grace is defended against the Romanists by Augustine, and others, in the same way that Abraham defended the believing Gentiles against the Jews. [On Augustines doctrine of sin and grace, comp. my Church History, vol. iii. pp. 783865. Augustine differs in form from the Protestant doctrine of justification, since he confounded the term with sanctification; but he agrees with it in spirit, inasmuch as he derived the new life of the believer exclusively from the free grace of God in Christ, and left no room for human boasting. The same may be said of Anselm, St. Bernard, and the forerunners of the Reformation.P. S.]

2. Here, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, and especially in chap. 3, the Apostle characterizes the Old Testament according to its real fundamental thoughtthe promise of God, which was revealed in Abrahams faith, and perfectly fulfilled in the New Testament covenant of faith. Accordingly, the Mosaic legislation is only a more definite Old Testament signature; but, as a stage of development, it is subordinate to Abrahams faith (see Rom 5:20; Gal 3:17).

Some errors of the present day concerning the Old Testament have in many ways obscured its true relation by the following declarations: (1) The Old Testament is essentially Mosaism. In this way the patriarchal system in the past, and the prophetic system in the future, are abolished. (2) Mosaism is legal and statutory stationariness. But, on the contrary, the Old Testament is a continuous and living development. (3) This stationariness is theocratical despotism; the Jew is absolutely enslaved under the law. This is contradicted by Moses account of the repeated federal dealings between Jehovah and His people, by the introduction to the Decalogue, as well as by the whole spirit of the Old Testament. It is particularly contradicted by the fact that Jehovah abandons the people to their apostasy, in order to visit them in justice.
3. The signification of Abraham for the doctrine of justification by faith is supplemented by Davids example and testimony. Abraham was justified by faith, notwithstanding his many good works; David was likewise justified by faith, notwithstanding his great offence. The righteousness of faith is therefore thus defined: (1) It does not presuppose any good works; but, (2) It presupposes a knowledge of sin. On the signification of the passage, Rom 4:3-5, for justification by faith, see Tholuck, p. 175.

4. As Abraham became the natural father of many nations, so did he become the spiritual father of the believing people of all nations, both Jews and Gentiles.
5. The designation of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith, is important for the doctrine of the sacraments. See the Exeg. Notes.

6. The great promise of faith (Rom 4:13). Its development (chap. 8.; Isaiah 65, 66; Revelation 20-22). There is a grand view in the reasoning of Rom 4:14. The men who are , of the law, cannot be the heirs of the world: (1) Because they are particularists. But also, (2) Because the legal, human , provokes the historical, divine wraththe destruction of the world. Thus did legalistic fanaticism bring on the destruction of Jerusalem, the fall of Byzantium, the exhaustion of Germany by the Thirty Years War, the disorders in Spain, Italy, Poland, and other countries (see Mat 5:5).

7. The identity of the faith of Abraham with that of Paul. We must define: (1) Its object; (2) Its subject; (3) Its operations. The difference, on the contrary, must be determined according to the developing forms of the revelation of salvation, and in such a way that the initial point will appear in the faith of Abraham, and the concluding or completing point shall appear in the saving faith of the New Testament. But it is a mistake to suppose that faith can be the same thing in a subjective view, and another in an objective. The objective and subjective relations will always thoroughly correspond to each other here; and the operations of faith will be shaped in accordance with them. For historical information on the question under consideration, see Tholuck, p. 173.

8. On the nature of saving faith, see the Exeg. Notes on Rom 4:19. Likewise, on the signification of the resurrection for faith, those on Rom 4:25.

9. The importance of the sentiment, He gave God the glory. See the Exeg. Notes on Rom 4:20.

[10. On Rom 4:25. This important and comprehensive passage clearly shows the inseparable connection between Christs death and Christs resurrection, as also the connection between the remission of sins and justification to a new life (comp. Rom 5:10; Rom 6:4). By His atoning death Christ has abolished the guilt of sin (Rom 3:25), and secured our pardon and peace; and hence it is generally represented as the ground of our justification ()i.e., the non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of Christs merits; comp. Rom 3:24-25; Rom 5:9; 2Co 5:21; Eph 1:7; 1Jn 1:7. But, without the resurrection, the death of Christ would be of no avail, and His grave would be the grave of all our hopes, as the Apostle clearly says, 1Co 15:17. A gospel of a dead Saviour would be a miserable failure and delusion. The resurrection is the victory of righteousness and life over sin and death. It is by the fact of the resurrection that Christs death was shown to be the death of the innocent and righteous One for foreign guilt, and that it was accepted by God as a full satisfaction for the sins of the world. If man had not sinned, Christ would not have died; if Christ had sinned, He would not have been raised again. In the next place, as the resurrection is the actual triumph of Christ, so it is also the necessary condition of the appropriation of the benefits of His death. It is only the risen Saviour who could plead our cause at the mercy-seat, and send the Holy Spirit to reveal Him, and to apply the benefits of the atonement to believers. Just as little as the death and the resurrection, can we separate the effects of boththe remission of sins and the new life of Christ. The sinner cannot be buried with Christ, without rising with Him as a new creature; the death of the old Adam is the birth of the new, and the life of the new presupposes the death of the old.P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Rom 4:1-8. Abraham and David as examples of the righteousness of faith: 1. Abraham; 2. David.What hath father Abraham found? 1. No reward by works; but, 2. Righteousness by faith (Rom 4:1-5).Abraham not only the natural, but also the spiritual father of his people (Rom 4:1-5).Glory before God is better than the glory of works (Rom 4:2).If the reward is reckoned of debt, man loses; but if it is reckoned of grace; he gains (Rom 4:4-5).How blessed is the man to whom God imputeth not sin, but righteousness! (Rom 4:6-8).Two beatitudes from the mouth of David (Rom 4:6-8).

Rom 4:9-12. Why must even the Jews acknowledge the Gentiles righteousness of faith? Answer: Because, 1. Faith was not counted to Abraham for righteousness while in circumcision; but, 2. His faith had already been counted to him for righteousness.As the sign of circumcision was to the Jews a seal of the righteousness of faith, so are the signs of Baptism and of the Lords Supper seals to Christians of the righteousness of faith.Abraham, a father of all believers: 1. From among the Gentiles; 2. From among the Jews (Rom 4:11-12).Walking in the footsteps of Abraham (Rom 4:12).The promise to Abraham of the inheritance of the world is, first, obscure, as a germ-like word. But, second, it is of infinitely rich meaning; for, in addition to the redemption of the world, it also embraces the renewal of the world and the heavenly inheritance.To what extent does the law work wrath? (Rom 4:15).It is only by faith that the promise holds good for all (Rom 4:16).

Rom 4:18-22. The strength of Abrahams faith. It is shown: 1. In his believing in hope, where there was nothing to hope; 2. In holding fast to this hope against external evidence; 3. He did not doubt, but trusted unconditionally in the words of promise.Believing in hope, when there is nothing to hope (Rom 4:18).We must not grow weak in faith, even if it be long before our hopes are realized (Rom 4:19).The worst doubt is doubting the promises of God (Rom 4:20).How precious it is to know to a perfect certainty that God can perform what He has promised (Rom 4:21).

Rom 4:23-25. As Abraham believed that life would come from death, so do we believe in the same miracle: 1. Because God has given us a pledge in the resurrection of Christ; 2. Because this God is a living and true God, who will keep His promises for ever.Our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is a faith in the Redeemer, who: 1. Was delivered for our offences; and, 2. Was raised for our justification (Rom 4:24-25).

Luther: Faith fulfils all laws; but works cannot fulfil a tittle of the law (Jam 2:10). A passage from the preface to the Epistle to the Romans is in place here: Faith is not the human delusion and dream which some mistake for faith. But faith is a Divine work in us, which changes us, and gives us the new birth from God (Joh 1:13); which slays the old Adam, and makes us altogether different men in heart, spirit, feeling, and strength; and which brings with it the Holy Spirit. Oh, faith is a living, creative, active power, which of necessity is incessantly doing good! It also does not ask whether there are good works to perform; but, before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is continually doing them, &c.He who believes God, will give Him the glory, that He is truthful, omnipotent, wise, and good. Therefore faith fulfils the first three (four) commandments, and justifies man before God. It is, then, the true worship of God (Rom 4:20).

Starke: The Holy Scriptures must not be read superficially, but with deliberation, and with careful reference to their order and chronology (Rom 4:10).The holy sacraments assure believers of Gods grace, and forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation (Rom 4:11).It is vain to boast of pious ancestry, if you do not walk in the footsteps of their faith (Rom 4:12).God has His special gracious gifts and rewards, which He communicates to one of His believers instead of another (Rom 4:17).We should rely on and believe in Gods word, more than in all the arguments in the world. It should be enough for us to know, Thus saith the Lord (Rom 4:18).The heart can be established by no other means than by grace. But there can be no grace in the heart except by faith, which brings in Christ, the source of all grace (Rom 4:21).Blessed are they who only believe, though they see not (Rom 4:22).The Epistle to the Romans was also written for us, and it has been preserved until our day, and given to us as a precious treasure by Divine Providence.If Christ has been raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, His death is truly a sufficient offering and ransom for our sins (Rom 4:25).Hedinger: Away with the leaven of Pharisaic delusion, that our own righteousness must build a ladder to heaven! God will glorify His compassion to publicans and sinners, but not to proud saints.Faith is in its highest degree, strength, and adornment, when it beholds nothing but heaven and water, God and despair, and yet believes that all will be well, glorious, and happy (Rom 4:18).

Quesnel: The more faith in a soul, the less pride there is in it (Rom 3:27).Ye magistrates, fathers, and mothers, if you set an example of faith, fear of God, love, righteousness, and other virtues, before those committed to you, you will truly become their fathers, just as Abraham became the father of the faithful by his faith (Rom 4:11).He who makes a parade of himself, may easily despair afterwards because of his insufficiency in every respect; but he who trusts in the omnipotent God, gets strength and consolation from his own nothingness (Rom 4:18).Cramer: The sacraments do not help for the works sake; otherwise Abraham would have been immediately justified and saved on account of circumcision (Rom 4:10).All promises spring from the fountain of eternal grace (Rom 4:13).Nova Bibl. Tub.: The laws of nature are set by God for nature, but they are not binding on God Himself. Faith looks beyond them (Rom 4:19).Lange: As sin, because of its magnitude and multiplicity, is denoted by different words, so is justification, as something great and important, explained by three words: to forgive, to cover, and not to impute (Rom 4:7).The creation and resurrection of the dead are those great works of God which confirm and explain each other. Therefore he who believes in creation will find it easy to believe in the resurrection of the dead (Rom 4:17).

Bengel: The divine promise is always the best support of faith and confidence (Rom 4:20).Why do we believe in God? Because He has raised Christ (Rom 4:25).

Gerlach: Abraham only received the promise that his seed should possess the land of Canaan; but beyond the earthly, there lies the heavenly Canaanthe renewed worldwhich he and his real children, the believers, shall possess in Christ, his seed. The earthly Canaan was the prophetic type of this heavenly Canaan; it was the external shell which enclosed the kernelthe bud which bore and enclosed the still tender flower (Rom 4:13).By the clearer knowledge of the commandment sin becomes more sinful, destruction appears more prominently, lust is not subdued but becomes more violently inflamed; therefore transgression increases (Rom 4:15).If Abrahams clear eye of faith could penetrate the veil with so much certainty of Gods majesty, how powerfully should weto whom God has spoken by His own Sonbe kindled by this love to raise our idle hands and to strengthen our weary knees (Rom 4:23).

Lisco: Abrahams faith is an example worthy of our imitation by faith in Christ (Rom 4:18-25).The resurrection of Jesus was a testimony and proof of what His death has accomplished for us (for, without the resurrection, He could not have been considered the Messiah, and His death could not have been deemed a propitiatory sacrifice for the blotting out of our sins), Isa 53:10 ff.; Rom 4:25.

Heubner: The appeal to Abrahams example is: 1. Right in itself; 2. Was important for the Jews (Rom 4:1-6).Why does Paul cite Abrahams circumcision, and not father the offering of Isaac? Answer: 1. Circumcision was the real sign which Abraham received by the command of God Himself; 2. It was that which all the Jews, equally with Abraham, bore in their own person, and on which they founded their likeness to Abraham and their glory (Rom 4:1).Davids feeling in the Psalms is humble, and was exalted only by grace.The universal confession of Gods children is, We are saved by grace (Rom 4:6-8).In the historical statement of Rom 4:10 there is an application to us; namely, that justification by faith must precede all good works, because no good work is possible without the attainment of grace.The preaching of the law alone with the threatened penalty repels our heart from God; and when carried to excess, it makes man angry with God, because he is driven to despair (Rom 4:15).Yea, if every thing were brought to us ante oculos pedesque, there would be no room for faith (Rom 4:18).Abraham is an example of a holy paternal blessing, of holy paternal hopes, and the founder of the most blessed family among men (Rom 4:18).

Drseke: Easter: the Amen of God, the Hallelujah of men.Our faith must be preserved, and grow amid temptations (Rom 4:20).The object of his faith is just as certain to the believer, as a demonstration is to the mathematician (Rom 4:21-22).All the history of the Old Testament is applicable to us. The circumstances are different, but there are the same conflicts, and it is internally and fundamentally the same faith which is engaged in the struggle (Rom 4:23-24).Similarity of the Christians faith to that of Abraham.

Besser: Luther calls Rom 4:25 a little covenant in which all Christianity is comprehended.

J. P. Lange: Abraham, the original, but ever-new witness of faith: 1. As witness of the living God of revelation and miracle; 2. As witness of the perfect confidence and divine strength of a believing reliance on Gods word; 3. As witness to the blessed operation of faithrighteousness through grace.The life of faith not dependent: 1. On natural ancestry; 2. On works of the law; 3. On visible natural appearances.Justification and sealing.All faith, in its inmost nature, is similar to that of Abraham: 1. As faith before God in His word; 2. As faith in miracles; 3. As faith in the renewal of youth; 4. As faith in the rejuvenation of life from righteousness as the root.The glorious operation of Christs resurrection.

[Burkitt: We must bring credentials from our sanctification to bear witness to the truth of our justification.On the sacraments in general, and circumcision in particular. There is a fourfold word requisite to a sacramenta word of institution, command, promise, and blessing. The elements are ciphers; it is the institution that makes them figures. Circumcision was a sign: 1. Representative of Abrahams faith; 2. Demonstrative of original sin; 3. Discriminating and distinguishing of the true church; 4. Initiating for admission to the commonwealth of Israel; and 5. Prefigurative of baptism.On faith. It has a threefold excellency: 1. Absenting to the truths of God, though never so improbable; 2. Putting men on duties though seemingly unreasonable; and 3. Enabling to endure sufferings, be they never so afflictive.Doddridge: We are saved by a scheme that allows us not to mention any works of our own, as if we had whereof to glory before God, but teaches us to ascribe our salvation to believing on Him who justifieth the ungodly. He who has promised, is able to perform; for with Him all things are possible. Already He hath done for us that for which we had much less reason to expect, than we now have to hope for any thing that remains. He delivered His own Son Jesus for our offences.Henry: It is the holy wisdom and policy of faith to fasten particularly on that in God which is accommodated to the difficulties wherewith it is to wrestle, and will most effectually answer the objections. It is faith indeed to build upon the all-sufficiency of God for the accomplishment of that which is impossible to any thing but that all-sufficiency.Clarke: Rom 4:18. The faith of Abraham bore an exact correspondence to the power and never-failing faithfulness of God.

Hodge: 1. The renunciation of a legal self-righteous spirit is the first requisite of the gospel; 2. The more intimately we are acquainted with our own hearts, and with the character of God, the more ready shall we be to renounce our own righteousness, and to trust in His mercy; 3. Only those are happy and secure who, under a sense of helplessness, cast themselves on the mercy of God; 4. A means of grace should never be a ground of dependence; 5. There is no hope for those who take refuge in a law, and forsake Gods mercy; 6. All things are ours, if we are Christs; 7. The way to get your faith strengthened, is, not covers the difficulties in the way of the thing promised, but the character and resources of God who has made the promise; 8. It is as possible for faith to be strong when the thing promised is most improbable, as when it is probable; 9. Unbelief is a very great sin, as it implies a doubt of the veracity and power of God; 10. The two great truths of the gospel are, that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins, and that He rose again for our justification; 11. The denial of the propitiatory death of Christ, or of His resurrection from the dead, is a denial of the gospel.Barnes: On the resurrection of Christ (Rom 4:25). If it be asked how it contributes to our acceptance with God, we may answer: 1. It rendered Christs work complete; 2. It was a proof that His work was accepted by the Father; 3. It is the mainspring of all our hopes, and of all our efforts to be saved. There is no higher motive that can be presented to induce man to seek salvation, than the fact that he may be raised up from death and the grave, and made immortal. There is no satisfactory proof that man can be thus raised up, but by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.J. F. H.]

Footnotes:

[1]Rom 4:1.The reading in Lachmann, . , is not only mostly authenticated (A. B. C., &c.), but, if well understood, it also gives the best sense; and we regard the opposite reading, which is now generally favored, as an explanatory transposition. See the Exeg. Notes. [The text. rec. puts (not ) before . Cod. Sin. sustains the reading of Lachmann, which is also adopted by Alford, who, however, brackets as being of doubtful authority, since it is omitted by the Vatican Cod. (see Tischendorfs edition, p. 1448). But it is indispensable, and abundantly sustained by the other uncial MSS. Meyer admits the weight of external authority in favor of Lachmanns reading, but is disposed, nevertheless, to regard it as a later transposition to suit the connection of with . The E. V., following the text. rec., adopts this connection, and Dr. Lange defends it in the Exeg. Notes. But with the majority of modern commentators, including Meyer, Alford, Hodge, I prefer to join with . This is indeed necessary, if we follow the lectio recepta, and it is perfectly allowable, though not so natural, if we adopt the reading of Lachmann. In this case we must translate: What, then, shall we say that Abraham our father (forefather) found (or, gained, attained) according to (the) flesh (or, in the way of the flesh)i.e., through his own natural efforts as distinct from the grace of God. Grotius: propriis viribus; De Wette, and others: nach rein menschlicher Weise. Meyer takes here as the weak, unspiritual, sinful human nature. Abraham did indeed attain righteousness, but by faith, not by works. Codd. . A. B. C*. sustain for the of the Rec.P. S.]

[2]Rom 4:2.[Lange translates: er hat Ruhm, glory. (as also ) in the N. T., and in the LXX., means generally (not always, as Meyer says, p. 160) the object or ground of boasting, materia gloriandi; Rom 4:2; 1Co 9:15-16; 2Co 1:14; Gal 6:4; Php 1:26; Php 2:16; and sometimes, as in the classics, the act of boasting or exulting, gloriatio; 1Co 5:6; 2Co 5:12; 2Co 9:3.P. S.]

[3]Rom 4:4.[ is well rendered by Luther: dem der mit Werken umgeht. Lange: dem welcher den Werkdienst treibl. Meyer: dem Werkthtigen. The word is frequent, and signifies a workman who works for pay. Conybeare and Howson, too freely: if a man earns his pay by his work. Young: too literally: to him who is working.P. S.]

[4]Rom 4:5.[ , to him who worketh not for hireder nicht Werkdienst treibt.P. S.]

[5]Rom 4:6.[, in allusion to the Hebrew form , Oh, the blessedness, or, happiness of. The N. T. of the Amer. Bible Union, and Robert Young, render , here and elsewhere, even in the Sermon on the Mount, by happy, instead of blessed, which properly corresponds to . There is the same difference between the German grcklich and selig. In a popular English Bible, I would retain blessed and blessedness where religious or eternal happiness is spoken of. The E. V. is inconsistent, and, without a fixed rule, alternates between happy and blessed.P. S.]

[6] Rom 4:7-8.[From Psalms 32 :, which describes the happiness and the condition of the forgiveness of sins. The following is a literal version of Rom 4:1-2 :

Blessed (Happy) is he whose transgression is forgiven,

Whose sin is covered.
Blessed (Happy) is the man
To whom Jehovah imputeth not iniquity,

And in whose spirit there is no guile.

Ewald (Die Psalmen, 3d ed., 1866, p. 65) renders the passage thus:

Selig dessen Missethat vergeben,

Dessen Snde ist verziehn!
Seliger Mensch dem Jahve nicht anrechnet Schuld,
Und in dessen Geiste keine Tuschung!P. S.]

[7]Rom 4:11.The accusative [A. C*. Syr.] does not really change the thought, but rather strengthens it. It is probably an alteration or oversight [caused by the surrounding accusatives. The genitive is attested by . B. C2. D. F. K. L., &c.P. S.]

[8]Rom 4:12. must be retained, contrary to Lachmann. [ is wanting in . B. Meyer defends it.P. S.]

[9]Rom 4:13. () [. A. B. C. D1., &c., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford]. The opposite reading is . . [Recommended by Griesbach, adopted by Scholzcontrary to the majority of the uncial MSS. It looks like a mechanical adjustment to Rom 4:11. is also to be omitted.P. S.]

[10]Rom 4:15. is probably an exegetical correction; though strongly attested by A. B. C., Griesbach, Lachmann. [The text. rec. reads , for where, which is supported by 3. D. F. K. L., while 1. favors , But where.P. S.]

[11]Rom 4:17., Codd. F. G., Luther [credidisti, dem du geglaubt hast, as if it was part of the Scripture quotation, instead of , credidit, which is sustained by Cod. Sin.P. S.]

[12]Rom 4:19.The is wanting in the celebrated Codd. A. B. C. [and Sin.]. Also in Lachmann. According to Meyer, this omission arose from regard to Gen 17:17. It could also have been occasioned by the antithesis in Rom 4:20. [The is inserted in D. F. K. L., Lat., Syr., &c. Alford brackets it. See Exeg. Notes.P. S.]

[13]Rom 4:19.The is wanting in B. F. G., &c. [and thrown out by Fritzsche and Tischendorf, but sustained by . A. C. D. K. L. Lachmann and Alford bracket it.P. S.]

[14]Rom 4:21.The is sustained by A. B. C., &c., Lachmann. [Cod. Sin. likewise favors , and Alford retains it.P. S.]

[15]Rom 4:22.[The after is omitted by B. D1. F., but inserted by . A. C. D3. K. L. Lachmann and Alford bracket it.P. S.]

[16]Rom 4:25.[Luther, to whom above all others the Christian world is indebted for a lucid and forcible exposition of Pauls doctrine of justification by faith, has made a strange mistake here by translating : Gerechtigkeit (righteousness), instead of: Rechtfertigung (justification). is the divine act of setting a man right, or putting him into the state and possession of .P. S.]

[17][Hodge quotes Calvin for the opposite view, explaining in the sense naturaliter, ex seipso. But Calvin goes on to say: Probabile tamen est epitheti loco Patri conjungi, and gives the preference to the construction with .P. S.]

[18][Meyer quotas Kiddush, f. 82, 1; Ioma, f. 28, 2; Beresh. rabba, f. 57, 4. Tholuck says: The justification of Abraham before God was a locus communis of Jewish theology. P.S.]

[19][Calvins interpretation is given by him (ad Rom 4:2) in these words: Epicherema [, an attempted proof, an incomplete syllogism] est, i. e., imperficta ratiotinatio, qu in hanc formam colligi debet: Si Abraham operibus justificatus est, potest suo merito gloriari; sed non habet unde glorietur apud Deum; ergo non ex operibus justificatus est. Ita membrum illud, Sed non opud Deum, est minor propositio syllogismi. Huic attexi debet conclusio quam posui, tametsi a Paulo non exprimitur. Similarly Fritzsche: Si suis bene factis Dei favorem nactus est, habet, quod apud Deum glorietur ?; sed non habet, quod apud Deum glorietur, quum libri s. propter fidem, non propter pulchre facta eum Deo probatum esse doceant ?; non est igitur Abr. ob bene facta Deo probatus. So also Kraussold, Baur, Kstlin, Hodge. This interpretation would have been more clearly expressed thus: ( ) . But it certainly gives good sense and falls in best with the in Rom 4:3. We explain thus: If Abraham, as the Jews suppose, was justified by works, he has reason to glory before God (for then he can claim justification as a just reward for his merits, leaving no room for the display of Gods mercy); but, according to the Scripture, he has no ground to glory before God, for (Rom 4:3) the Scripture derives his justification from faith in God or from something outside of him, and not from works of his own. Meyer, in his former editions, defended the untenable view that … was a question, and … the negative answer; but, in his last editions, he returns, with Tholuck and Wordsworth, to the interpretation of the Greek fathers (Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact), which would require in Rom 4:3, , instead of .P. S.]

[20][If Rom 4:3 contained the refutation of the inference, Rom 4:2, we would rather expect , instead of . But if the refutation is contained in ( , the is in its place and gives the proof for the answer from Gen 15:6, showing that justification proceeded not from any work which Abraham performed, but from God in whom he put his trust. See note on p. Meyer, holding the old Greek interpretation of Rom 4:2, thus tries to explain the : Mit Recht sage ich: , denn vom Glauben, nicht von den Werken Abrahams leitet die Schrift ausdrcklich seine Rechtfertigung her, und zwar als etwas durch Zurechnung Empfangenes.P. S.]

[21]According to Reiche, Abraham is the , the ; and this word alludes to the early idolatry of Abraham, which is described by Philo, Josephus, and Maimonides. Grotius, and others, have adopted the same opinion.

[22][This question of the Heidelberg Catechism, which was first published in 1563, contains one of the best statements of the evangelical doctrine of justification, and clearly brings out the positive element, which Tholuck wrongly dates from the Form of Concord of the year 1577. It reads thus: How art thou righteous before God? Answer: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. That is: although my conscience accuse me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and that I am still prone always to all evil, yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me, if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.P. S.]

[23][This must refer to a former edition; for, in the 4th ed. of 1865, Meyer gives the preference to : Als das sich von selbst verstchende. Verbum wird am einfachsten gedacht (vergl. Rom 2:9; Act 4:33, al.); weniger naheliegend: aus Rom 5:6.P. S.]

[24][The order of the words is simply rhetorical and euphonic, and gives no emphasis to . See Tholuck and Philippi.P. S.]

[25][By a typographical mistake, the original, in the second as well as the first edition, reads Calvin, instead of Calovius, who was a fierce Lutheran polemic of the seventeenth century, and author of the Biblia illustrata, in refutation of the commentaries of Grotius.P. S.]

[26][Abraham, = , father of a multitude, the new significant name given to Abram, , i.e., father of elevation, high father, Gen 17:5; Gen 18:18.P. S.]

[27][Lange makes a period after the quotation from Gen 17:5, and then translates: Angesichts [wars] des Gottes, dem er Glauben hielt. He supplies , and commences here a new paragraph. See his interpretation below.P. S.]

[28][Or three, rather; but the third, which refers to the effectual calling of unborn men by the Holy Spirit, and explains: God calls to be His children those who were not children, is entirely foreign to the context. It is strange that even the rationalistic Fritzsche explains: homines nondum in lucem editos tamquam editos ad vitam ternam invitat. The and of God precedes the birth, but the only refers to living men.P. S.]

[29] [Tholuck doubts that , , ever means, to command, to dispose of; but comp. Psa 50:1; Isa 40:26; Isa 45:3; Isa 48:3. Meyer and Philippi quote two striking parallel passages from Philo, De Jos., p. 544, C., where he speaks of the imagination as forming , and Artemidor, i. 53, where it is said of the painter that he represents . To these quotations I may add the famous lines of Shakespeare on the creative power of the poets genius (Midsummer-Nights Dream, Act v. Scene 1):

The poets eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And, as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poets pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.P. S.]

[30][Stuart, Hodge, and Wordsworth take no notice of this important difference of reading. Alford brackets , but prefers it as being better suited to the context; the object being to extol Abrahams faith. Omitting , the sense will be: And not being weak in the faith, he was indeed well aware of, &c., but () did not stagger at the promise, &c.; or, although he was aware of, &c., yet did he not. This agrees better with in Rom 4:20; but we miss in this case after . The dogmatic idea of the passage is well brought out by Calvin, who is followed by Philippi and Hodge. A similar obstruction of faith, as the one recorded of Abraham, Gen 17:17, occurred in the life of John the Baptist; Mat 11:2 ff.P. S.]

[31][Meyer and Philippi take as an instrumental dative; as a dative of reference: Er schwankle nicht Vermge des Unglaubens (den er in diesem Fulle gehabt haben wrde), sondern wurde stark am Glauben (den er hatte).P. S.]

[32][Dr. Hodge, after quoting from Calvin, makes the following excellent remarks on : It is a very great error for men to suppose that to doubt is an evidence of humility. On the contrary, to doubt Gods promise, or His love, is to dishonor Him, because it is to question His word. Multitudes refuse to accept His grace, because they do not regard themselves as worthy, as though their worthiness were the ground on which that grace is offered. The thing to be believed, is, that God accepts the unworthy; that, for Christs sake, He justifies the unjust. Many find it far harder to believe that God can love them, notwithstanding their sinfulness, than the hundred-years-old patriarch did to believe that he should be the father of many nations. Confidence in Gods word, a full persuasion that He can do what seems to us impossible, is as necessary in the one case as in the other. The sinner honors God, in trusting His grace, as much as Abraham did, in trusting His power.P. S.]

[33][Bishop Horsley, as quoted by Alford and Wordsworth, takes , in the second clause, in the sense that Christ was raised because our justification had already been effected by the sacrifice of His death. But this is inconsistent with 1Co 15:17. Newman explains: because our justification is by the Second Comforter, whom the resurrection brought down from heaven.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 1836
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, 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 God has 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 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. 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 was justified 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

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 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 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.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

CONTENTS

The Apostle is prosecuting the same Subject through this Chapter. He brings forward the Patriarch Abraham’s Faith, in Proof that there can be no Justification before god, by the Deeds of the Law.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The Apostle begins this Chapter, at the place he left off in the preceding. Foreseeing that difficulties might be started by some, from what he had advanced, that by the deeds of the law no flesh could be justified in god’s sight; all the world being found guilty before him: he adopts an admirable method, to confirm the doctrine, in taking the most unexceptionable character the Scriptures of the Old Testament could furnish, and in the instance of Abraham he shews, that this great father of the faithful, considered in himself, had nothing more to recommend him to God than the greatest sinner. Abraham, when beheld in relation to the Adam-nature in which he was born, was equally involved with all mankind in a fallen state, and belonged as much as any to that race, of whom the word of God had decidedly declared, that there is none righteous, no, not one,

Paul treats this subject in an unanswerable manner, as proved in the case of Abraham. He shews, from the Patriarch’s history, that when the Lord first called Abraham, to make known to him his sovereign grace and Covenant-mercy in Christ; Abraham at that time was an Idolater, dwelling in Ur of the Chaldees. Of consequence there could be nothing in the conduct of the Patriarch, which prompted, and called forth the mercy of the Lord. It began, therefore, on the part of God; and was altogether free, unmerited, unlooked for, and unsought by Abraham. And the simple act, which Abraham exercised upon this occasion, at the call of the Lord, was faith in God’s word, and promise. If the Reader will compare Gen 12:1-4

with Heb 11:8 , this point will appear abundantly plain and evident. And as he prosecutes the Patriarch’s history, in the after stages of it, he will next learn, in confirmation of the Apostle’s doctrine, what that faith was, which the Patriarch was enabled to exercise; and who was the one great object of it. The Lord called him to get out of his country, and kindred, and from his father’s house; (all which were shadows of a separation from the Adam-nature of a fallen state;) and the Lord promised to make of him a great nation, and that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed: all which referred to the Person, and work of Christ.

That these glorious promises wholly referred to Christ, and that the Patriarch so viewed them, is evident, from what followed in his history. For thus the Holy Ghost hath caused it to be recorded. After these things, the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, fear not Abram, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward, Gen 15:21 . What word of the Lord was this? It could not be the written word; for at that time, the Scriptures were none of them written. It must have been the Essential, the uncreated Word, which God the Holy Ghost, in after ages of the Church, spake of by his servant John, when revealing the Son of God, Joh 1:1 . See also Commentary on that scripture. Reader! pause over the subject, for it is precious. Oh! how delightful it is, thus to discover Him, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, Mic 5:2 . And, how precious are such testimonies to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus!

But, let us not stop here. The Almighty Word, which thus spake in vision to Abraham, declared himself to be Abraham’s shield, and his exceeding great reward. And I need not, I hope, tell the Reader, that these are among the titles of Christ. Indeed, they can belong to no other. Jesus, and Jesus only, is the hiding place from the wind, and the covert from the tempest, Isa 32:2 . And, the Church could mean no other, when she said, in her prayers to Jehovah: Behold, 0 God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For the Lord God is a sun, and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory, Psa 84:11Psa 84:11 . And, the Lord is both the portion of his people, and their God their glory, Deu 33:29 ; Isa 60:9 . Hence, in every point of view, the Word, which came unto Abraham in a vision, is proved to have been the Essential, Uncreated Word, in all the properties of Godhead: and considered no less in his Mediatorial-character, he is Emmanuel, God with us, God in our nature, manifesting himself in those characters, as the shield, and the exceeding great reward of his people.

And, what forms another distinguishing feature to be attended to in this history of Abraham is, the sense which the Patriarch had of his need of these glorious promises; and the consciousness he enjoyed, of his own personal interest in them. We have our Lord’ s own authority, for this most certain conclusion. For Jesus told the Jews, that their father Abraham saw his day afar off, rejoiced, and was glad, Joh 8:56 . A most decided proof, that Abraham had clear apprehensions of the Person, and work of Christ; and of justification solely by him. So indeed Paul told the Galatian Church. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith; preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying: In thee shall all nations be blessed, Gal 3:8 . Hence, there can be no question, but that the Patriarch, in this Gospel, learnt all the great doctrines of redemption by Christ; and of his own personal right therein. The same Almighty Word, which taught Abraham in a vision, that he was Abraham’s shield, and exceeding great reward; taught him no less, that the Patriarch needed both: Hence, the Lord said fear not; intimating great cause of fear without them, being in himself a sinner before God. And, it was this believing view which Abraham had in Christ, and the great things to be accomplished by Christ, which made Abraham’s faith so illustrious, and his enjoyment so unbroken. He saw them afar off indeed, but he realized them as near. The promise to him became as sure, as though the whole events included in the promise, had been already accomplished. Hence, he believed God. He gave God the credit of God: and took God at his word. The faithfulness of the Almighty Promiser, became security, in his view, for the promise: and, being strong in faith, he gave glory to God; being fully persuaded that what God had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

We shall find occasion hereafter, towards the close of this beautiful Chapter, to speak more fully to the circumstances of this righteousness, in which Abraham, (and every child of God like Abraham, of this spiritual seed,) is said to be justified. But in the mean-time, from the view of the subject, as set forth in those verses, we have seen enough to discover, under divine teaching, that the faith of Abraham, and the great object of that faith, had respect wholly to Christ. Abraham was conscious of his fallen state before God. He rejoiced in Christ’s day, though seen afar off. He knew the whole to be of grace, not of debt. The Covenant transactions, from beginning to end, he was perfectly aware, had no respect to merit, or deservings, in the Patriarch, either in the Lord’s view of Abraham, or Abrahams view of himself. Hence, the Patriarch was blessed of God in this righteousness of Christ. And so then, (saith the Apostle,) they which are of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham, Gal 3:9

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Rom 4:3

In this word faith, as used by St. Paul, we reach a point round which the ceaseless stream of religious exposition and discussion has for ages circled…. It will at once appear that while it can properly be said of Abraham, for instance, that he was justified by faith, if we take faith in its plain sense of holding fast to an unseen power of goodness, yet it cannot without difficulty and recourse to a strained figure, be said of him, if we take faith in Paul’s specific sense of identification with Christ through the emotion of attachment to him. Paul, however, undoubtedly, having conveyed his new specific sense into the word faith, still uses the word both in the specific sense of identification with Christ and also in all cases where, without this specific sense, it was before applicable and usual, and in this way he often creates ambiguity. Why, it may be asked, does Paul, instead of employing another term to denote his special meaning, still thus employ the general term faith? We are inclined to think it was from that desire to get for his words and thoughts not only the real but also the apparent sanction and consecration of the Hebrew Scriptures, which we have called his tendency to Judaise.

Matthew Arnold, St. Paul and Protestantism.

Compare the interesting discussion of this passage in Miss Wedgwood’s Message of Israel, pp. 142-144.

Friends of God

Rom 4:3

The life of Abraham in the Bible begins with God speaking to him, and with Abraham believing and acting upon what God said. How God spoke to Abraham, or how he speaks to anyone, we may never be able to explain. The world has never been without men who are quite sure that they have heard God’s voice. If there is a God at all, He is surely able to communicate with His creatures, to assure them of His presence, His interest in them, and His will on their behalf. He can impress them with such a sense of obligation as can only be understood as the will of God; He can inspire them with such sublime and solemn hopes as can only be understood as promises of God. What the text tells us is that when God has spoken and we have heard His word, there is only one thing for us to do, namely, to believe Him. That is the only right thing to do, and when we do it, we are made right with Him. It is not right to dispute God’s command or to criticise His promise, or to try to make any kind of bargain with Him about either. It is not right to put anything into the scale against God’s word, as if it might perhaps outweigh it. The only right thing to do, the only right attitude for the soul to take, is to recognise that in the word which God has spoken, whatever it may be, we are in contact with the final reality in the universe, and we invest our whole being in that. When we do so, God counts that to us for righteousness. And so it is. There is nothing in God’s word artificial or unreal; the man is truly right with God for whom the word that God has spoken is the last reality in life.

I. The word that God spoke to Abraham was characteristically a word of promise. It is put in various forms at different periods of his life. ‘I will make of thee a great nation;’ ‘Unto thy seed will I give this land’; ‘Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them; so shall thy seed be’. If we put these in general terms, we may say Abraham had a Divine future held out to him in the word of God. When we are told he believed God, it means that that Divine future had a reality for him in comparison with which everything else was unreal. He left his country and his kindred for it; he renounced for it tempting openings which he saw around him, and the future which he might have carved out for himself. We must not forget that the life of Abraham was rich in natural possibilities. Abraham would have had a future in Ur of the Chaldees had he chosen to remain there, and to disbelieve the voice which said, ‘Get thee out to the land that I will show thee’. No doubt a man of his power and enterprise would have had a future if he had chosen to settle in Sodom or in Egypt and to renounce a visionary prospect of inheriting Canaan. It is Abraham living out his long life still believing, still counting God’s promises the final reality, which made and kept him right with God. He stood before God justified by his faith, a man with whom God was well pleased, a man who is called in Scripture the friend of God.

II. Every one must have noticed how much there is in the New Testament about Abraham and his faith. The reason is that for those who wrote the New Testament, Abraham is the type of true piety, he is the ideal of religion. Every one who wishes to prove anything about the true religion says, Look at Abraham. Paul does it here in Romans and again in Galatians. James does it in the second chapter of his Epistle where he seems as if he were controverting Paul and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who is so unlike both, does it in the passage we read a few minutes ago. The reason why everybody who wants to prove anything about true religion says, Look at Abraham, is that in true religion there is one thing that never changes from Genesis to Revelation the attitude of the soul to God. And the true attitude of the soul to God is perfectly illustrated in Abraham. God may make Himself known more fully in one generation than another, His word may be more articulate, more explicit in its commands, more spiritual and far-reaching in its promises, but the one thing which it requires under the surface is that which it finds in Abraham, to be treated as the last and absolute reality in life; so to treat it is to believe in God in the sense which makes and keeps us right with Him, so to treat it is to take our place among the children of Abraham.

III. The one condition on which this text has any interest for us is that God should have spoken to us, and in doing so, made an appeal for faith. It is the assumption of true religion always that God has so spoken. In the old Scots’ Confession of Faith, drawn out at the Reformation, one of the most interesting chapters is headed ‘of the Revelation of the Promise’ The original form of the promise, the reformers tell us, is preserved in the third chapter of Genesis the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head. This is the elementary form of faith, to be assured that good will eventually triumph over evil; nay, that man himself with the help of God will one day destroy the works of the devil. The promise, the Confession goes on to say, is repeated and made more clear from time to time, till at last it has been made perfectly clear to us in what Knox and his friends call ‘the joyful day of Christ Jesus’. And that is what we have to understand. We may not know how God spoke to Abraham, nor how Abraham was sure that it was God who had spoken, but we know that God speaks to us in Christ. What we have to say to ourselves is, There is God’s will, purpose, and promise for me. There is the Divine future which God holds out as my inheritance. There is the final truth about God, the final reality in the world, presenting itself to us, the sin-bearing redeeming love which calls us to itself, and which is able to save to the uttermost. The Apostles were not afraid to believe a word so wonderful as this, or if they were, faith triumphed over their fears. John looked at Jesus and said, ‘We shall be like Him’. Paul said, ‘We have worn the image of the earthly, and we shall wear the image of the heavenly’. That is the true utterance of the Christian faith. That is the height to which the heart can rise in men who have heard the voice of God in Jesus, and believe it without reserve. And do we not know in our hearts that these are the men who are right with God, the men who believe His word in Christ?

James Denney, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxix. p. 296.

References. IV. 3. C. S. Horne, The Soul’s Awakening, p. 215. S. Cox, Expositions, p. 211. IV. 3-8, 9, 11, 13, 16-24. W. P. Du Bose, The Gospel According to St. Paul, p. 113. IV. 4. Expositor (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 120. IV. 5. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. vi. p. 17. IV. 6, 7. Expositor (4th Series), vol. viii. p. 83. IV. 6-25. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 206. IV. 7. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. iii. p. 172 ibid. vol. xii. p. 55. IV. 10. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. v. p. 461. IV. 11. Ibid, vol. viii. p. 294. IV. 12. Ibid. vol. i. p. 144. IV. 15. Christian World Pulpit, vol. li. p. 143. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iii. p. 286. IV. 16. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii. No. 1347. IV. 16, 17. Ibid. vol. xxxvi. No. 2159. IV. 17. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 131. IV. 19. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 167. IV. 19-21. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii. No. 733. IV. 20. Ibid. vol. xxiii. No 1367. IV. 24. Ibid. vol. xlviii. No. 2806. Expositor (4th Series), vol. v. p. 432. IV. 24, 25. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xl. No. 2357. IV. 25. R. Flint, Sermons and Addresses, p. 204. R. M. Benson, Redemption, p. 183. E. A. Bray, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 40. Expositor (4th Series), vol. viii. p. 467; ibid. (7th Series), vol. v. p. 407. IV. 28-30. Ibid. vol. i. p. 291.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

The Promise to Abraham

Rom 4

Was there ever a heart like the heart of the Apostle Paul? When he argues he argues with his heart. There is no more superficial criticism passed upon the Apostle Paul than that he was a dry reasoner. His logic is bedewed with tears; he wants to show how vast, how measureless is the love of God. Yet there have been minds under such hallucination as to wish to make the Apostle Paul the prince of sectarians, the very sovereign of bigots and exclusionists. If there was one thing more than another the Apostle wanted to do, it was to include everybody in this infinite gospel of reconciliation. He had his difficulty with the Jews, because the Jews did not want anybody but themselves to be blessed by any Messiah that might be introduced into the human race. In fact, to the Jew there was no human race; there was a race of Jews, and what other creatures there might be aping the stature and the dignity of men, such aping was on their part an act of unpardonable impertinence, unless indeed they were willing to be the slaves, the bondmen, the errand-runners of the favoured race. Paul had his difficulty with the Gentiles, for they said, We are excluded, you have nothing to say to us; we are the offscouring of all things: there can be no Gospel for people such as we are. Paul’s task therefore divided itself into rebuke and into welcome: Paul had to rebuke the narrowness of some, and he had to encourage others to believe that even they were human enough to be saved. To the Jews he had to say, Be still; be no longer vain, conceited, and impiously pious. To the Gentiles he had to say, Be comforted; a light has arisen in your darkness, there is a hand thundering on the prison-door of them that are bound: Messiah has come to claim the uttermost parts of the earth. See then how he handles his argument, as dealing first with the Jew, and then with the Gentile; and see how through it all he is a man full of the Holy Ghost and of force. There is no weakness in all this argument; if the man’s eyes are moist it is not through conscious feebleness, but because he has had a view of the love of God that has surcharged his heart with kindred affection.

Something was given to Abraham, but when was it given? Was it given before he received circumcision, or after he received circumcision? The Apostle says, not after he received circumcision, but before he received circumcision. Whatever was given to Abraham was given to Abraham the man, and not to Abraham the Jew: in fact, there was no Jew at that time, the Jew is a later curiosity, the Jew is a subsequent phenomenon. So here when Abraham stands up justified you see the birth of the Son of Man. The transaction was not individual, personal; it was typical, prophetical, symbolical. This is the key of the Apostle’s argument: if something of a Divine nature had been done to Abraham after he had been personalised, circumcised, made into a mere individual, the case would have been wholly different; but when it was done to him as human, as man, it was done to him typically and representatively, and there began to be the dawn of the glory of the Son of Man upon the earth: Abraham rejoiced to see my day; Abraham saw my day, and was glad: Abraham underwent the agony that makes a man more than an individual, giving him a representative, federal, priestly relation to countless multitudes so long as time endures.

Faith is older than law. Love is the oldest of all the forces that rule the spiritual and moral nature of man: God is love. Those who care for law and invoke law are the smallest of all the animals called to find a lodging-place in the ark of the Divine protection: they are well-behaved people, they are persons who keep a clean slate, and who walk off with conscious pride to show it to the law. Faith indicates another kind of life altogether, quite as cleanly, quite as pure, quite as attentive to all detailed excellence, and yet taking no note of it: because when the bird has sat on the tree and taken food from the branches it turns all the food into the poetry of flying, it turns its earth-given energy into endeavours to reach the sun. Faith is broader than Jaw. Law gives wages; faith will never take any wages, because the term is a term of measurement and is a symbol of hire, and means a quid pro quo , a this for that. Faith never stands at the other side of the counter to take some hireling pence; faith needs no reward that man can give, and no wages that God ever descends to give, or ever could degrade himself to offer: faith lives on God, and in God, and with God, and in a sense faith is God. Faith is more largely rewarded than law. You can pay law, you cannot pay faith; you can pay a servant, you cannot pay a friend; you can pay for legal advice, you never can pay for fellow-suffering, deep, tender, night-and-day sympathy; you can even pay the doctor, but you cannot pay the mother. You can pay what law indicates, you cannot pay what faith does. Faith leaves all; faith says to the law, If there be a law of gravitation I am independent of it: whatever may be pressing me down to the centre of any system, I will by thy grace rise above it, encounter the pressure, throw it off, conquer it, stand above it and make an altar of it. Faith asks no questions, it calls up the ghost. What does faith take with it? Nothing but a staff, and a staff it need not take; yet so long as man has a body he must at least have a shadow to look at; a line, though it be an imaginary line, must be drawn round the globe he is set to live in and to cultivate. You never can make law universal, that is to say, law of the kind now discoursed of by the Apostle Paul. What is law to one man is not law to another: what is morality to one man is not morality to another: that which is right and proper and conventional in one nation is laughed at in another nation as prudish, foolish, narrow, self-idolatrous, vainglorious, and worthless. You cannot therefore make a mechanical writing to suit all the world. The world, taken in its entirety, its multitudinousness, and representativeness, must have more scope than could be given to it by pen and ink. Moses can write enough upon two mountain slates to keep Israel under restraint and in good order, if Israel will obey: but no firmament the Lord ever made is vast enough to bear upon it all the revelation of his love, and all the possibilities of intelligent and consecrated faith. The Apostle Paul says, Gentiles, you may claim Abraham, because Abraham never received anything as a mere Jew; a mere Jew Abraham never was, Abraham met God as a man; as a man he received into trusteeship certain covenants, signs, and promises, and as a trustee he held these, not for his own use, but for the good of the world. The Lord himself must begin somewhere: he began with Abraham that he might found in him a household of faith, but though beginning in Abraham it was distinctly with the assurance that the blessing should not be Abrahamic, only in some little personal degree, but human, representative, universal, everlasting: so there is not a pagan anywhere that God is not in search of, that he may by the mystery of the Cross turn into a loving and consecrated child.

Adam is not mentioned. Where is Adam? Who was Adam? What does “Adam” mean? Is it a term of more utility than can be found in its mere etymology? When did Adam live? when did he become aught to the human race? when did he lose his standing? and who took his place? Who came into that place, not by the lot-casting of man, but by the election and appointment of God? Here is Adam’s successor, here is the head of the new race up to date, here is the head of the household of faith. Who shall depose Abraham? Only one Man, and the deposition shall not be a degradation but a completion, the kind of abrogation which is wrought by the miracle of autumn on the processes of summer. Abraham is the father of all who believe, but Jesus Christ has come to be the second Adam, the real and true Adam, Man, Son of Man, and in him is concentred the whole purpose of God; in him, through him, for him, are all things, great, small, more radiant than noonday, and smaller than the meanest pulses that throb in the sanctuary of eternity. Thus all things are working, moving, together in harmonic line; a great process is being conducted, not to-day and tomorrow, but through millenniums. When God moves he carries the ages before him. We have our little-calendars, and all we ever did happened the day before yesterday; we have dates, proofs, writings to the effect that such and such a transaction took place in the presence of such and such witnesses. Before God the archangels are young, before eternity aught else than itself is impalpable, invisible. Let the Lord alone: he sitteth on the circuit of eternity: he will vindicate eternal providence and justify his ways to men at his own time. Abraham had two fatherhoods: “our father, as pertaining to the flesh,” but in the eleventh verse, “that he might be the father of all them that believe.” So then Christians are the children of Abraham; the last man that said to Jesus, “My Lord, and my God,” was spoken of by the angels in the words of Jesus, “he also is a son of Abraham.” We understand the word “Abraham” not in its etymological meaning, not in its local relation, not with regard to time and space of a measurable kind, but symbolically, parabolically, typically, the great poetry and prophecy comprehending the whole counsel of God in relation to the redemption of the world. Some things are given to us in the flesh, some are given to us in faith or in the spirit. We ourselves are as dual as Abraham was: by no one inlet does God bring his revelations into our nature. There are many entrances to the temple of our immortality. This is the mischief, that some men have only one door by which they can receive anything, so that everything they do is done in public, and is done with a commonness which is destructive of sacredness. Some things come to us by the way of reason: we understand them, we ask no questions about them, we can admit them by day or by night, and whether they be admitted or not admitted makes very little difference to our treasure and our wealth. Some things are admitted to us by way of the imagination, that upper door that only God can touch. The schoolmaster builds himself a little hut by the door of our reason, and charges for all the goods he sends in by that entrance; but at the door of imagination who sits but an angel, white clad, with eyes that put out the sun? Some things we can only catch along that higher line of vision and prophecy and thought, that marvellous faculty that takes hold of that which to the reason is nothing, but finds it to be the very line that binds the universe. Some men have no imagination, they therefore will never be tried as defaulters: they have only two eyes, the eyes of the body that can only see things like themselves; they have not those mysterious eyes that see the invisible, and that see the largeness of things, and that can follow the palpitation of spiritual shadows, and give assurance to the world that its madmen are its prophets. Some things we learn at school: they can all be marked down and we can commit them to memory, and recite them, and repeat them so frequently as at last not to know we are repeating them, so that we can go through strings of unconnected words as if they fell into rhyme. Other things we can only learn in life. No schoolmaster can teach them; he knows them, but he says to the child, Dear one, thou must learn this in battle, and this thou must learn in sorrow: thy face will not be sculptured into all its meaning but by an invisible hand driving an invisible chisel: go, and the Lord fulfil all thy predictions when the enemy threatens to be too strong for thee: thy pedagogue can teach thee no more; we have had our day of giving and taking, I have helped thee all I can; now there is life, go into it, and find what a mystery, what an agony, what a tragedy it is, and if we should be old men together we will talk the story over, and tell what we have learned in that wider school. Some things are just arithmetically, and other things are just sympathetically: the justice of arithmetic is one, the justice of sympathy is another. Whatever you have, you have for the benefit of other people: if you have wisdom you hold it for others, not for yourself; you are not at liberty to draw down your blinds and light the lamp of your genius and say, How brilliant a flame it makes! you are rather to go out and say, God has given me all this faculty, all this brilliance, and because he gave it I hold it with a trembling hand, and because I measure it against his glory it is as nothing to me; but if it can be made of any use to you, poor tear-blinded traveller, here it is, use it, and if you have not strength to hold the lamp, I will go with you and hold it till I see you over your own threshold and safely seated within the security of your own home. Thus the Apostle would tell the Jew that Abraham was more than a mere unit in one particular line or genealogy: thus the Apostle would tell the Gentile that, though he may know nothing of Abraham after the flesh, he may know Abraham after the spirit; he may set his feet in the footsteps of Abraham, and walk where the grand old prophet walked, and go with him into the same infinite heaven. And all this is to be done by faith, giving the whole self away to the infinite, living the larger life, not peddling over our own affairs, and taking care of them, as if we could do anything with these poor frail fingers. When shall we learn that we can do nothing but by giving ourselves into God’s hands, saying, Lord, what a fool I have been! managing my own affairs all this time, when I might have handed them one and all to thy care: thy will be done. There must be no mental reserve, no saying, I have said the words, but I have kept just so much in my own hand. No: let go the string; now you have nothing to live on but your faith, and faith never fails. God keeps back nothing from faith: “Believest thou that I am able to do this?”

The Apostle brings all history into grand harmonic line. He discourses on Abraham, the head of the house; he discourses on law, a temporary convenience, a kind of nurse that took the child to school. The law being a schoolmaster hardly fits the Apostolic meaning: the law was one that went for the child and said, Come with me, and I will take you to school. So the law takes all the little scholars referred to to Christ, and leaves them there: the nurse does not go into the school, it is enough that the nurse should go to the school door, see it open, and the little scholar go in; then the nurse can return home. The law brings us up to the tuition and sovereignty of Christ. The Apostle also brings David in, and makes David sing a sweet little song in the newer house: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute (reckon) sin.” We cannot sing these words as David sang them. He came up out of so deep a pit, and through such a tunnel of darkness, that when he got his breath again he sang like an angel. And now Paul is not content to have Abraham and the law and David; if Paul had been a mere Jew he would have said, This is enough: but Paul could not rest there; he says, I want the Gentiles now; I have Abraham and the law, I have David and I have imputed or reckoned righteousness, but I want the heathen for Christ’s possession; yea, in the uttermost parts of the earth his face must shine like a blessing. What is the Apostle leading up to? what will be his climax? what his peroration? This inquiry is answered in Rom 4:24-25 : “If we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” The Apostle never cuts down his argument until he lands it right in the Cross. When he gets there he drops the argument and begins to sing.

Prayer

Blessed Saviour, we worship thee as our heart’s one God. Without thee we are incomplete; nay, we are less than nothing; we are shadows without a centre, we are voices of self-contradiction, without wisdom or truth; but with thee, and as interpreted by thy love, we are sons of God, walking in heavenly light, and having resounding in our hearts most blessed promises. We humbly pray thee to abide with us constantly as the giver of our life, and the supporter of our being; show thyself unto us by day, flame forth upon us from every wayside bush, and make thyself known unto us in the breaking of our daily bread. Make all common things symbols of high realities, and grant that in every event of life we may so plainly see thine hand as to be led daily to profounder homage and tenderer love. May we in our life show by the wisdom of the serpent, and the harmlessness of the dove, that our instructor is God, and may God be glorified in us by reason of our holiness. We are not content with ourselves, we are sinners before thee; God be merciful unto us sinners. O thou who dost cleanse man’s sin by the precious blood of the Lamb of God, do thou take away every stain of our guilt, and make us without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; and grant that by our growth in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, we may live a life that is hidden from the world, we may have meat to eat that the world knows not of, and in our broken heart do thou set up thy blessed temple. Walk with us, abide with us, speak much to us by night and by day; come to us in the time of our sorrow, and do thou attemper and chasten our joy. Give unto us life more and more abundantly; thou hast no pleasure in death, thy joy is to give eternal life; we have tasted of that life and would now eat and drink abundantly. Holy Father, blessed Son of God, and coequal Spirit, dwell with us in ever increasing manifestation, show us the purity and love of God, and bless us with the promise of eternal life. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XII

THE UNIVERSAL NECESSITY OF SALVATION (CONCLUDED)

Rom 2:17-4:25

I revert to Rom 2:6-9 , referring to judgment: “Who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil.” That discussion of the judgment is the judgment of law without gospel consideration. Otherwise it contradicts the whole plan of salvation set forth in the letter, for it makes patient continuance in well-doing the basis of salvation.

Another point in Rom 2 is that under the law, being a Jew outwardly could not save a man. The real Jew is one inwardly and has circumcision of the heart. He must be regenerated, and the publication of the grace plan all along ran side by side with that law plan, even in the Old Testament.

God never had but one plan of salvation from the beginning.

That leads to this question, If, being naturally a Jew and circumcised according to the Jewish law, and keeping externally the ritual law did not save him, as Rom 3 opens what advantage then hath the Jew? The answer to that is that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God, and they had a better chance of getting acquainted with the true plan of salvation. Then what if some of these Jews were without faith? That does not destroy that advantage; they had the privilege and some availed themselves of it. Does that not make the grace of God of none effect? In other words, if God is glorified by the condemnation of unbelievers, how then shall the man be held responsible? His answer is, “God forbid,” for if that were true how could God judge the world? That supposition destroys the character of God in his judgment capacity. If God were the author of sin and constrained men by an extraneous power to sin, he could not be a judge. All who hold the Calvinistic interpretation of grace must give fair weight to that statement. Whenever God does judge a man, his judgment will be absolutely fair.

Once when a party of preachers were discussing election and predestination I asked the question, “Do you believe in election and predestination?” The answer was, “Yes.” “Are you ever hindered by what you believe about election in preaching a universal gospel? If you have any embarrassment there it shows that you have in some way a wrong view of the doctrine of election and predestination.” A young preacher of my county went to the wall on that thing. It made him practically quit preaching, because he said that he had no gospel except for the sheep. I showed him how, in emphasizing one truth according to his construction of that truth, he was emphatically denying another truth of God. That brings up another question: If the loss of the sinner accrues to the glory of God, why should he be judged as a sinner? A supposition is made. Under that view would it not be well to say, “Let us do evil that good may come?” There were some slanderous reports that such was Paul’s teaching. He utterly disavows such teaching or that any fair construction of what he preached tended that way.

We come now to his conclusion of the necessity of the gospel plan of salvation. He bases it upon the fact that under the law of nature, providence, and conscience, under the law of Sinai, under any form of law, the whole world is guilty. There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth. There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable.

So apart from the gospel plan of salvation there is universal condemnation.

We come to his next conclusion (Rom 3:13-18 ) that man’s depravity is total. Total refers to all the parts, and not to degrees. He enumerates the parts to show the totality. That doesn’t mean that every man is as wicked in degree as he can be, but that every part is so depraved that without the gospel plan of salvation he cannot be saved: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit; The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

With mankind universally guilty, and every member totally depraved, we get another conclusion that whatever things the law says, it says to those under the law. No matter whether the law of conscience, the law of nature, or the moral law of Moses, those under the law must be judged by the law. That being so, he sums up his conclusion thus: “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight.”

That brings us to consider the gospel plan of salvation (Rom 3:21-8:39 ) and covers six points justification, redemption, adoption, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. For the present we will discuss that part called justification. He commences by stating that while there is no righteousness by the law, there is a righteousness apart from the law, and this way of salvation apart from the law is witnessed by the law itself and by the prophets, and that this righteousness is presented to both Jew and Gentile without any distinction, and that always has been the way from the beginning of the world to the present time. If God has seemed to discriminate in favor of the Jews, he looked toward the Gentiles through the Jews, and if he now seems partial to the Gentiles against the Jews, he is looking toward the restoration of the Jews. This righteousness is presented to all men on the same terms faith and this righteousness presented by faith is of grace. Man doesn’t merit it, either Jew or Gentile it is free.

It is the hardest thing in the world to convince a sinner that salvation comes from no merit of his, and that faith is simply the hand that receives. Throughout all the length of the great chain of salvation it is presented without discrimination of race, color, sex, or previous condition of servitude. We come now to the ground of it. That ground is redemption through Christ. To redeem means to buy back. It implies that the one was sold and lost. It must be a buying back, and it would not be of grace if we did the buying back. It is a redemption through Jesus Christ. He is the Redeemer the one who buys back. The meritorious ground consists in his expiation reaching us through his mediation. He stands between the sinner and God and touches both. The first part of his mediation is the payment of that purchase price. He could not, in paying the purchase price, stand for God unless God set him forth as a propitiation. He could not touch man unless he himself, in one sense, was a man, and voluntarily took the position. The effectiveness of the propitiation depends upon the faith of the one to receive Jesus. That covers all past sins. When we accept Jesus we are acquitted forever, never again coming into condemnation. I said that that “covers past sins.” We must understand this. Christ’s death avails meritoriously once for all for all the sins of a man, past, present, and future. But in the methods of grace there is a difference in application between sins before justification and sins after justification. The ground is one, before and after. But the Holy Spirit applies differently. When we accept Jesus by faith as he is offered in the gospel, we at once and forever enter into justification, redemption of soul, and adoption into God’s family, and are regenerated. We are no longer aliens and enemies, but children and friends of God. God’s grace therefore deals with us as children. Our sins thereafter are the sins of children. We reach forgiveness of them through the intercessions of our High Priest and the pleadings of our Advocate. (See Heb 9:25-26 ; Heb 7:25 ; 1Jn 2:1 .) We may be conscious of complete peace when justified (Rom 5:1 ), but our consciences condemn us for sins after justification, and peace comes for these offenses through confession, through faith, through intercession, through the application of the same cleansing blood by the Holy Spirit. So in us regeneration is once for all) but this good work commenced in us is continued through sanctification with its continual application of the merits of Christ’s death. Therefore our theme says, “From faith to faith.” Not only justified by faith, but living by faith after justification through every step of sanctification. We don’t introduce any new meritorious ground. That is sufficient for all, but it is applied differently. Justification takes place in heaven. It is God that justifies. The ground of the justification is the expiation of Christ. The means by which we receive the justification is the Holy Spirit’s part of regeneration which is called cleansing. Regeneration consists of two elements, at least cleansing and renewing. But the very moment that one believes in Christ the Holy Spirit applies the blood of Christ to his heart and he is cleansed from the defilement of sin. At the same time the Holy Spirit does another thing. He renews the mind. He changes that carnal mind which is enmity toward God. Few preachers ever explain thoroughly that passage in Ezekiel: “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean. I will take away your stony heart and give you a heart of flesh.” There is the cleansing and the renewing. Jesus says, “Born of water and Spirit.” There are no articles in the Greek. It is one birth. In Titus we find the same idea: He saved us “by the washing of regeneration,” the first idea’ and “the renewing of the Holy Spirit,” the second idea.

This method of justification enables God to remain just in justifying a guilty man. If we could not find a plan by which God’s justice would remain, then we could find no plan of justification. How do we understand that to be done upon this principle of substitution? J. M. Pendleton in his discussion of this subject based upon a passage in the letter to .Philemon, explains it. Paul says, “If thou hast aught against Onesimus, put it on my account.” Now Philemon can be just in the remission of the debt of Onesimus, because he has provided for the payment of that debt through Paul; so Christ promised to come and pay our debt and the payment is reckoned to the man that accepts Christ, thus showing how remission of sins in the case of Old Testament saints precedes the actual payment, or expiation, by Christ. God charged Abraham’s debts to Christ, and Christ promised to pay them when he should come into the world. Abraham was acquitted right then. So far as God was concerned, the debt was not expiated until Christ actually came and died. In our case, expiation precedes the faith in it. He expiated my sins on the cross before I was born. There came a time when the plan of salvation by that expiation was presented to me, and I received it, and then remission took place.

This plan of salvation by faith not only justifies God, but absolutely excludes any boasting upon the part of the man. If the man had paid the debt himself he could claim to be the cause of this justification. But since he did not contribute one iota to the payment of the debt, there is no possible ground for him to boast. This plan brings out God’s impartial relation both to Jew and Gentile, since both are admitted upon equal terms.

We come to an objection that has been raised. If God acquits the man without his having paid the penalty of the law, does not that make the law void? His answer is an emphatic denial. It not only does not make the law void, but it establishes the law. How? The law is honored in that the Substitute obeys it and dies in suffering its penalties. Further by the fact that this plan takes this man saved by grace and gives him, through regeneration, a mind to obey the law, though it may be done imperfectly, and then through sanctification enables him to obey the law perfectly. It fulfils all of its penal sanctions through the one who redeems and through the Holy Spirit’s work in the one that is redeemed. When I get to heaven I will be a perfect keeper of the law in mind and in act. We can easily see the distinction between a mere pardon of human courts, which is really contrary to law, and a pardon which magnifies and makes the law honorable. It was on this line that I once preached a sermon on the relation of faith to morals, showing that the only way on earth to practice morality is through the gospel of Christ. So we see that God can be just and the justifier of the ungodly.

Salvation that comes up to the point of justification will, ”through the same plan, be continued on to the judgment day. In his argument to prove that God’s plan of salvation has always been the same) Paul illustrates it by the two most striking Old Testament cases that would appeal to the Jewish mind, one of which is the case of Abraham’s conversion which is recorded in Gen 15 . Up to that time Abraham was not a saved man, though he was a called man and had some general belief in God. At that time he was justified, and he was justified by faith, and righteousness was imputed to him; it was not his own. That was before he was circumcised, and it deprived him of all merit, and made him the father of all who could come after him in the spiritual line. He proves this by the promise to Abraham and his seed, and shows that that seed refers, not to his carnal descendants, but to the spiritual descendant, Jesus Christ. Then he goes on to show that as Isaac, through whom the descent flowed, was born, not in a natural manner, but after a supernatural manner, so we are born after a supernatural manner. He then takes up the further idea that that was the only way in the world to make the promises sure to all the seed.

Take the thief on the cross. He had no time to get down and reform his life. He was a dying sinner, and some plan of salvation must be devised which would be as quick as lightning in its operation. Suppose a man is on a plank in the deep and about to be washed away into the watery depths. He cannot go back and correct the evils that he has done and justify himself by restitution. If salvation is to be sure to him, it must work in a minute. That is a great characteristic of it. David was their favorite king. His songs constituted their ritual in the Temple of worship. He testifies precisely the same thing: “Blessed is the man whose sin is covered,” that is, through propitiation. Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth no transgression. He takes these two witnesses and establishes his case. He shows that the results of justification are present peace, joy, and glory, thus commencing, “Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God.”

QUESTIONS

1. What Judgment is referred to in Rom 2:6 , and what the proof?

2. Who was the real Jew?

3. What advantage had the Jew?

4. Did all Jews avail themselves of this advantage?

5. Does that not make the grace of God of none effect, and why?

6. Does the doctrine of election hinder the preaching of a universal gospel, and why?

7. If the loss of the sinner accrues to the glory of God, why should he be judged as a sinner?

8. What is Paul’s conclusion as to the necessity of the gospel plan of salvation, and upon what does he base it?

9. What Paul’s conclusion as to man’s depravity, what is the meaning of total depravity, and how is it set forth in this passage?

10. What his conclusion as to the law?

11. What then his summary of the whole matter?

12. What is the theme of Rom 3:21-8:39 , and what six phases of the subject are thus treated?

13. Is there a righteousness by the law, what the relation of the law to righteousness, and to whom is this righteousness offered?

14. How do you explain God’s partiality toward the Jews first and then toward the Gentiles?

15. What are the terms of this righteousness, and what its source?

16. What is this phase of salvation called, and what is the ground of it?

17. What is redemption, and what does it imply?

18. What is the meritorious ground of our justification, and upon what does the effectiveness of it depend?

19. What is the difference in the application to sins before justification and to sins after justification?

20. What is justification, where does it take place, what accompanies it in the sinner, how, what its elements and how illustrated in both the Old and the New Testaments?

21. How does this method of justification by faith enable God to remain just and at the same time justify a guilty man?

22. What is J. M. Pendleton’s illustration of this principle?

23. What bearing hag this on the case of Old Testament saints?

24. How does this plan of salvation exclude boasting?

25. What objection is raised to this method of justification, and what the answer to it?

26. How is the law honored in this method of justification?

27. What is the distinction between a mere pardon of human courts and this method of pardon?

28. How does Paul prove that the plan of salvation has always been the same?

29. How does Paul show that that was the only way to make the promises sure to all the seed?

30. What is the testimony of David on this point, and what its special force in this case?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Ver. 1. As pertaining to the flesh ] That is, As touching his works, Rom 4:2 , called also the letter, Rom 2:27 , and the law a carnal commandment,Heb 7:16Heb 7:16 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 5. ] Abraham himself was justified by faith . The reading and punctuation of this verse present some difficulties. As to the first (see var. read.), the variation in the order of the words, and the reading seemed to me formerly, however strongly supported, to have sprung out of an idea that belonged to . This being supposed, appeared to have been transposed to throw . together, and then, because Abraham is distinctly proved ( Rom 4:11 ) to have been in another sense the father of the faithful, to have been altered to the less ambiguous , ancestor , a word not found in the N. T., but frequent in the Fathers. I therefore in the 3rd edition of this vol., with De Wette, Tholuck, and Tischendorf (in his last [7th, not 8th] edn.), retained the rec. text. Being now however convinced that we are bound to follow the testimony of our best MSS., and to distrust such subjective considerations as unsafe, and generally able to be turned both ways, I have adopted the reading of [20] ( [21] ) [22] [23] [24] [25] &c., bracketing as of doubtful authority, omitted as it is by B.

[20] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .

[21] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle; it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon; nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as ‘Verc’): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are (1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as ‘Blc’); (2) that of Birch (‘Bch’), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798, Apocalypse, 1800, Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (‘Btly’), by the Abbate Mico, published in Ford’s Appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus’ Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentley’s books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (‘Rl’), and are preserved amongst Bentley’s papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20) 1 . The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgon’s “Letters from Rome,” London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).

[22] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments 2 . It seems to have come to France with Catherine de’ Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de’ Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C 3 ) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople 3 . But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text, holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century . Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C 2 , C 3 .

[23] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ, so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history; but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century .

[24] The Codex Boreeli, once possessed by John Boreel, Dutch ambassador in London under James I. It was lost for many years, till found at Arnheim by Heringa, a professor at Utrecht. It is now in the public library at the latter place. Heringa wrote a dissertation on it, so copious as to serve for an edition of the codex itself. This dissertation was published by Vinke in 1843. Contains the four Gospels with many lacun, which have increased since Wetstein’s time. Tischendorf in 1841 examined the codex and compared it with Heringa’s collation. Tischendorf assigns it to the ninth century: Tregelles, to the tenth .

[25] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .

Grot., Le Clerc, and Wetst. punctuate, ; . : and Mattha, ; . ; supplying (or more rightly an indefinite ) after . But as Thol. well remarks, both these methods of punctuating would presuppose that Paul had given some reason in the preceding verses for imagining that Abraham had gained some advantage according to the flesh: which is not the case.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1. ] The Apostle is here contending with those under the law from their own standing-point : and he follows up his , by what therefore (‘hoc concesso,’ ‘seeing that you and I are both upholders of the law’) shall we say , &c. This verse, and the argument following, are not a proof , but a consequence , of ., and are therefore introduced, not with , but with .

[if read]] viz. towards his justification , or more strictly, earned as his own, to boast of.

belongs to ., not (as Chrys., Theophyl., Erasm.) to . For the course and spirit of the argument is not to limit the paternity of Abraham to a mere fleshly one, but to shew that he was the spiritual father of all believers. And the question is not one which requires any such distinction between his fleshly and spiritual paternity (as in ch. Rom 9:3 , Rom 9:5 ). This being so, what does mean ? It cannot allude to circumcision ; for that is rendered improbable, not only by the parallel expression in the plural , but also by the consideration, that circumcision was no at all, but a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith being yet uncircumcised ( Rom 4:11 ), and by the whole course of the argument in the present place, which is not to disprove the exclusive privilege of the Jew (that having been already done, chs. 2. 3.), but to shew that the father and head of the race himself was justified not by works, but by faith . Doubtless, in so far as circumcision was a mere work of obedience , it might be in a loose way considered as falling under that category: but it came after justification, and so is chronologically here excluded. then is in contrast to , and refers to that department of our being from which spring works , in contrast with that in which is the exercise of faith : see ch. Rom 8:4 , Rom 8:5 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 1:18 to Rom 11:36 . ] THE DOCTRINAL EXPOSITION OF THE ABOVE TRUTH: THAT THE GOSPEL IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION TO EVERY ONE THAT BELIEVETH. And herein, ch. Rom 1:18 to Rom 3:20 , inasmuch as this power of God consists in the revelation of God’s righteousness in man by faith, and in order to faith the first requisite is the recognition of man’s unworthiness, and incapability to work a righteousness for himself, the Apostle begins by proving that all, Gentiles and Jews, are GUILTY before God, as holding back the truth in unrighteousness. And FIRST, ch. Rom 1:18-32 , OF THE GENTILES.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

21 5:11. ] THE ENTRANCE INTO GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS (ch. Rom 1:17 ) IS SHEWN TO BE BY FAITH.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

27 4:25. ] JEWISH BOASTING ALTOGETHER REMOVED by this truth , NOT however BY MAKING VOID THE LAW, nor BY DEGRADING ABRAHAM FROM HIS PRE-EMINENCE, but BY ESTABLISHING THE LAW, and shewing that Abraham was really JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, and is the FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 4:1-8 . The justification of Abraham, considered in relation to the doctrine just expounded in Rom 3:21-31 . The point to be made out is that the justification of Abraham does not traverse but illustrates the Pauline doctrine.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Rom 4:1 The force of seems to be that the case of Abraham, as commonly understood, has at least the appearance of inconsistency with the Pauline doctrine. “What, then, i.e. , on the supposition that Rom 4:21-25 in chap. 3 are a true exposition of God’s method, shall we say of Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? Does not his case present a difficulty? For if he was justified by works (as one may assume), he has ground for boasting (whereas boasting, according to the previous argument, Rom 3:27 , is excluded).” This seems to me by far the simplest interpretation of the passage. The speaker is a Jewish Christian, or the Apostle putting himself in the place of one. goes with , because the contrast with another kind of fatherhood belonging to Abraham is already in the Apostle’s thoughts: see Rom 4:11 . If the reading be adopted (see critical note), no change is necessary in the interpretation. To take with , as though the question were: What shall we say that our forefather Abraham found in the way of natural human effort, as opposed to the way of grace and faith? is to put a sense on which is both forced and irrelevant. The whole question is, What do you make of Abraham, with such a theory as that just described?

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Romans Chapter 4

The previous reasoning, and especially the statement of the apostle towards the close of Rom 3 , had made justification to depend evidently and exclusively on the expiatory work of Jesus. God was thereby just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. And this, as he had further shown, at once opens the door of grace to Gentiles as well as Jews, while it establishes law instead of annulling its authority (as the salvation of sinners on any other principle must).

This naturally raised the question of the saints in Old Testament times, before Jesus and the gospel which, since His advent, is preached to every creature. How does the doctrine agree with God’s ways in their case? Accordingly the apostle takes two instances which would naturally occur to a Jewish objector: one the depositary of promise from God, as regards the chosen people; the other the true type of royalty over them according to God – Abraham and David, but especially Abraham. Both, we shall see, confirm the great argument instead of presenting the smallest difficulty to be removed.

“What therefore shall we say that Abraham, our [fore-]father according to the flesh, hath found?* For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath matter of boast, but not before God. For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.” (Ver. 1-5.)

* The manuscripts differ widely in this place. The Vatican is not alone in omitting (“hath found”), which would yield a very easy sense. Most of the copies place before , but the best have it after . is the reading of but few, but perhaps enough; as is the usual form and might easily have slipped in.

What, then, is the true inference from the history of Abraham? If justified by works, certainly the credit would be his; but this is never found before God. And with this the scripture accords; for it speaks not of his goodness before his call or acceptance, but expressly of his faith in God’s word as that which he exercised, and which was accounted as righteousness. (Gen 15:6 .) No Jew who bowed to the divine authority of the Pentateuch could dispute this. Was it, then, consistent or at issue with the gospel? If a man work, the reward is not viewed as a gratuity, but as the wages due to him; but if, instead of working, he believes on Him that justifies the ungodly, what a magnificent proof and conclusion that his faith is reckoned for righteousness! This is free grace, and the very reverse of a debt according to law; and such was the principle of God’s dealings with their great forefather according to the inspired account of Moses.

Take again the testimony of David. Does he fall in with the gospel or contradict the legislator? The sweet psalmist of Israel confirms them, for he pronounces those blessed whom the law could only curse. “Just as David also speaketh of the blessedness of the man to whom God reckoneth righteousness without works. Blessed [they] whose iniquities were forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed a man whose sin the Lord will in no way reckon.” (Ver. 6-8.) Unquestionably this is justification not by good, but in spite of evil works. It is God’s grace blessing, not His law cursing, where there was no righteousness, but only lawlessness and sin; yet the Lord reckons no sin whatever, but righteousness without works. No doubt, man is supposed to be altogether evil and without excuse; but this is the revelation of the God of all grace as He loves to be known by sinful man. He justifies those who need it most – the ungodly. “This blessedness, therefore, [is it] upon the circumcision or also upon the uncircumcision? for we say that to Abraham faith was reckoned for righteousness. How then was it reckoned? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received [the] sign of circumcision, a seal of the faith that [he had] in uncircumcision, in order to his being the father of all that believe while uncircumcised, in order that righteousness might be reckoned to them also; and father of circumcision, net only to those circumcised, but also to those that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham while uncircumcised.” (Ver. 9-12.)

We have seen, then, faith counted as righteousness to Abraham, corroborated by the testimony of David to the blessedness of those whose bad works were remitted and to whom the Lord reckoned no sin. But a new question arises for the Jewish mind – Were not those blessed in the enjoyment of circumcision? Is it not limited to persons within that pale? Again the apostle brings in Abraham. Could any Jew slight him or hesitate as to the conditions of his blessing? How, therefore, in his case was faith reckoned to him? after or before he was circumcised? Beyond doubt, when he was uncircumcised, as their own inspired record made plain and sure. Circumcision was but a sign he received considerably later, as sealing the faith he had while in an uncircumcised state. Thus is Abraham more than any other fitted to be father of all that believe while uncircumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them; and father of circumcision (not of the circumcised, or Jews, as some perversely understand, but), of true separation to God, whether for the circumcised or for those also that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham whilst uncircumcised.

The Jew, therefore, could not cite Abraham without being compelled by the scriptural history to allow that this precedent illustrates the grace of God in justifying the heathen more forcibly, if possible, than in its application to his own circumcised and lineal seed. God, if He pleased, could have justified Abraham after bringing him under the rite of circumcision; but He saw fit to do the very reverse. Not only was faith reckoned as righteousness to Abraham, but it was also beyond cavil whilst he was still uncircumcised; and circumcision was in no way a means of the grace that justifies, but a seal of the righteousness that was reckoned to him long before that sign was instituted by God.

Justification, then, is not of works: else man might boast of himself, instead of God being glorified. It is really according to grace, and not debt; and God reserves His prerogative of justifying the ungodly. Thus God and man have their due place; and as Abraham illustrated the principle, so David speaks of the pronouncing a blessing after this sort in Psa 32 . Nothing but imputing righteousness without works could avail for the justifying of a sinner. Nor this only; for the very man, with whom circumcision began as the command of God, was expressly justified by faith before he was circumcised. So manifestly did God order all in His wisdom and goodness that circumcision should be but a seal of the righteousness of faith which Abraham had while yet uncircumcised. Thus the Gentiles or the uncircumcised were especially provided for in the unquestionable facts recorded in the first book of the Pentateuch, as no Jew could deny. Abraham was father of all believers in a state like his own, and father of circumcision (i.e., separation to God, couched under that act which set forth mortification of the flesh) not only to the circumcised, but also to those that walk in the footsteps of the faith the ancestor of Israel had before circumcision. Believers from among the Gentiles were thus as truly circumcised in the highest sense as Jewish ones.

“For not by law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be heir of [the] world, but by righteousness of faith. For if those of law [be] heirs, faith is made vain and the promise is annulled.” (Ver. 13, l4.)

The apostle now reasons from the necessary principle of God’s promise. This excludes law and supposes faith – righteousness. For evidently law supposes the obedience of man as the condition of receiving the boon which is in question. It was not so in God’s dealings with Abraham or his seed. There was not a word about His law when God gave promise to Abraham in Gen 12 , and to his seed in Gen 22 . The promise implies God’s fulfilment of it; the law claimed man’s obedience of its demands. They are thus, while each is admirable for its own end, absolutely different and mutually exclusive. The promised inheritance is not by law, but by another sort of righteousness. It was annexed to faith; and this is so true, that if those who stand on law are heirs, no room is left for faith and the promise comes thus to nought. “For the law worketh out wrath; but where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Ver. 15.) The application is as clear as it is momentous, and this positively as well as negatively. The thing law generally, and in particular the law of God given by Moses, provokes by its very excellence the hostile self-will of man, and so detects his enmity and works out wrath in result. On the other hand, where there is no law, there is no transgression. It is no question of sin here, but of violating positive prescription, which latter of course could not be till the lawgiver uttered the enactments definitely. Then as law existed, it could be transgressed. But it was not yet promulgated in the time of Abraham, who had that wholly different thing – the promise.

The conclusion is, that as law would have defeated the promise of God and brought wrath on man, instead of the inheritance, “on this account [it is] of faith, that [it might be] according to grace in order to the promise being sure to all the seed, not only to that which is of law, but also to that which is of Abraham’s faith, who is father of us all (even as it is written, A father of many nations I have made thee), before God whom he believed, that quickeneth the dead and calleth the things that are not as if they are; who against hope believed in hope, in order to his becoming father of many nations according to that which was spoken, So shall be thy seed.” (Ver. 16-18.) As faith is opposed to works, so is grace to law; while the grace of God who gave the promise makes the sole and withal the large door of faith to open for Gentiles no less than Jews. Had law been the principle, Israel who boasted of possessing the law, though blind to their breaches of it and to their own enhanced exposure to wrath, could alone have made an effort, however vainly. But grace goes out to the Gentile no less than to the Jew who could hardly limit Abraham’s paternity of “many nations” to his own people.

Here too another point of great value is noticed. The God whom Abraham believed quickens the dead and calls things that have no being as though they had. This was rendered evident not only by the fact that Sarah bore no child to Abraham, but by their great age when the promise was given. They were as good as dead, and a child of theirs had no existence. But what of all this to God? Long before the time God spoke, Abraham against hope believed in hope. What a pattern of faith! On the human side all was hopeless; on God’s part there was simply His word. But Abraham believed, hoped, and was not ashamed. God could not fail to make good what He said: “So shall be thy seed.”

We are thus gradually advancing to the great principle of resurrection, which, while it bears mainly on life, as we shall see in Romans 5-8, plays also a most momentous part in justification. For this too the case of Abraham is employed: “And, not being weak in faith, he considered [not] his own body now dead, being about a hundred years old, and the deadening of Sarah’s womb, yet as to the promise of God wavered not through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and fully assured that what he hath promised he is able also to perform.” (Ver. 19-21.) The promise of God was beyond hope, and contrary to it, if he reasoned from himself and Sarah; but yet he believed in hope, because God had declared he should have posterity numerous as the stars and the sand. Faith reasons from God and His word, not from self or circumstances.

In verse 19 there occurs a remarkable difference of reading; and yet, strange to say, though that which results is as opposite as can be, in either way the sense is good. For both appear to suit and carry on the argument, though of course one alone is the true and intended comment of the Spirit on the state of Abraham. There is excellent and perhaps adequate authority of every kind* (manuscripts, versions, and ancient citations) for dropping the negative particle, which is therefore marked as doubtful in the version just before the reader’s eye. If be an interpolation, the meaning would be that Abraham, instead of slighting the obstacles, took full account of them all (Gen 17:17 ), yet as regards the promise of God had no hesitation through unbelief, but on the contrary was inwardly strengthened in faith. If the ordinary reading be right, the meaning is that, far from being weak in faith, he paid no heed to the facts before his eyes whether in himself or in his wife, nor staggered at the promise of God through unbelief, but found strength in faith, giving glory to Him and satisfied that He was able also to perform the promise.

* The Sinai, Vatican, Alexandrian, and Rescript of Paris (C.), with a few cursives, some of the oldest and best copies of the Vulgate, the Syriac (not the later or Philox.), the Coptic, the Erpenian Arabic, and some Greek and Latin fathers did not read . Lachmann accordingly leaves it out, and Griesbach counted it a probable omission. Tischendorf too omitted it in his first edition, but replaced it in the second and those subsequent. Meyer adheres to the common text.

“Wherefore also it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Now it was not written on his account alone that it was reckoned to him, but on our account also, to whom it shall be reckoned – [us] that believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord out of [the] dead, who was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification.” (Ver. 22-25.)

with the accus. means “for,” “on account of,” either retrospectively or prospectively, according to the requirement of the context (as here we have instances of each). The active force of forbids “because of,” as does Rom 5:1 , which makes faith necessary to justification. I have therefore preferred “for” as admitting of a similar latitude in English.

Thus as faith was reckoned for righteousness to the father of the faithful, so is it to the believer now. But the apostle takes care to point out the difference as well as the analogy. The faith not of Abraham only but of all the Old Testament saints was exercised on promise. They all in a large sense waited for the accomplishment of what God held out, sure that He could not lie, and was able also to perform. But in the great ulterior object of their hope they were expecting One who was only promised and not yet come.

It is not so with the Christian; for though he, like the elders, obtains a good report by faith, and has his faith reckoned for righteousness, yet the personal object of hope is come, and has wrought the infinite work of redemption. This is an incalculable change, and fraught with mighty consequences. It is not of course that much does not remain to be effected when Christ comes again (changing the saints then alive, raising the dead believers, judging the quick and finally the dead who had no part in the first resurrection, and closing all in the eternal state); but as to the foundation of all this and more, as to that work which alone could glorify God and justify sinful man, it is already done so perfectly that it admits of not a hairbreadth from God or man to render it more complete or efficacious. Such is the gospel of the grace of God; it is not promise, but accomplishment; and so absolutely, we may boldly say, that, if not now done in the cross, in the death and resurrection of Him who hung there, it never can be done – not even by Him. Christ being risen from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over Him. Without His death in atonement, nothing was done which could adequately vindicate God about sin. In His death, God is glorified perfectly and for ever. He has put away sin by His sacrifice. By His one offering for our sins, they are gone for the believer. This is no question of hope, but of faith in the efficacy of His redemption, which we already possess through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Hence we are viewed in scripture as receiving the end of our faith, namely, the salvation of our souls, though we have to wait for the change of our bodies into His glorious likeness at His coming for us. Besides, there are gracious promises of care in both natural and spiritual necessities along the path here below. But the great fact remains for faith, that the atoning work is done.

Let it be remarked, further, that here it is not a question of the Saviour’s blood as in Rom 3 , but of God that raised Jesus our Lord from among the dead. The truth insisted on is not His grace who suffered all for our sins. It is the mighty intervention of God on our behalf in triumphant power, raising out of the dead Him who gave Himself to bear our judgment; or rather as it is here written, who was delivered on account of our offences and was raised to secure our justification. Thus, in Rom 3:26 the point is faith in Jesus; here, it is on Him that raised up Jesus. Such is the God whom we know. The fathers knew Him as He was pleased to reveal at that time and link Himself with them. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob was the giver of promises assuredly to be accomplished in His time. But our God, while the same blessed and blessing Almighty, is (as we can say) far more than this. The Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father – He had declared Him – He who was full of grace and truth. Nor this only; for Jesus, conqueror of Satan in life, went down for us into death, was delivered for our offences, and therein so glorified God that His righteousness could not but bring Him up from the dead. The sins that were laid on Him, where are they? Gone for ever: blotted out by His precious blood. Could God leave Him in death who had thus afresh retrieved His glory and bound up with it the means of our eternal blessing? Impossible. He raised Jesus therefore from the dead and gave Him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God.

As God, then, is thus made known to the believer now, so it will be noticed that all is here closed in justifying us. In the same verse of Rom 3 , which has been already compared, we read that He might be ”just and the justifier” of him that believeth in Jesus. For as we look on the blood of Jesus shed in expiation God has necessarily a judicial character. Sins must be judged according to all the holiness of a nature to which they are infinitely abhorrent. Here therefore God is declared to be just and the justifier of the believer. But in the end of Rom 4 we see that it is no longer a question of righteous satisfaction, as this had been completely settled in the blood of Jesus. Not so with justification. This derives an immensely increased value from the resurrection of Jesus which gloriously displayed in the Deliverer’s person the victory that was won for us. He was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justifying. It is our Red Sea, and not merely our Passover

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Rom 4:1-8

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7″Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered.” 8″Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

Rom 4:1 “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather” Abraham’s name meant “father of a multitude” (cf. Rom 4:16-18). His original name, Abram, meant “exalted father.”

The literary technique used here is called a diatribe (cf. Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14; Rom 9:30). The reason for using Abraham (Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11) as an example is either

1. because the Jews put such merit in their racial origin (cf. Mat 3:9; Joh 8:33; Joh 8:37; Joh 8:39)

2. because his personal faith exemplifies the covenant pattern (Gen 15:6)

3. his faith preceded the giving of the Law to Moses (cf. Exodus 19-20)

4. he was used by false teachers (i.e., Judaizers, cf. Galatians)

For some reason early scribes vacillated between

1. forefather, MSS cf8 i*,2, A, C*

2. father, MSS cf8 i1, C3, D, E, G

Possibly it had to do with the question of Abraham a’s forefather (i.e., Patriarch, Paul is addressing Jews) of the nation of Israel versus Abraham the father of all who exercise faith in God (father of both Jews and Gentiles, Rom 2:28-29).

“flesh” See Special Topic at Rom 1:3.

Rom 4:2 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence (cf. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, vol. 4, p. 350), which is assumed to be true from the perspective of the author or for his literary purpose. This is a good example of a first class conditional sentence that is false in reality, but serves to make a theological point (cf. Rom 4:14).

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible, vol. 33, p. 372, says this may be a mixed conditional sentence with the first part being second class (contrary to fact, “if” Abraham was justified by works, which hew was not. . .”) and the second being first class.

“justified by works” This is the opposite of justification by grace through faith in Christ. If this way of salvation through human effort (Rom 4:4) were possible, it would have made the ministry of Christ unnecessary. Justification by works of the Law is exactly what many rabbis asserted in connection with Abraham (cf. Wis 10:5; Ecclesiaasticus 44:20-21; 1Ma 2:52; Jubilees 6:19-20; 15:1-2). Paul, as a rabbinical student, would have been fully aware of these texts.

However, the OT clearly shows fallen mankind’s inability to perform the covenant works of God. Therefore, the OT became a curse, a death sentence (cf. Gal 3:13; Col 2:14).

The Jewish scholars knew Abraham existed before the Law of Moses, but they believed he anticipated the Law and kept it (cf. Sir 44:20 and Jubilees 6:19; 15:1-2).

“he has something to boast about” This theme often appears in Paul’s writings. His background as a Pharisee sensitized him to this problem (cf. Rom 3:27; 1Co 1:29; Eph 2:8-9). See SPECIAL TOPIC: BOASTING at Rom 2:17.

Rom 4:3

NASB, NKJV,

NRSV, TEV”Abraham believed God”

NJB”Abraham put his faith in God”

This is a quote from Gen 15:6. Paul uses it three times in this chapter (cf. Rom 4:3; Rom 4:9; Rom 4:22), which shows its importance in Paul’s theological understanding of salvation. The term “faith” in the OT meant loyalty, fidelity, or trustworthiness and was a description of God’s nature, not ours. It came from a Hebrew term (emun, emunah) which meant “to be sure or stable.” Saving faith is

1. mental assent (set of truths)

2. volitional commitment (a decision)

3. moral living (a lifestyle)

4. primarily a relational (welcoming of a person)

See Special Topic: Believe, Trust, Faith and Faithfulness in the OT at Rom 1:5.

It must be emphasized that Abraham’s faith was not in a future Messiah but in God’s promise that he would have a child and descendants (cf. Gen 12:2; Gen 15:2-5; Gen 17:4-8; Gen 18:14). Abraham responded to this promise by trusting God. He still had doubts and problems about this promise, as a matter of fact it still took thirteen years to be fulfilled. His imperfect faith, however, was still accepted by God. God is willing to work with flawed human beings who respond to Him and His promises in faith, even if that faith is the size of a mustard seed (cf. Mat 17:20).

Rom 4:3-6; Rom 4:8-10; Rom 4:22-24

NASB, NRSV”it was reckoned to him”

NKJV”it was accounted to him”

TEV”for God accepted him”

NJB”this faith was considered”

“It” refers to Abraham’s faith in God’s promises.

“Reckoned” (logizomia, cf. Rom 3:28; Rom 3:11 times in Romans 4) is an accounting term which meant “imputed” or “deposited to one’s account” (cf. LXX Gen 15:6; Lev 7:18; Lev 17:4). This same truth is beautifully expressed in 2Co 5:21 and Gal 3:6. It is possible that Paul combined Gen 15:6 and Psa 32:2 because they both use the accounting term “reckoned.” This combining of texts was a hermeneutical principle used by the rabbis.

The OT use of this term in the Septuagint is not so much a banking term as a bookkeeping term, possibly related to “the books” of Dan 7:10; Dan 12:1. These two metaphorical books (God’s memory) are

1. the book of deeds or remembrances (cf. Psa 56:8; Psa 139:16; Isa 65:6; Mal 3:16; Rev 20:12-13)

2. the book of life (cf. Exo 32:32; Psa 69:28; Isa 4:3; Dan 12:1; Luk 10:20; Php 4:3; Heb 12:23; Rev 3:5; Rev 13:8; Rev 17:8; Rev 20:15; Rev 21:27).

The book into which Abraham’s faith was ascribed by God as righteousness is “the book of life.”

Rom 4:3; Rom 4:5-6; Rom 4:9-11; Rom 4:13; Rom 4:22; Rom 4:25 “as righteousness” This reflected the OT term “measuring reed” (tsadak). It was a construction metaphor used for the character of God. God is straight and all humans are crooked. In the NT it was used in a positional, legal (forensic) sense which hopefully is moving toward godly lifestyle characteristics. The goal of God for every Christian is His own character, or to put it another way, Christlikeness (cf. Rom 8:28-29; Gal 4:19). See SPECIAL TOPIC: RIGHTEOUSNESS at Rom 1:17.

Rom 4:5 The essence of faith is responding to the God who reveals Himself, without ultimate reliance on personal effort or merit. This does not imply that once we are saved and have the indwelling Spirit that our lifestyle is not important. The goal of Christianity is not only heaven when we die, but Christlikeness now. We are not saved, justified, or given right standing by our works, but we are redeemed unto good works (cf. Eph 2:8-10; James and 1 John). A changed and changing life is the evidence that one is saved. Justification should produce sanctification!

“believes” This is a present active participle. See Special Topic below.

SPECIAL TOPIC: Faith, Believe, or Trust (Pistis [noun], Pisteu, [verb], Pistos [adjective])

NASB, NKJV”his faith”

NRSV”such faith”

TEV, NJB”it is this faith”

Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness. This was not based on Abraham’s actions, but his response. His actions confirmed his faith (cf. Jas 2:14-26).

The word “reckoned” is also used of Phinehas in LXX of Psa 106:31, which refers to Num 25:11-13. In this case the reckoning was based on Phinehas’ actions, but not so with Abraham in Gen 15:6!

“but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” This is a shocking statement! It is an obvious parallel to Abraham in Rom 4:3 (Gen 15:6). Righteousness is a gift of God (see note at Rom 3:24), not the result of human performance. See Special Topic at Rom 1:17.

“David” As Abraham was not a perfect individual, yet was right with God by faith, so too, was sinful David (cf. Psalms 32, 51). God loves and works with fallen humanity (Genesis 3) who exhibit faith in Him (OT) and in His Son (NT).

Rom 4:6 “apart from works” Paul emphasizes this phrase by inserting it just before his OT quote (cf. Psa 32:1-2). Mankind is right with God by His grace mediated through Christ by means of the individual person’s faith, not their religious performance (cf. Rom 3:21-31; Eph 2:8-10).

Rom 4:7-8 This is a quote from Psa 32:1-2. Both verbs in Rom 4:7, “have been forgiven” and “have been covered” are aorist passive. God is the implied agent. Rom 4:8 contains a strong double negative, “will not under any circumstances” be imputed, reckoned, taken into account. Notice the three verbs in this quote; all denote the acquittal of sin.

Rom 4:7 “whose sins have been covered” This is a quote from Psa 32:1. The concept of “covering” was central to the sacrificial aspect of Israel’s cultus (i.e., Leviticus 1-7). By God covering sin (aorist passive indicative), He put it out of His sight (cf. Isa 38:17; Mic 7:19, Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 491). This same concept, though a different Hebrew word for “covering” (caphar), was used in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (covering), where blood placed on the “mercy seat” covered Israel’s sins (i.e., Leviticus 16). A related biblical metaphor would be to erase (cf. Isa 1:18; Isa 43:25) or blot out (cf. Act 3:19; Col 2:14; Rev 3:5) one’s sin.

Rom 4:8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account” This is a quote from Psa 32:2. It is the term “reckon,” “impute,” or “deposit to another’s account,” used in a negative sense. God does not impute sin (double negative) into a believer’s spiritual bank account; He imputes righteousness. This is based on God’s gracious character, gift, and pronouncement, not human merit, achievement or worth!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

What, &c. See Rom 3:5. Forcible form of Figure of speech Erotesis (App-6). Resuming from Rom 3:21.

father = forefather, as the texts read. Figure of speech Synecdoche of Species, App-6.

as pertaining to. Greek. kata. App-104.

the flesh. All the Jews claimed Abraham as their father, See Rom 9:5. Luk 1:73. Joh 8:39 (Compare Rom 4:56). Act 7:2.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-5.] Abraham himself was justified by faith. The reading and punctuation of this verse present some difficulties. As to the first (see var. read.), the variation in the order of the words, and the reading seemed to me formerly, however strongly supported, to have sprung out of an idea that belonged to . This being supposed, appeared to have been transposed to throw . together,-and then, because Abraham is distinctly proved (Rom 4:11) to have been in another sense the father of the faithful, to have been altered to the less ambiguous , ancestor, a word not found in the N. T., but frequent in the Fathers. I therefore in the 3rd edition of this vol., with De Wette, Tholuck, and Tischendorf (in his last [7th, not 8th] edn.), retained the rec. text. Being now however convinced that we are bound to follow the testimony of our best MSS., and to distrust such subjective considerations as unsafe, and generally able to be turned both ways, I have adopted the reading of [20]([21])[22] [23] [24] [25] &c., bracketing as of doubtful authority, omitted as it is by B.

[20] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.

[21] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle;-it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon;-nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as Verc): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are-(1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as Blc); (2) that of Birch (Bch), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798,-Apocalypse, 1800,-Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (Btly), by the Abbate Mico,-published in Fords Appendix to Woides edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentleys books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (Rl), and are preserved amongst Bentleys papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20)1. The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgons Letters from Rome, London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).

[22] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments2. It seems to have come to France with Catherine de Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C3) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople3. But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text,-holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century. Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C2, C3.

[23] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ,-so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history;-but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century.

[24] The Codex Boreeli, once possessed by John Boreel, Dutch ambassador in London under James I. It was lost for many years, till found at Arnheim by Heringa, a professor at Utrecht. It is now in the public library at the latter place. Heringa wrote a dissertation on it, so copious as to serve for an edition of the codex itself. This dissertation was published by Vinke in 1843. Contains the four Gospels with many lacun, which have increased since Wetsteins time. Tischendorf in 1841 examined the codex and compared it with Heringas collation. Tischendorf assigns it to the ninth century: Tregelles, to the tenth.

[25] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.

Grot., Le Clerc, and Wetst. punctuate, ; . :-and Mattha, ; . ; supplying (or more rightly an indefinite ) after . But as Thol. well remarks, both these methods of punctuating would presuppose that Paul had given some reason in the preceding verses for imagining that Abraham had gained some advantage according to the flesh: which is not the case.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Chapter 4

Now what shall we say concerning Abraham the father, as pertaining to the flesh, what did he find? For if Abraham were justified by his works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God ( Rom 4:1-2 ).

If it was Abraham’s works that brought him justification, then Abraham could boast in his works. He could say, “I left my home, I left my family on the other side of the Euphrates River, and I journeyed not even knowing where I was going, just waiting for God to show me. And I was willing to offer my son.” He could have boasted if he was justified by his works, but he could not have boasted in God; he would have had to have boasted in himself.

But what does the scripture say about Abraham? [It says,] Abraham believed God and it was [imputed or] counted unto him for righteousness ( Rom 4:3 ).

Why? He just believed in God, that is what God accounted for righteousness.

Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt ( Rom 4:4 ).

But God will never be a debtor to you; God will never owe you a thing. I am always a debtor to God, but God will never be a debtor to me. Now, if righteousness could come by works, then once I did those works God would owe me salvation. If it were of works, then it would be a debt. God owing me the rewards for my special effort and my work and my sacrifice and my commitment and all.

But it is by faith. It is through grace, God’s grace that He gives to me.

But to him that worketh not, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness ( Rom 4:5 ).

I love it because, you see, it opens the door for me. It keeps the door open for me. I can come to God at any time and expect God to bless me, though I may be a total failure as far as my spiritual walk is concerned. Because God blessed on the basis of His grace, not on the basis of my faithfulness to my devotions. “Chuck, you have been good this week, you have been faithful. You didn’t yell at anyone on the freeway, special reward this week.” No, not so. Do you know that some . . . I hesitate to say this, but some of the times of God’s greatest blessings upon my life have been right after my greatest failures. Because I knew that I just had to cast myself on the grace of God. I knew I couldn’t come in my own merit. I knew that I was just bankrupt and I experienced many times the greatest blessings of God upon my life after my greatest failures. We need to rid ourselves of the Santa Claus concept of God. Who brings good little boys all kinds of nice toys out of his big bag, but if you are a bad little boy you will get sticks. He is making out a list and he is checking it twice. He is going to find out who is naughty and nice. The nice ones are going to be rewarded the naughty ones nothing. And I carried that concept of God, and I think God is going to reward me for my good efforts for my faithfulness for my diligence, for whatever my, my, my . . . No, God’s blessings are given to me on the basis of His grace, that way it’s always available.

The door is never shut. I can always come to God through faith on the basis of God’s grace towards me. To him that works not, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. God looks at me tonight as righteous, because I am believing and do believe completely in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for me in taking my sin and dying in my place. I believe that completely. God accounts that belief for righteousness. God looks at me and says, “Righteous, a righteous man.” I accept that, I know me, I know my weaknesses, I know my failings, and that is why I have to cling to Jesus Christ. That is why I dare not stand in myself.

David described this blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputes righteousness without works ( Rom 4:6 ),

In Psa 32:1-11 , David said,

Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered ( Rom 4:7 ).

The word blessed is literally, “Oh how happy are they” whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

Now if you go back to that you find it very interesting. David talked about that period of time when he sought to hide his own sin. Now, the hand of God was so heavy on him and he became so dried up inside that it was like a drought in summer. His bones were weary, for day and night the hand of God was heavy upon his life, until he finally said, “I am going to confess my sins to the Lord.” And God immediately forgave him all of his iniquity. “Oh how happy is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.”

Then he went on even more daring to say,

Oh how happy is the man to whom God does not impute iniquity ( Rom 4:8 ).

That is, the man to whom God has no list. God doesn’t impute iniquity unto that man who is believing and trusting in Jesus Christ. What a beautiful position that is where God is not imputing iniquity to me, because of my faith. Now, I would not dare to say this unless it was said in the scriptures. I mean, this seems to be so presumptuous I wouldn’t dare to utter it, but the scripture declares it, so I am only declaring what the scripture declares. Oh how happy I am that God accounts me righteous and does not account my iniquities against me because of my faith in Jesus Christ.

God accounts me righteous. Now comes this happiness,

this blessedness then upon only those who are circumcised, or upon those who are uncircumcised also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. But when was this reckoned? when he was circumcised, or when he was uncircumcised? ( Rom 4:9-10 )

When you go back into the record you find that God said of Abraham, “His faith is accounted for righteousness,” before he was circumcised. Therefore, this blessedness of having your sins forgiven, of not having God impute iniquity against you because of your faith in God and trust in God comes not from a physical rite of circumcision, but it came to Abraham before he was ever circumcised.

He received the sign of circumcision, which was the seal of that righteousness of the faith which he had even before he was circumcised: that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they be not circumcised; that there righteousness might be imputed unto them also ( Rom 4:11 ):

God’s righteousness imputed to all men who believe and the father of circumcision. He is the father of those who are not circumcised who believed and also,

The father of those who are circumcised who believed who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not made to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith ( Rom 4:12-13 ).

God promised this to Abraham 400 years before He ever gave the law. It doesn’t come by the law; it doesn’t come by the rite of circumcision, which the Jew was trusting in these two things. But God gave it to Abraham before He ever gave the law, before He ever told Abraham to circumcise his sons, in order that it might be applicable to all men, regardless of race.

For they which are of the law be heirs ( Rom 4:14 ),

If they only which are of the law are the heirs, then,

faith is made void, and the promise is nullified. Because the law works wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression ( Rom 4:14-15 ).

Now you can only transgress the law if there is a law, if there is no law then how can you transgress it? So,

It is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end that the promise might be sure ( Rom 4:16 )

Or be certain. It can never be certain if it was predicated upon me, or upon my works, or my efforts, or my faithfulness, or whatever. If it were predicated upon that, you would never be certain from day to day. I would never really know if I was saved. I may be saved today, but tomorrow I may blow it bad. If it was predicated upon my works in order that it might be certain, in order that it might be sure, God has established it then through grace and faith.

not to that only which is of the law, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham; who was the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) ( Rom 4:16-17 )

Not just one the Jews.

before him whom he believed, even God, who makes alive the dead, and calls those things which be not as though they were ( Rom 4:17 ).

Now, this is an interesting aspect of God, and I like this. God said to Abraham before Isaac was ever conceived, “Through Sarah shall thy seed be called,” and He spoke of Isaac existing before he was ever born. He spoke of him as already existing before he was ever born. Now, God can do that because God lives in the eternal and in the eternal everything is now. God living in the eternal can speak of things as already existing that don’t yet exist in the timeframe that we live in, because God living in the eternal sees them as though they already exist, because He knows they are going to exist, though we have not yet caught up to that timeframe. And so God can speak of things that are not as though they are because of living in the eternal.

Now, this is one of the difficulties that we, living in the timeframe, have in understanding God. There is tremendous difficulty in understanding the resurrection of the dead. When does it happen and so forth? The minute my soul and spirit leaves this body, I also then enter into the eternal timeless zone where everything is now. To help confuse the issue, Son 3:15 said, “And that which has been is now, and that which shall be has already been.” We are talking about the eternal, no time zone. So that which has been is now, that which shall be has already been; today is tomorrow, and yesterday is today.

All right, let’s go up to Pasadena. It’s New Years Day. And standing at the corner there on Colorado Boulevard and the Long Beach float is coming down the street now in sight, and we see the band coming in front of it marching. And we see the float go by and we are oohing. Isn’t that beautiful? And the float moves down the street, and here comes the Sierra Madre float. And we are now entranced by the beauty of the Sierra Madre float, which a few minutes ago the people on up the street were entranced by its beauty. But now it is past them and it has come to us. But it also passes by and now four blocks down they’re oohing over the Sierra Madre float, and we are watching another float come into view. And I, standing at this point, watch the parade go by. Where I am standing, the Sierra Madre float went by four minutes ago. It has now moved on down in the procession down Colorado Boulevard. I am now watching a new float come by. Where this float now is, in four minutes will be where the Sierra Madre float now is. Let’s make it the Long Beach. It’s easier. Where this float will be the Long Beach float now is. Where the Long Beach float was, this float now is.

Because I am standing at one timeframe of reference and watching it all go by in a procession, it is constantly moving in a procession as does time constantly move in a procession, and I stand and look at it as it passes by. If I could get into the Goodyear Blimp and fly above Pasadena and look down from that observation cabin, I could see the entire parade from the beginning to end all at one time. Thus, I could see the Long Beach float, and I could see Sierra Madre float, and I could see the Mexico float, and all at the same time, because now I am looking down and I see the entire procession at once. I am no longer limited to this one corner and watching it in time frames passing by.

God, looking down on the procession of history, can see the entire scene at once in one view. He can see Adam sitting in the garden, and where Adam was 6000 years ago, I am tonight. I am tonight as I am moving in the procession, but God can still see the whole procession at once. He can see the glorious coming again of Jesus Christ, and He can see the Millennium reign, and He can see the whole thing because He is outside of time looking down and is not limited to the time frames.

Thus, God says, “Oh, that Long Beach float, what a beauty.” I haven’t seen it yet; it hasn’t come by here yet. “Oh, it is a beauty.” I have to wait for it to pass by. But God has already seen it and He speaks of it as existing, though in my time reference it hasn’t existed yet. It hasn’t come by me yet. Time hasn’t come this far to me yet, but God living in the eternal, outside of time, sees the entire picture with one view. Thus, God speaks of things as existing, though in my timeframe they have not yet existed. For God sees them; He knows they are going to exist, because He is outside of the timeframe, and thus He speaks, and that is where prophecy comes in. God just speaking of what He is looking at what He can see. He is not bound by time.

Now our puny little finite minds cannot grasp this. I cannot think apart from time. I am bound in my thinking processes in time, and I cannot think apart from time. God can. God sees the whole; I see only the part. We see in part. We know in part. We prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect or complete has come, then these things which are in part will be done away. For we will know them even as we are known.

This interesting aspect about God is given to us here by Paul: God, who makes alive the dead. When God said to Abraham, “Take now your son your only son Isaac, and offer him as a sacrifice,” Abraham by faith took his son and journeyed to the mountain. Abraham didn’t know how God was going to do it, but Abraham knew that he was going to return to his servants with his son. “I and the lad will go and worship and will come again. We are going to go up and worship God and we are going to come again.” Wait a minute, Abraham. You are going to offer him as a sacrifice. I know that, but God said, “Through Isaac shall thy seed by called.” Isaac doesn’t have any children yet so God has got a problem. Isaac has got to come back with me, because through Isaac the seed is going to be called. Isaac has no children. God is going to have to raise him from the dead if necessary, because God has got to keep His word. Now that is God’s problem, how He is going to keep His word. He told me to offer him as a sacrifice and I am going to do that. But, He has got to keep His word to me so He has got to raise Isaac from the dead if necessary. So you see, he was believing in the resurrection.

For three days Isaac was dead in the mind of Abraham as they were journeying, yet he believed there would be a resurrection. I am going to offer him as a sacrifice and God is going to raise him from the dead. Through faith, Heb 11:1-40 , Abraham offered Isaac, believing that God would, if necessary, raise him from the dead, because God said, “Through Isaac shall thy seed by called.” That was where Abraham took this step of faith. A lot of people don’t understand this. They say, “Oh, how could a man?” They get all shook over the story of Abraham because they don’t know the entire scriptures. They don’t realize the faith of Abraham. He knew that Isaac had to be alive to bear children. So, God, You’ve got a problem. It seems like it is an unsolvable problem, but that is not my problem, Lord, it is Your problem.

Isaac has got to come back with me. He has got to have children, because You told me, “Through Isaac shall the seed be called.” God spoke of Isaac’s seed before he ever had any children, because he knew he would have children. Abraham knew the word of God had to come to pass, and so he was willing to go ahead and sacrifice his son, because God has got to keep His word and Isaac has got to come back to life.

Belief in the resurrection.

So against hope he believed in hope ( Rom 4:18 ),

Or against any understanding of how God could do it, yet he believed in God.

that he might become the father of many nations, according as it was spoken, So shall thy seed be. Not being weak in the faith, he didn’t consider his own body now dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb ( Rom 4:18-19 ):

The first key to Abraham’s faith is not considering the human difficulties. And that is our first stumbling stone to faith is we are always considering the human difficulties. It is so interesting how that we are measuring our problems into categories of simple, difficult, impossible. But Abraham did not consider the human difficulty here that he was going to have a son when he was one hundred years old. The deadness of his own body or his own he didn’t consider his own body now dead. He was probably impotent by this time. Nor yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb. She had probably gone through the menopause. No problem, God said she is going to have a son. God’s problem, not mine. He didn’t consider these human aspects or difficulties. Secondly, he staggered not at the promise of God. “Well, I don’t see how God can do that. Now I know God said He would, but I don’t know if He means me.”

He staggered not at the promises of God; but being strong in the faith, he gave glory to God ( Rom 4:20 );

“Thank you, Lord, for that son. Oh, Lord, I appreciate so much You doing this for Sarah. She’s wanted a kid all her life, Lord. Oh, You’re going to give her a boy. That’s just really neat, Father. Lord, I thank You and I praise You.” For you see,

he was fully persuaded, that what God had promised, he was able also to perform ( Rom 4:21 ).

And I can’t perform. I can’t do it. I’ve tried for many years; I failed. But God is able to do it. God has promised that through Sarah I am going to have a son, so I know that God is able to perform His promise to me.

Four keys to faith: considering not the human difficulty, staggering not at the promise, but just taking the promise and praising the Lord and thanking God for the promise, knowing and being fully persuaded that God is able to do whatever He has promised.

Therefore his faith was imputed unto him for righteousness ( Rom 4:22 ).

God said, “That is a righteous man. He believes my word. He trusts my word.”

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification ( Rom 4:24-25 ).

So even if Abraham’s faith was accounted for righteousness, so our faith in God who raised Jesus from the dead, who was crucified for our offenses but was raised again for our justification, our faith in Jesus, God accounts to us for righteous, and God looks upon that faith and declares that we are righteous.

Does that mean I can go out and do whatever I want? Live after my flesh, indulge in just any kind of thing I desire, because, after all, it’s my faith that God counts for righteousness. In chapter five Paul gets into some of these foolish speculations that people often make and the tragic mistake that they make when they take grace and try to run with it. Into lasciviousness and use it as a cloak for their evil deeds. As we move into chapter 5, Paul will deal with the subject, “Shall we sin freely that grace might abound? Shall we just go ahead and can we just go ahead and live however we want after our flesh because of God’s grace? Does that mean that it doesn’t matter how I live?” If you quit the study tonight you can be in left field and left out. You better come back next Sunday and get the other side of the coin or you could be in deep, deep trouble. Don’t take this and run with it yet. You have got to realize that he is talking to a special category of people who have been crucified with Christ. Who are reckoning the old man to be dead and are living now after the Spirit, the new life in the Spirit in the resurrected Christ.

So you’ve got to get the rest of the story to get the balance, so see you next Sunday night as we balance things off.

I am amazed at God’s love for me. I am amazed that Jesus Christ loves me so much that He was willing to take the penalty of my sin, He was willing to die in my place, He was willing to suffer the consequences for my guilt. I love Him, and I appreciate His love for me. Because of my love for Him, I want to live for Him, I want to serve Him. Because of my love for Him, I want to do only those things that are pleasing to Him. I don’t want to do those things that will displease Him. I want to walk as He walked. I want to forgive as He forgave. I want to love as He loves. You see, the love of Christ constrains me, and thus, I live by a higher standard than any law could dictate, for I am bound by the law of love. Love for God and love for Jesus Christ that causes me to only desire to do those things that will bring glory to Him.

May you walk this week in such a way as to bring glory unto the Father that He may look upon you and be pleased as you express to Him your love through the life that you live. God bless you and give you a beautiful week walking with Jesus, filled with His Spirit. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Rom 4:1-3. What shall we say then 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.

He stands as the great Father of believers, and this is the charter given to him, and given to all believers in him. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.

Rom 4:4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

That is to say, to him who hopes to be saved by his works, to whom salvation is of merit. He has worked for the reward. He has earned it. Do not talk about grace in that case.

Rom 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

This is the man who does not go upon the line of works who does not rest in his works at all, or bring them as a price to God. His faith is counted for righteousness. It is a very wonderful thing that faith should stand in the stead of righteousness, and should make righteous all those that believe in God by Jesus Christ.

Rom 4:6-8. 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.

Instead of being a worker, this man had been an offender a sinner. God did not impute it to him. He was a believer, and God imputed righteousness to him on account of his faith, and did not impute sin to him. Then comes a very important inquiry.

Rom 4:9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?

Is circumcision so necessary that a man is justified by faith after he is circumcised, and could not be so justified if he were an uncircumcised man?

Rom 4:9-10. For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Look back to the history. See in what condition Abraham was when faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. Was it when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? The answer is:

Rom 4:10-11. Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:

But the sign is to follow the thing signified. He is, first of all, justified by his faith, and then afterwards he receives the token of the covenant.

Rom 4:11. That he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised: that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

It is a very remarkable fact. A great many readers of the Book of Genesis would never have noticed it if the Holy Ghost had not called attention to the fact that father Abraham was justified by his faith before he was circumcised; and this is the reason of it that he might be the father of all believers, whether they be circumcised or uncircumcised. That righteousness might be imputed to them also.

Rom 4:12-13. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

For the law was not even given when that covenant promise was made. The law was 400 years afterwards. The covenant of grace was the oldest covenant of all, and it shall stand fast, whatever shall happen.

Rom 4:14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

If you are upon that tack of salvation by the law, then what have you to do with faith? And what have you to do with promise, and what have yea to do with Christ? You are on a different line altogether.

Rom 4:15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

That is plain enough. You cannot break a law if there is not any; and thus, through our sinfulness, the law becomes a cause of sin, and never does it become the cause of justification.

Rom 4:16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace:

Salvation is by faith alone, that it may be seen to be of the free favor of God, that we may not look to merit or look to human strength, but may look away to the abounding mercy of God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 4:16-17. To the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.

What a God we trust in a God who quickeneth the dead. We have no faith unless we believe in such a God as this. We shall need such a God in order to bring us safely to his right hand at last.

Rom 4:18-20. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarahs womb; He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God:

Men seem to think that only workers can give glory to God; but there is more glory given to God by one drachma of faith than by a ton of works. After all, works usually generate conceit and pride in us. But faith lays itself low before its God, and gives to him all the glory. God is never more glorified than he is by the believing confidence of his people when difficulties seem to come in the way. He was strong in faith, giving glory to God.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Rom 4:1. , what then) He proves from the example of Abraham; 1, That justification is of grace [gratuitous]; 2, That it has been provided for the Gentiles also, Rom 4:9.- , our father) [This, viz., his being our father, constitutes] the foundation of the consequence derived from Abraham to us.-, hath found) It is applied to something new Heb 9:12 [Engl. Vers., having obtained; but , having found]; and Paul intimates, that the way of faith is older than Abraham; and that Abraham, in whom the separation from the Gentiles by circumcision took place, was the first from whom, if from any one, an example seemed capable of being adduced in favour of works; and yet he, at the same time shows, that this very example [instance] is much more decisive in favour of faith; and so he finally confirms by examples, what he had already established by arguments.- , according [as pertaining, Engl. Vers.] to the flesh. Abraham is nowhere called our father according to the flesh. Therefore, it [the clause, according to the flesh] is not construed with father; for the expression according to the flesh, is added in mentioning the fathers, only when the apostle is speaking of Christ, ch. Rom 9:5; and Abraham by and by, at Rom 4:11, is shown to be the father of believers, even of those of whom he is not the father according to the flesh. The construction then is, hath found according to [as pertaining to] the flesh. In the question itself, Paul inserts something which has the effect of an answer, in order that he may not leave even the smallest countenance for [or, a moment of time to] the maintaining of Jewish righteousness, and for their boasting before God.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 4:1

Rom 4:1

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh?-The question whether man is saved by the law of faith or the law of works is kept up. The conditions of salvation given through Jesus Christ, our Lord, constitute the law of faith. The law of Moses, with its ceremonies and observances, constitutes the law of works. The law of faith requires the service of the heart, the inner man, because with the heart man believes. The law of works might be performed without faith. When observed without faith, it secured only temporal blessings. Faith, or the service of the heart, transforms the character so as to make it like God and fit it for eternal blessings. With these laws, what did Abraham after the flesh find, and with which law-that of works or of faith? The context requires this.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The apostle now dealt with another difficulty that might arise in the mind of the Jew, showing that the method of grace, namely, imputing righteousness in response to faith, is in harmony with the whole history of Israel. As an illustration of this the apostle took the case of Abraham, father and founder of the nation, and showed how he was accepted and rewarded through faith, and not through works, both by his personal acceptance by God, and by his position as recipient of the promise of a coming deliverance. In this connection was made the declaration which must have been astonishing indeed in the ears of a Jew-that Abraham was the father, not merely of circumcised men according to the flesh, but of all who believe, even though they be in uncircumcision.

The Messianic hope came to Abraham, not through law, for it burned in his heart, and was the center of the nation of which he was the founder at least 400 years before the law was given. The apostle shows the value of this history. It bears testimony which strengthens the faith and confidence of those who look to, and believe in, Jesus. Resurrection life which follows the settlement of the question of sin by our justification is the bestowment of God on those who believe in Jesus.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM

4:1-8. Take the crucial case of Abraham. He, like the Christian, was declared righteous, not on account of his works-as something earned, but by the free gift of God in response to his faith. And David describes a similar state of things. The happiness of which he speaks is due, not to sinlessness but to Gods free forgiveness of sins.

1Objector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely he, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead privilege and merit. 2If we Jews are right in supposing that God accepted him as righteous for his works-those illustrious acts of his-he has something to boast of.

St. Paul. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. 3For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scripture, Gen 15:6. What do we find there? Nothing about works, but Abraham put faith in God, and it (i. e. his faith) was credited to him as if it were righteousness.

4This proves that there was no question of works. For a workman claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of favour. 5But to one who is not concerned with works but puts faith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous (in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly-to such an one his faith is credited for righteousness.

6Just as again David in Psa_32 describes how God pronounces happy (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes righteousness without any reference to works: 7Happy they, he says,-not who have been guilty of no breaches of law, but whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are veiled from sight. 8A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will not enter in His book.

1 ff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets himself to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which St. Paul held to be excluded. Hitherto these two points have been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case of Abraham. The case of Abraham was the centre and stronghold of the whole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown that this case made for the Christian conclusion and not for the Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul now undertakes to prove; but at the outset he glances at the two side issues-main issues in ch. 3 which become side issues in ch. 4-the claim of advantage, or special privilege, and the pride which the Jewish system generated. For the sake of clearness we put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course still a supposed objector; St. Paul is really arguing with himself; but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met with in actual controversy (see on 3:1 ff.).

1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important variant turning upon the position or presence of . (1) K L P, &c., Theodrt; and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after . It is then taken with : What shall we say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace of God? So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. [Euthym.-Zig. however, even with this reading, takes with : ]. But this is inconsistent with the context. The question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left him any gain or advantage at all. (2) A C D E F G, some cursives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place after . In that case goes not with but with which it simply defines, our natural progenitor. (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it in his text, omit altogether. Then the idea of gain drops out and we translate simply What shall we say as to Abraham our forefather? &c. The opponents of B will say that the sense thus given is suspiciously easy: it is certainly more satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his righteousness-by the method of works or by that of faith. Does the nature of A.s righteousness agree better with the Jewish system, or with St. Pauls? The idea of gain was naturally imported from ch. 3:1, 9. There is no reason why a right reading should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We therefore regard the omission of as probable with WH. text Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. Joh 1:15 .

1-5. One or two small questions of form may be noticed. In ver. 1 (*etc A B C* al.) is decisively attested for , which is found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. 3 the acute and sleepless critic Origen thinks that St. Paul wrote (with Heb. of Gen_15; cf. Gen 17:5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the text of Scripture substituted . It is more probable that St. Paul had before his mind the established and significant name throughout: he quotes Gen 17:5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group ( D* F G) have , on which form see WH. Introd. App. p. 157 f.; Win. Gr. Exo_8, 9:8; Tisch. on Heb 6:19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, but not in others.

. This description of Abraham as our forefather is one of the arguments used by those who would make the majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such a matter. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles, he speaks cf our fathers as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (1Co 10:1). There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike,-though it is true that he would have added not after the flesh but after the spirit. Gif. notes the further point, that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips. he connects . . with . It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating to the margin, still does not take with .

2. : Not materies gloriandi as Meyer, but rather gloriatio, as Bengel, who however might have added facta (T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1Co 5:6). The termination – denotes not so much the thing done as the completed, determinate, act; for other examples see esp. Evans ut sup. It would not be wrong to translate here has a ground of boasting, but the idea of ground is contained in , or rather in the context.

. It seems best to explain the introduction of this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the paraphrase. There should be a colon after . St. Paul does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a absolutely-before man he might have it and the Jews were not wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory,-but it was another thing to have a before God. There is a stress upon which is taken up by in the quotation. A. could not boast before God. He might have done so if he could have taken his stand on works; but works did not enter into the question at all. In God he put faith. On the history and application of the text Gen 15:6, see below.

3. : metaphor from accounts, was set down, here on the credit side. Frequently in LXX with legal sense of imputation or non-imputation of guilt, e.g. Lev 7:8 , 17:4 , &c. The notion arises from that of the book of remembrance (Mal 3:16) in which mens good or evil deeds, the wrongs and sufferings of the saints, are entered (Psa 56:8; Isa 65:6). Oriental monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the merit or demerit of their subjects (Est 6:1 ff.), and in like manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the books brought out before Him (Dan 7:10; Rev 20:12; comp. also the books of the living, the heavenly tablets, a common expression in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Patr., on which see Charles on Enoch xlvii. 3; and in more modern times, Cowpers sonnet There is a book wherein the eyes of God not rarely look).

The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the transference of merit and demerit from one person to another (ibid. p. 280 ff.; Eze 18:2; Joh 9:2). That however is not in question here; the point is that one quality faith is set down, or credited, to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of another quality-righteousness.

: was reckoned as equivalent to, as standing in the place of, righteousness. The construction is common in LXX: cf. 1 Reg. (Sam.) 1:13; Job 61:23 (24); Isa 29:17 ( = 32:15); Lam 4:2; Hos 8:12. The exact phrase . recurs in Psa_105 [106]. 31 of the zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. xxix. 3 a. (p. 229, ed. Moulton).

On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Altsyn. Palst. Theologie, p. 255 ff. Abraham was the only righteous man of his generation; therefore he was chosen to be ancestor of the holy People. He kept all the precepts of the Law which he knew beforehand by a kind of intuition. He was the first of seven righteous men whose merit brought back the Shekinah which had retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it could take up its abode in the Tabernacle (ibid. p. 183). According to the Jews the original righteousness of Abraham, who began to serve God at the age of three (ibid. p. 118) was perfected (1) by his circumcision, (2) by his anticipatory fulfilment of the Law. But the Jews also (on the strength of Gen 15:6) attached a special importance to Abrahams faith, as constituting merit (see Mechilta on Exo 14:31, quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. and by Lightfoot in the extract given below).

4, 5. An illustration from common life. The workman earns his pay, and can claim it as a right. Therefore when God bestows the gift of righteousness, of His own bounty and not as a right, that is proof that the gift must be called forth by something other than works, viz. by faith.

5. : on Him who pronounces righteous or acquits, i.e. God. It is rather a departure from St. Pauls more usual practice to make the object of faith God the Father rather than God the Son. But even here the Christian scheme is in view, and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative Author of that scheme. See on 1:8, 17, above.

We must not be misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. , , (comp. the same writer on ver. 25 ). The evidence is too decisive (p. 30 f. sup.) that = not to make righteous but to declare righteous as a judge. It might however be inferred from that was to be taken somewhat loosely in the sense of treat as righteous. The Greek theologians had not a clear conception of the doctrine of Justification.

: not meant as a description of Abraham, from whose case St. Paul is now generalizing and applying the conclusion to his own time. The strong word is probably suggested by the quotation which is just coming from Psa 32:1.

6. (). Both Heb. and LXX ascribe Psa_32 to David. In two places in the N. T., Act 4:25, Act 4:26 (= Psa 2:1, Psa 2:2), Heb 4:7 (= Psa 95:7) Psalms are quoted as Davids which have no title in the Hebrew (though Psa_95 [94] bears the name of David in the LXX), showing that by this date the whole Psalter was known by his name. Psa_32 was one of those which Ewald thought might really be Davids: see Driver, Introduction, p. 357.

: not blessedness, which would be but a pronouncing blessed; = to call a person blessed or happy ( Arist. Eth. Nic. I. 12:4; comp. Euthym.- Zig. , Felicitation is the strongest and highest form of honour and praise). St. Paul uses the word again Gal 4:15. Who is it who thus pronounces a man blessed? God. The Psalm describes how He does so.

7, 8. , … This quotation of Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2 is the same in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his interpretation of Gen 15:6.

is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest to the gods among men.

. So c A C Dc F K L &c.: B D E (?) G, 67**. is also the reading of LXX ( ca Ra). The authorities for are superior as they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission ( B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that has been assimilated to the construction of in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that has been assimilated to the preceding or to the O.T. or that it has been affected by the following : naturally established itself as the more euphonious reading.

. There is a natural tendency in a declining language to the use of more emphatic forms; but here a real emphasis appears to be intended, Whose sin the Lord will in no wise reckon: see Ell. on 1Th 4:15 [p. 154], and Win. Lev_3, p. 634 f.

The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by St. James

It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament writers should use the same leading example and should quote the same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Gen 15:6, as the salient characterization of that history; and they draw from it the conclusion-St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous (Rom 3:28; cf. 4:1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is accounted righteous (Jam 2:24).

We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. Gen 15:6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abrahams life, the offering of Isaac (Jam 2:21). St. Paul also appeals to particular incidents, Abrahams belief in the promise that he should have a numerous progeny (Rom 4:18), and in the more express prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom 4:19-21). The difference is that St. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own spiritual experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the Book of Genesis; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the foundations of his system. St. James, occupying a less exceptional standpoint, and taking words in the average sense put upon them, has recourse to the context of Abrahams life, and so harmonizes the text with the requirements of his own moral sense.

The fact is that St. James and St. Paul mean different things by faith, and as was natural they impose these different meanings on the Book of Genesis, and adapt the rest of their conclusions to them. When St. James heard speak of faith, he understood by it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the fundamental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jam 2:19). Christianity is with him so much a supplement to the Jews ordinary creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory (Jam 2:1). He takes that belief for granted; it is the substratum or basement of life on which are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality (). If he were questioned about it, he would put it on the same footing as his belief in God. But St. James was a thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a good man; and this did not satisfy his moral sense. What is belief unless proof is given of its sincerity? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed Matthew Arnolds proposition that Conduct is three-fourths of life. He therefore demands-and from his point of view rightly demands-that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting them in practice.

St. Pauls is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a very different experience. With him too Christianity is something added to an earlier belief in God; but the process by which it was added was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole nature. It is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcanos side. Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ; there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost suspect the questioner of attempting to bring back under a new name the old Jewish notion of religion as a round of legal observance. Of course action will correspond with faith. The believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Christ and risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. St. Paul is going on presently to say this (Rom 6:1, Rom 6:12, Rom 6:15), as his opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a truism, which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. To say that a man is a Christian should be enough.

If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that either was writing with direct reference to the other? Did St. Paul mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert St. Paul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had had before him the Epistle of St. James, when once he looked beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment; but that would have been all. On the other hand, if St. James had seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he has written would have been totally inadequate. Whatever value his criticism might have had for those who spoke of faith as a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was condemning.

It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meeting-ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that both quote the same verse, Gen 15:6, and both treat it with reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith.

Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown (Galatians, p. 157 ff., Exo_2) that Gen 15:6 was a standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness (1 Macc. 2:52)? It is repeatedly quoted and commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate allegory. The Talmudic treatise Mechilta expounds the verse at length: Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israels having believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them In like manner thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord; for it is said, and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness (quoted by Lft. ut sup. p. 160). Taking these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul and St. James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to this particular text: and it was indeed inevitable that it should be so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish system and the minute study which was being given to every part of the Pentateuch.

It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason that the two New Testament writers are discussing independently of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the bearing of Gen 15:6 was a subject of standing debate among the Jews; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of Faith and Works. The controversy connected with this was essentially a Christian controversy; it had its origin in the special and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other.

It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We have seen that there are strong reasons against this*. We do not think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. The view which appears to us the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent actually was) put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and Greece, the scene of St. Pauls labours; and as there was always at his elbow the little coterie of St. Pauls fanatical enemies, it would be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how few of St. Pauls hearers had really understood him!) and often more or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostles teaching, should reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would do. He names no names, and attacks no mans person. He does not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places like Rom 6:1ff., Rom 6:15 ff., shows to have been really needed. And thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible misconstruction.

FAITH AND CIRCUMCISION

4:9-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not depend upon Circumcision. For it was made before he was circumcised; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being that Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised.

9Here we have certain persons pronounced happy. Is this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also apply to the uncircumcised Gentile? Certainly it may. For there is no mention of circumcision. It is his faith that we say was credited to Abraham as righteousness. 10And the historical circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing to do with it. Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration was made to him? No: he was at the time uncircumcised. 11And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already existing, viz. the righteousness based on faith which was his before he was circumcised. The reason being that he might be the spiritual father alike of two divergent classes: at once of believing Gentiles, who though uncircumcised have a faith like his, that they too might be credited with righteousness; 12and at the same time of believing Jews who do not depend on their circumcision only, but whose files march duly in the steps of Abrahams faith-that faith which was his before his circumcision.

10. St. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine recognition of Abrahams faith came in order of time before his circumcision: the one recorded in Gen 15:6, the other in Gen 17:10ff. Therefore although it might be (and was) confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned by it.

11. . Circumcision at its institution is said to be (Gen 17:11), between God and the circumcised. The gen. is a genitive of apposition or identity, a sign consisting in circumcision, which was circumcision. Some authorities (A C* al.) read .

. The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of a child runs thus: Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant. Comp. Targum Cant. iii. 8 The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was sealed in the flesh of Abraham; Shemoth R. 19 Ye shall not eat of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh. Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc. (cf. also Delitzsch).

At a very early date the same term was transferred from the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 (Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also Gebhardt and Harnack ad loc., and Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 295. Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with the mysteries and some forms of foreign cult; and it may have coalesced with language borrowed from these; but in its origin it appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum (Gttingen, 1894), p. 120 ff., where the Christian use of the word is fully discussed.

Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refute, the Jewish doctrine which he puts in the mouth of an objector: . . ; . The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant.

, … Even circumcision, the strongest mark of Jewish separation, in St. Pauls view looked beyond its immediate exclusiveness to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews. It was nothing more than a ratification of Abrahams faith. Faith was the real motive power; and as applied to the present condition of things, Abrahams faith in the promise had its counterpart in the Christians faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i.e. in Christ). Thus a new division was made. The true descendants of Abraham were not so much those who imitated his circumcision (i.e. all Jews whether believing or not), but those who imitated his faith (i.e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles). denotes that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose.

. Delitzsch (ad loc.) quotes one of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is called the first of my faithful ones. He also adduces a passage, Jerus. Gemara on Biccurim, i. 1, in which it is proved that even the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his because Abram became Abraham, father of many nations, lit. a great multitude; he was so, the Glossator adds, because he taught them to believe.

: though in a state of uncircumcision. of attendant circumstances as in ii. 27, xiv. 20.

12. . As it stands the art. is a solecism: it would make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who follow the example of Abrahams faith another distinct set, which is certainly not St. Pauls meaning. He is speaking of Jews who are both circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the omission of the art. before . But . is found in all existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (1) that there has been some corruption. WH. think that may be the remains of an original : but that would not seen to be a very natural form of sentence. Or (2) we may think that Tertius made a slip of the pen in following St. Pauls dictation, and that this remained uncorrected. If the slip was not made by Tertius himself, it must have been made in some very early copy, the parent of all our present copies.

. is a well-known military term, meaning strictly to march in file: Pollux viii. 9 , , the technical term for marching abreast is , for marching in depth or in file, (Wets.).

On rather than in this verse and in ver. 16 see Burton, M. and T. 481.

Jewish Teaching on Circumcision

The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book of Jubilees (xv. 25 ff.): This law is for all generations for ever, and there is no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of the eight days; for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and written on the heavenly tables. And every one that is born, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, for he belongs to the children of destruction; nor is there moreover any sign on him that he is the Lords, but (he is destined) to be destroyed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God. And now I will announce unto thee that the children of Israel will not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their sons according to all this law; for in the flesh of their circumcision they will omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, sons of Belial, will have their sons uncircumcised as they were born. And there shall be great wrath from the Lord against the children of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned away from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, according as they have not observed the ordinance of this law; for they treat their members like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted out of the land. And there will be no pardon or forgiveness for them, so that there should be pardon and release from all the sin of this error for ever.

So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of Gods favour that if an Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 51 f.). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took a part in the act (ibid. p. 253). It was his circumcision and anticipatory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the father of many nations (ibid. p. 256). Indeed it was just through his circumcision that Isaac was born of a holy seed. This was the current doctrine. And it was at the root of it that St. Paul strikes by showing that Faith was prior to Circumcision, that the latter was wholly subordinate to the former, and that just those privileges and promises which the Jew connected with Circumcision were really due to Faith.

PROMISE AND LAW

4:13-17. Again the declaration that was made to Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For it turned on Faith and Promise which are the very antithesis of Law. The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual father of all believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, and that Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise.

13Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews. The promise made to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide Messianic rule, as it was not dependent upon Circumcision, so also was not dependent upon Law, but on a righteousness which was the product of Faith. 14If this world-wide inheritance really depended upon any legal system, and if it was limited to those who were under such a system, there would be no place left for Faith or Promise: Faith were an empty name and Promise a dead letter. 15For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. It only serves to bring down Gods wrath by enhancing the guilt of sin. Where there is no law, there is no transgression, which implies a law to be transgressed. Law and Promise therefore are mutually exclusive; the one brings death, the other life. 16Hence it is that the Divine plan was made to turn, not on Law and obedience to Law, but on Faith. For faith on mans side implies Grace, or free favour, on the side of God. So that the Promise depending as it did not on Law but on these broad conditions, Faith and Grace, might hold good equally for all Abrahams descendants-not only for those who came under the Mosaic Law, but for all who could lay claim to a faith like his. 17Thus Abraham is the true ancestor of all Christians (), as it is expressly stated in Gen 17:5 A father (i.e. in spiritual fatherhood) of many nations have I made thee*.

13-17. In this section St. Paul brings up the key-words of his own system Faith, Promise, Grace, and marshals them in array over against the leading points in the current theology of the Jews-Law, Works or performance of Law, Merit. Because the working of this latter system had been so disastrous, ending only in condemnation, it was a relief to find that it was not what God had really intended, but that the true principles of things held out a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one which furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in Christianity.

13. , … The immediate point which this paragraph is introduced to prove is that Abraham might be, in a true though spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. The ulterior object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but by Christians.

: without art., any system of law.

: see on ch. 1:2 (), where the uses of the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. At the time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race was turned to the promises contained in the O. T.; and in Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head and definitely identified with their fulfilment.

The following examples may be added to those quoted on ch. 1:2 to illustrate the diffusion of this idea of Promise among the Jews in the first century a.d.: 4 Ezra 4:27 non capiet portare quae in temporibus iustis repromissa sunt; vii. 14 si ergo non ingredientes ingressi fuerint qui vivuni angusta et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reposita (= Gen 49:10); ibid. 49 (119) ff. quid enim nobis prodest si promissum est nobis immortale tempus, nos vero mortalia opera egimus? &c. Apoc. Baruch. xiv. 13 propter hoc etiam ipsi sine timore relinquunt mundum istum, et fidentes in laetitia sperant se recepturos mundum quem promisisti eis. It will be observed that all these passages are apocalyptic and eschatological. The Jewish idea of Promise is vague and future; the Christian idea is definite and associated with a state of things already inaugurated.

. What Promise is this? There is none in these words. Hence (1) some think that it means the possession of the Land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; Gen 13:14 f.; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8; cf. 26:3; Exo 6:4) taken as a type of the world-wide Messianic reign; (2) others think that it must refer to the particular promise faith in which called down the Divine blessing-that A. should have a son and descendants like the stars of heaven. Probably this is meant in the first instance, but the whole series of promises goes together and it is implied (i) that A. should have a son; (ii) that this son should have numerous descendants; (iii) that in One of those descendants the whole world should be blessed; (iv) that through Him A.s seed should enjoy world-wide dominion.

: this faith-righteousness which St. Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and before him of Abraham.

14. : the dependants of law, vassals of a legal system, such as were the Jews.

. If the right to that universal dominion which will belong to the Messiah and His people is confined to those who are subject to a law, like that of Moses, what can it have to do either with the Promise originally given to Abraham, or with Faith to which that Promise was annexed? In that case Faith and Promise would be pushed aside and cancelled altogether. But they cannot be cancelled; and therefore the inheritance must depend upon them and not upon Law.

15. This verse is parenthetic, proving that Law and Promise cannot exist and be in force side by side. They are too much opposed in their effects and operation. Law presents itself to St. Paul chiefly in this light as entailing punishment. It increases the guilt of sin. So long as there is no commandment, the wrong act is done as it were accidentally and unconsciously; it cannot be called by the name of transgression. The direct breach of a known law is a far more heinous matter. On this disastrous effect of Law see 3:20, 5:13, 20, 7 ff.

for is decisively attested ( A B C &c.).

is the appropriate word for the direct violation of a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined: peccare est transilire lineas Cicero, Parad. 3 (ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236).

16. . In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St. Paul contents himself with a few bold strokes, which he leaves it to the reader to fill in. It is usual to supply with either from 14 (Lips. Mey.) or from 13 (Fri.), but as is defined just below it seems better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include both these. It was = The Divine plan was, took its start, from faith. The bold lines of Gods plan, the Providential ordering of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed, to the whole chapter.

. Working round again to the same conclusion as before; the object of all these pre-arranged conditions was to do away with old restrictions, and to throw open the Messianic blessings to all who in any true sense could call Abraham father, i.e. to believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew.

ABRAHAMS FAITH A TYPE OF THE CHRISTIANS

4:17-22. Abrahams Faith was remarkable both for its strength and for its object: the birth of Isaac in which Abraham believed might be described as a birth from the dead.

23-25. In this it is a type of the Christians Faith, to which is annexed a like acceptance and which also has for its object a birth from the dead-the Death and Resurrection of Christ.

17In this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom he is represented as standing-that God who infuses life into the dead (as He was about to infuse it into Abrahams dead body), and who issues His summons (as He issued it then) to generations yet unborn.

18In such a God Abraham believed. Against all ordinary hope of becoming a father he yet had faith, grounded in hope, and enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of wide-spread nations, to whom the Promise alluded when it said (Gen 15:5) Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants be.

19Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about a hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed; he took full note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife; 20and yet with the promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate; his faith endowed him with the power which he seemed to lack; he gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him, 21having a firm conviction that What God had promised He was able also to perform. 22And for this reason that faith of his was credited to him as righteousness.

23Now when all this was recorded in Scripture, it was not Abraham alone who was in view 24but we too-the future generations of Christians, who will find a like acceptance, as we have a like faith. Abraham believed on Him who caused the birth of Isaac from elements that seemed as good as dead: and we too believe on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i.e. to put the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and at the same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement effectual).

17. , … Exactly from LXX of Gen 17:5. The LXX tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the Heb., patrem frementis turbae, i.e. ingentis multitudinis populorum (Kautzsch, p. 25).

: attraction for : describing the posture in which Abraham is represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen 17:1 ff.).

: maketh alive. St. Paul has in his mind the two acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this word, (1) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ. On the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Greek, p. 5.

[ ]. There are four views: (i) . = to name, speak of, or describe, things non-existent as if they existed (Va.); (ii) = to call into being, issue His creative fiat (most commentators); (iii) = to call, or summon, issue His commands to (Mey. Gif.); (iv) in the dogmatic sense = to call, or invite to life and salvation (Fri.). Of these (iv) may be put on one side as too remote from the context; and (ii) as Mey. rightly points out, seems to be negatived by . The choice remains between (i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour of this view may also be quoted Apoc. Bar. xxi. O qui fecisti terram audi me qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum erat, et obediunt tibi. For the use of see also the note on 9:7 below.

18. = : his faith enabled him to become the father, but with the underlying idea that his faith in this was but carrying out the great Divine purpose which ordered all these events.

: = Gen 15:5 (LXX).

19. . Comp. Lft. in Journ. of Class. and Sac. Philol. iii. 106 n.: The New Testament use of with a participle has a much wider range than in the earlier language. Yet this is no violation of principle, but rather an extension of a particular mode of looking at the subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It is viewed as an accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and is therefore negatived by the dependent negative and not by the absolute . Rom 4:19 is a case in point whether we retain or omit it with Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, he so considered his own body now dead, as not to be weak in the (?) faith. This is well expressed in RV. without being weakened, except that being weakened should be rather showing weakness or becoming weak. See also Burton, M. and T. 145.

A B C some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. (including am.), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. (which probably here preserves Origens Greek), Chrys. and others; D E F G K L P &c., some MSS. of Vulg. (including fuld, though it is more probable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-Harcl., Orig.-lat. bis, Epiph. Ambrstr. al.

Both readings give a good sense: , he did consider, and yet did not doubt; , he did not consider, and therefore did not doubt. Both readings are also early: but the negative is clearly of Western origin, and must probably be set down to Western laxity: the authorities which omit the negative are as a rule the most trustworthy.

: being already about a hundred years old. May we not say that denotes a present state simply as present, but that denotes a present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time as related to past time (vorhandensein, dasein, Lat. existere, adesse, praesto esse Schmidt)? See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1Co 7:26: the last word () is difficult; it seems to mean sometimes to be originally, to be substantially or fundamentally, or, as in Demosthenes, to be stored in readiness. An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp. , property or substance. The word however asks for further investigation. Comp. Schmidt, Lat. u. gr. Synonymik, 74. 4.

20. : did not hesitate ( Chrys.). act. = diiudicare, (i) to discriminate, or distinguish between two things (Mat 16:3; cf. 1Co 11:29, 1Co 11:31) or persons (Act 15:9; 1Co 4:7); (ii) to arbitrate between two parties (1Co 6:5). mid. (and pass.) = (i) to get a decision, litigate, dispute, or contend (Act 11:2; Jam 2:4; Jud 1:9); (ii) to be divided against one-self, waver, doubt. The other senses are all found in LXX (where the word occurs some thirty times), but this is wanting. It is however well established for N. T., where it appears as the proper opposite of . So Mat 21:21 , : Mar 11:23 : Rom 14:23 , , , : Jam 1:6 : also probably Jud 1:22. A like use is found in Christian writings of the second century and later: e.g. Protev. Jac. 11 , … (quoted by Mayor on Jam 1:6): Clem. Homil. i. 20 : ii. 40 . It is remarkable that a use which (except as an antithesis to ) there is no reason to connect specially with Christianity should thus seem to be traceable to Christian circles and the Christian line of tradition. It is not likely to be in the strict sense a Christian coinage, but appears to have had its beginning in near proximity to Christianity. A parallel case is that of the word (St. James, Clem. Rom., Herm., Didach, &c.). The two words seem to belong to the same cycle of ideas.

. is here usually taken as dat. of respect, he was strengthened in his faith, i. e. his faith was strengthened, or confirmed. In favour of this would be above; and the surrounding terms (, ) might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to make instrumental or causal, like to which it stands in immediate antithesis: . . would then = he was endowed with power by means of his faith (sc. ). According to the Talmud, Abraham wurde in seiner Natur erneuert, eine neue Creatur (Bammidbar Rabba xi), um die Zeugung zu vollbringen (Weber, p. 256). And we can hardly doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author of Heb., who appears to have had it directly in mind: comp. Heb 11:11, Heb 11:12 , , (observe esp. , ). This sense is also distinctly recognized by Euthym.-Zig. ( ). The other (common) interpretation is preferred by Chrys., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his .

The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history of Revelation began. With him the people of revealed Religion came into existence: with him the Holy One began to work wonders (Beresh. Rabba liii, ap. Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 256). But it is of course a wholly new point when St. Paul compares the miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events-both a bringing to life from conditions which betokened only death-but also in the faith of which they were the object.

: a Hebraism: cf. Jos 7:19; 1Sa 6:5; 1Ch 16:28, &c.

21. : = full assurance, firm conviction, 1Th 1:5; Col 2:2; a word especially common amongst the Stoics. Hence , as used of persons, = to be fully assured or convinced, as here, ch. 14:5; Col 4:12. As used of things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. 2Ti 4:5, 2Ti 4:17 and Luk 1:1, where some take it as = fully or satisfactorily proved, others as = accomplished (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. text Lft. On Revision, p. 142): see note ad loc.

23. . Beresh. R. xl. 8 Thou findest that all that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his children (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch ad loc.). Wetstein also quotes Taanith ii. 1 Fratres nostri, de Ninevitis non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum.

24. : to us who believe. St. Paul asserts that his readers are among the class of believers. Not if we believe, which would be (sine artic.).

25. with acc. is primarily retrospective, = because of: but inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, may be retrospective with reference to the idea, but prospective with reference to the execution. Which it is in any particular case must be determined by the context.

Here . may be retrospective, = because of our trespasses (which made the death of Christ necessary); or it may be prospective, as Gif. because of our trespasses, i.e. in order to atone for them.

In any case is prospective, with a view to our justification, because of our justification conceived as a motive, i. e. to bring it about. See Dr. Gifford`s two excellent notes pp. 108, 109.

The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. It is at once the great source of the Christians faith, the assurance of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice, and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. See also the notes on ch. 6:5-8.

The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of St. Paul

The Resurrection of Christ fills an immense place in the teaching of St. Paul, and the fact that it does so accounts for the emphasis and care with which he states the evidence for it (1Co 15:1-11). (i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity of Christ (Act 17:31; Rom 1:4; 1Co 15:14, 1Co 15:15).

(ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death. But for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show-at least no clear and convincing sign to show-that He who died upon the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy; the faith of Christians would be vain, they would be yet in their sins (1Co 15:17).

(iii) In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of Calvary would have been incomplete. The Resurrection placed upon that Sacrifice the stamp of Gods approval; it showed that the Sacrifice was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath-the so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26)-had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom of Rom 6:7-10.

(iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for the resurrection of the Christian (1Co 15:20-23; 2Co 4:14; Rom 8:11; Col 1:18).

(v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects: it is not only physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and intimate relation of his spirit with Christs, the Christian is called upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And this moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. 6:1-11.

A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schder, Die Bedeutung des lebendigen Christus fr die Rechtfertigung nach Paulus, Gtersloh, 1893) has worked out in much careful detail the third of the above heads. Herr Schder (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Knigsberg) insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by Christ; that which redeems is not merely the act of Christs Death but His Person ( Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). It is as a Person that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his stead (Gal 3:13; 2Co 5:21). The Resurrection is proof that this Wrath is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom 4:25; Rom 6:9, Rom 6:10; Rom 8:34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as the cause of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study.

It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Horts significant aphorism: Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemption, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect of life (Hulsean Lectures, p. 210). This can more readily be accepted if one aspect in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects. At the same time such a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially needed where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that all definitions of great doctrines have a relative rather than an absolute value. They are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in their entirety. If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them running up into large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Without it exact exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism.

K Cod. Mosquensis

L Cod. Angelicus

P Cod. Porphyrianus

&c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows:

Euthym.-Zig. Euthymius Zigabenus.

Cod. Sinaiticus

A Cod. Alexandrinus

C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus

D Cod. Claromontanus

E Cod. Sangermanensis

F Cod. Augiensis

G Cod. Boernerianus

Vulg. Vulgate.

Boh. Bohairic.

Arm. Armenian.

Aeth. Ethiopic.

Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen

B Cod. Vaticanus

WH. Westcott and Hort.

RV. Revised Version.

al. alii, alibi.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

Gif. Gifford.

Orig. Origen.

Chrys. Chrysostom.

Phot. Photius.

Lips. Lipsius.

Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector c

Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector ca

Lft. Lightfoot.

* Besides what is said above, see Introduction 8. It is a satisfaction to find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 148, it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or misunderstanding of St. Pauls teaching on the part of others gave rise to St. Jamess carefully guarded language.

* There is a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of a verse and of a sentence. St. Paul glides after his manner into a new subject, suggested to him by the verse which he quotes in proof of what has gone before.

Trench, Trench on Synonyms.

Mey. Meyer.

Fri. Fritzsche (C. F. A.).

Va. Vaughan.

Pesh. Peshitto.

Harcl. Harclean.

Epiph. Epiphanius.

Ambrstr. Ambrosiaster.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Blessedness Follows Faith

Rom 4:1-8

In this chapter the doctrine of justification by faith is illustrated from the life of Abraham. It is evident that he was not justified because of his good works. Nothing is said of them, though he had crossed the desert in obedience to the divine command. No; he believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, Rom 4:3. The life of God in the soul of man is one and the same in every age. The measure of light may vary from the twilight in Ur to the meridian glory of Patmos, but the attitude of the soul toward God must always be the same.

From the earliest times men have been justified by faith, Heb 11:4. Faith has two invariable elements: attitude and receptiveness; that is, the right position toward God, and the power of receiving the full inflow of the divine nature. We are made partakers of the divine nature, 2Pe 1:4. This was the case with the great Hebrew pilgrim-first of the pilgrim race. Rising above the rest of his contemporaries, he saw the advance gleam of the day of Christ and was glad, Joh 8:56. David also sings of the same grace which justifies the sinner and counts him as righteous, notwithstanding his iniquities and sins, Psa 32:1-2.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

In chapter four the apostle proceeds to show, by means of Abraham and David, how all this is witnessed by the law and the prophets. Abraham is taken from the Pentateuch, the books of the law; David from the Psalms, which are linked with the Prophets.

What then do we see in Abraham? Was he justified before God by his works? If so, he had this to boast in, that he had righteously deserved the divine approval. But what does the Scripture say? In Gen 15:6 we are told that Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. This is the very principle the apostle has been pressing and explaining so clearly.

To earn salvation by works would be to put God in mans debt. He would owe it to the successful worker to save him. This is the very opposite of grace, which is mercy shown to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly. It is his faith that is counted for righteousness. To this then Abraham bears testimony. And David too is heard singing the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works, when he cries in Psa 32:1-2 – Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. In the psalm the Hebrew word for covered means atoned for. This is the gospel. Atonement has been made. Therefore God does not impute sin to the believer in His Son, but imputes righteousness instead.

Luther called the 32nd Psalm a Pauline Psalm. It teaches in no uncertain way the same glorious doctrine of justification apart from human merit. The non-imputation of sin is equivalent to the imputation of righteousness. Augustine of Hippo had these words painted on a placard, and placed at the foot of his bed where his dying eyes could rest upon them. To myriads more they have brought, peace and gladness in the knowledge of transgression forgiven and sin atoned for, as the Hebrew word in the Old Testament translated covered really means.

This blessedness was not-is not-for a chosen few only, but is freely offered to all. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness when he was on Gentile ground before the covenant sign of circumcision was placed upon his flesh. It was really a seal of what was already true, as in the case of Christian baptism; because he was justified he was commanded to be circumcised. In the centuries since the Jews had come to regard the sign as of more importance than the faith. People ever exalt the visible at the expense of the invisible.

Abraham is called the father of circumcision, for through him the ordinance began. But he is father not only to them who are of the circumcision literally, but to all who have no confidence in the flesh, who have judged it as weak and unprofitable, and who, like him, trust in the living God.

The promise that he should be heir of the world was not given to him through the law, that is, it was not a reward of merit, something he had earned by obedience. It was on the ground of sovereign grace. Hence his righteousness, like ours if we believe, was a by-faith righteousness. The heirs of the promise are those who accept it in the same faith, otherwise it would be utterly invalidated. It was an unconditional promise.

The law promised blessing upon obedience and denounced judgment on disobedience. None have kept it. Therefore, The law worketh wrath. It cursed. It could not bless. It intensified sin by giving it the specific character of transgression, making it the wilful violation of known law. It could not be the means of earning what was freely given.

The promise of blessing through the Seed- which is Christ-is of faith that it might be by grace. And so it is sure to all the seed, that is, to all who have faith. All such are of the faith of Abraham. He is thus the father of us all, who believe in Jesus. And so the word is fulfilled which said, I have made thee a father of many nations. This comes in parenthetically. The words, Before Him whom he believed, properly follow the words, The father of us all. That is to say, Abraham, though not literally our father by natural generation, is the father of all who believe, in the sight of God. The same faith characterizes them all.

God is the God of resurrection. He works when nature is powerless. He so wrought in the case of Abraham and Sarah, both beyond the time when they could naturally be the parents of a child. He so wrought when He raised up Christ, the true Seed, first by bringing Him into the world contrary to nature, of a virgin mother; and second by bringing Him up from the dead. Abraham believed in the God of resurrection, and staggered not at the divine promise though fulfilment seemed impossible. God delights to do impossibilities! What He promises He performs. Fully persuaded of this, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. In the same way we are called upon to believe on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead-He who was, in infinite grace, delivered up to death to make atonement for our offences, and who, upon the completion of His work to Gods satisfaction, was raised again for our justification. His resurrection is the proof that God is satisfied. The divine justice has been appeased. The holiness of God has been vindicated. The law has been established. And so the believing sinner is declared justified from all things. Such is the testimony of chapter 4.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Rom 3:31; Romans 4

A Crucial Case.

I. It was by his faith Abraham was justified, not by his works of obedience. Paul’s proof of this is very simple. He finds a remarkable proof-text ready to his hand in Gen 15:16. On God’s side there was simply a word announcing the promises of His grace; on the man’s side simply a devout and childlike reliance upon that word. God asked no more; and the man had no more to give. His mere trust in God the Promiser was held to be adequate as a ground for that sinful man’s acceptance into favour, friendship, and league with the eternal Jehovah.

II. Abraham was justified by his faith, not as a circumcised man, but as an uncircumcised. It lies in the very idea of acceptance through faith, that wherever faith is present there God will accept the sinner apart from every other circumstance, such as nationality, or an external rite, or Church privilege, or the like. If faith saves a man, then faith must save every man who has it. Abraham was a justified man as soon as he was a believer, not as soon as he was circumcised. And the design of such an arrangement was to make him the true type and spiritual progenitor of all believers. The only people whom his experience fails to embrace are those Jews who are circumcised but not believing, who trust in their lineage and in their covenant badge and their keeping of the law, expecting to be saved for their meritorious observance of prescribed rules, but who in the free and gracious promises of Abraham’s God put no trust at all.

III. It turns out now that, instead of St. Paul being an apostate or disloyal Jew for admitting believing Gentiles to an equal place in the favour of Israel’s God, it is his self-righteous countryman, who monopolises Divine grace, and will have no Gentile to be saved unless he has first become a circumcised observer of Moses’ law, 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.

J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 99.

References: Rom 3:31.-Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 25. 3-Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 215. Rom 4:1-9.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 249. Rom 4:3.-J. G. Rogers, Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 121. Rom 4:6-9.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 248. Rom 4:7.-Ibid., p. 248. Rom 4:9.-Ibid., p. 258. Rom 4:9-11.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. vi., p. 10.

Rom 4:11

The Call of Abraham.

Mark some characteristics of the faith of Abraham.

I. It is the faith not which conceives great things and works for them, but which places itself as an instrument in God’s hands and lets Him work through it. It is the faith of martyrs, of men who have not seen that they were doing anything heroic, anything that would change the course of history, only that they were doing their duty, doing it as they could not choose but do. The greatest movers of mankind have felt and delighted to feel that they were being used; that they spoke and acted because they must; that they were working out another’s purpose-a purpose larger than their own.

II. It was the faith which was specially suited to him who was to be the father of the chosen people-the father in a yet larger sense of all that believe. It was the faith which could wait through long generations, clinging still to the promise, though so dimly understood, of great blessing for the race, and through it for mankind, content in the meantime to suffer if it must be, to wander in the wilderness, to be as a little flock among wolves, to be trampled down, carried into captivity, the faith growing ever brighter in times of darkest calamity, and more assured, more spiritual. It was the faith which could receive God’s gradual revelation of Himself and of His purposes; the open ear which in each age would meet God’s voice as Samuel met it-“Speak, Lord, for Thy servant heareth”; for ever learning, seeing one interpretation after another of ancient prophecies fail and pass away, yet waiting, listening, receiving, till the full satisfaction came, till the consolation of Israel dawned on it. Remember that the call of Abraham was the beginning of true religion in the world-of religion with a hope, a progress. Every new book of the Bible marks an onward movement.

III. This faith of Abraham-the faith which acts upon a trusted voice, which does not need to see its way even with the eye of imagination, which takes God at His word and waits His time-is the faith which is not beyond our imitation, and which, if we will, may be the hope and stay of our own lives.

E. C. Wickham, Wellington College Sermons, p. 15.

References: Rom 4:13.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 84. Rom 4:16.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1347; Homilist, new series, vol. iii., p. 177; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ix., p. 338. Rom 4:17.-Fraser, Ibid., vol. vii., p. 105. Rom 4:18, Rom 4:19.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. ix., pp. 215, 392. Rom 4:19-21.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 733. Rom 4:19-22.-W. Hubbard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 26. Rom 4:20.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1367; Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 79; R. S. Candlish, Sermons, p. 105.

Rom 4:20-21

Religious faith Rational.

To hear some men speak (I mean men who scoff at religion), it might be thought we never acted on faith and trust except in religious matters, whereas we are acting on trust every hour of our lives. When faith is said to be a religious principle it is the things believed, not the act of believing them, which is peculiar to religion.

I. It is obvious that we trust to our memory. We do not now witness what we saw yesterday, yet we have no doubt it took place in the way we remember. Again, when we use reasoning, and are convinced of anything by reasoning, what is it but that we trust the general soundness of our reasoning powers? And observe that we continually trust our memories and our reasoning powers in this way, though they often deceive us. This is worth observing, because it is sometimes said that we cannot be certain that our faith in religion is not a mistake. In all practical matters we are obliged to dwell upon not what may be possibly, but what is likely to be. When we come to examine the subject, it will be found that, strictly speaking, we know little more than that we exist, and that there is an unseen power whom we are bound to obey. Beyond this we must trust; and first our senses, memory, and reasoning powers; then other authorities; so that, in fact, almost all we do every day of our lives is on trust, i.e., faith.

II. It is easy to show that, even considering faith in the sense of reliance on the words of another, it is no irrational or strange principle of conduct in the concerns of this life. For when we consider the subject attentively, how few things there are which we can ascertain for ourselves by our own senses and reason! After all, what do we know without trusting others? The world could not go on without trust. Distrust, want of faith, breaks the very bonds of human society. Now then, shall we account it only rational for a man, when he is ignorant, to believe his fellow-man, nay, to yield to another’s judgment as better than his own, and yet think it against reason when one, like Abraham, gives ear to the word of God, and sets the promise of God above his own short-sighted expectation? If we but obey God strictly, in time faith will become like sight: we shall have no more difficulty in finding what will please God than in moving our limbs, or in understanding the conversation of our familiar friends. This is the blessedness of confirmed obedience.

J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. i., p. 190.

References: Rom 4:21.-Silver, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 397. Rom 4:22.-J. Irons, Ibid., vol. xi., p. 161. Rom 4:23-25.-W. Hubbard, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 42.

Rom 4:25

Christ Risen our Justification.

I. These two gifts of our Lord, Atonement and Justification, are laid down by St. Paul distinctly as the fruits of His death and His resurrection. “Who was delivered for our offences,” to atone for them; “was raised again for our justification,” to justify us. What Christ purchased for us by His death He giveth us through His life. It is our living Lord who imparts to us the fruits of His own death. He hath the keys of death and hell by virtue of His life from death. As truly, then, as the death of Christ was the true remission of our sins, though not yet imparted to us, so truly was His resurrection our true justification, imparting to us the efficacy of His death and justifying us, or making us righteous in the sight of God.

II. The joy and gift of our Easter festival is our risen Lord Himself. To the Church it is yearly true, “The Lord hath risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” Before, all was laid up for us, but we had it not. By the resurrection is the gift of the Spirit and engrafting into Him; by it is forgiveness of sin, and removal of punishment, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, and adoption as sons and brotherhood with Christ, yea, oneness with Him, and eternal inheritance, because all these are in Him, and by it we become partakers of Him and of all which is His. Yea, this is the bliss of our festivals, that they not only shadow out a likeness and conformity between the Head and the members, our Redeemer and us on whom His name is called, but there is through the power of His Cross and resurrection a real inworked conformity, a substance and reality. “Whatever,” says St. Augustine, “was wrought in the Cross of Christ, in His burial, in His resurrection on the third day, in His ascension into heaven and sitting down at the right hand of the Father, was so wrought, that by these actions, not words only, of mystical meaning, should be figured out the Christian life enacted here below. We have been made partakers of His precious death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, for where He is, there are we, in pledge and earnest, if we be His; thence He looks down upon us, fixing our failing eyes to look up to Him; thence, by the secret sympathy between the Head and the members, He draws us upward with longing to be like Him: the firstfruits of our spirit are already there; and He is with us, raising what yet lingereth here; we are with Him there, since, if we be His, we are in Him; He is with us here, for by His Spirit He dwelleth in us, if we love Him.”

E. B. Pusey, Sermons, vol. i., p. 214.

Rom 4:25

These words are the answer to the question which would naturally arise from the perusal of the history of the death and passion of Jesus Christ. “He was delivered on account of our offences.” Men’s sins were the cause of the sufferings and death of the sinless Son of God.

I. We read the history of those awful hours during which was transacted the mighty work of a world’s redemption, and we are moved with indignation against the various actors in the melancholy scene. But, after all, and without at all extenuating their guilt, these were not the real crucifiers of the Lord of life, or, if they were, it was but as instruments, free indeed, and therefore responsible instruments, but only instruments by whom a death was inflicted, whose cause lay far deeper than their malice or their fears. Without this course the rage of His enemies would have been impotent against the Son of God. For each one of us, for our own individual sins, that sacrifice was offered on the cross. Our waywardness, our rebellion, our acts of injustice, or dishonesty, our false, profane, angry, and slanderous words, these were the crucifiers of the Son of God.

II. If our sins were the cause of Christ’s suffering, the emotions which should be awakened in our breast should surely be: (1) A fear of sin. With the awful and mysterious declaration of the text before our eyes, what possible hope of escape can we have if we continue in sin? (2) Another habitual feeling which the great truth of the text should leave in our hearts is a hatred for sin. Many reasons have we, indeed, to hate sin, for it is the degradation of our race, the cause of all our sufferings, and the peril of our everlasting future; and the more we are taught by God’s Spirit to see the beauty of holiness, and to love the just and the pure and the true, the more we shall hate sin for its own sake, its moral deformity, and its enmity to God and to good. (3) But while fear and hatred of sin should accompany a belief in the atonement, the truth should be embraced by a trusting and cheerful faith. The mysterious greatness of the sacrifice offered when Christ suffered magnifies the Divine justice and the guilt of sin. It also demonstrates the infinitude of God’s mercy. (4) The atonement thus embraced by faith should be the root and spring of a loving obedience. The highest conceivable instance of God’s love, it should enkindle in our hearts the love of God.

Bishop Jackson, Penny Pulpit, No. 354.

I. How was it possible to make men feel that they are something quite different from brute beasts, that they were not animals, clever and more cunning than all other animals, that might is not right, self-control not a folly? Or how is it possible to prove that man is not a mere perishing animal that dies, and then there is an end of him? The world of Greece and Rome had come to the blank conclusion that there was no hope, no life worth living. There are plenty of people living now who have inherited instincts from centuries of Christian forefathers, and who are still influenced by Christian customs and traditions, and thus go on as they have been used to do, but who live in blank hopelessness as to the future. How shall it be possible to prove to them now that in every soul of man is the imperishableness of the Divine? Philosophy cannot do it-it is simply silent. Science cannot do it-it is outside her province. Read the philosophies of the would-be philosophers, and you will despair, as centuries ago men despaired. They do not touch the greater hope. And so there sets in the struggle of the day between all the now long-inherited Christian instincts of the race, all the unsuppressed divinely given instincts of the man, against the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

II. In this struggle we need a reinforcement of power. It is to be found in the truths of which Good Friday and Easter are the witnesses. Christ died that there might be no part of our experience peculiar to ourselves, that He might show that He was very man. He rose to show that death was not the end of all things; and He went into heaven that He might show by His visible rising what will in some form happen also to us. And all for this reason, and to teach us for ever that the interval is bridged over completely from man to God. This vast interval He traversed twice: He came down from God to man, He went up from man to God. He was Himself and is Himself, God and man. The chain is complete from heaven to earth. Since Christ came man knows that he is not a mere animal-he is by his affinities Divine. He walks the earth a new creature. See, says the history of Jesus Christ, the chain is already complete that connects man with God. If the chain reaches down till its lower end is lost in molecular forces, it reaches up till its upper end is lost in the glory of the throne of God, and in the Divine person of Jesus Christ, who has shown us the perfection of God.

J. M. Wilson, Sermons in Clifton College Chapel, p. 155.

References: Rom 4:25.-Clergyman’s Magazine, new series, vol. ii., p. 213; Bishop Moorhouse, Church of England Pulpit, vol. i., p. 108.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 4

1. The Witness of Abraham to Justification. (Rom 4:1-5.)

2. As Confirmed also by David. (Rom 4:6-8.)

3. Circumcision the Sign of the Covenant. (Rom 4:9-12.)

4. Faith in Him Who Raiseth the Dead. (Rom 4:13-25.)

Rom 4:1-5

Two witnesses are summoned next in whose lives the truth of justification by faith is illustrated. The Jews boasted of Abraham as the father of their nation. Abraham our father is still the common phrase used by all orthodox Jews as it was in the days of John the Baptist, as he declared, Say not within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father. How then was Abraham counted righteous before God? Was he justified by keeping the law? That was impossible, for the law was 430 years after Abraham. He was not justified by works. He was a sinner like every other human being. He had no works to justify him. But what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Abraham simply believed God when He gave him a promise (Gen 15:5-6) and God said, you have no righteousness, but I take your faith instead of righteousness. Faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. There is then a difference between the righteousness of God in the previous chapter and the righteousness imputed in this chapter. And a blessed statement it is But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Abraham did not work. To him that worketh not, God reckons a reward. And what a reward. What God puts on the side of him, who believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, will only be fully known when redeemed sinners are in His presence. The glory which Thou has given me I have given Them (Joh 17:22). This wonderful utterance of our Lord tells us of the great reward in store for him that worketh not, who, as ungodly, believes on Christ, who died for the ungodly. Thus faith is reckoned for righteousness and has its reward of glory through grace. The statement in Gal 3:6-9 must be studied in connection with these verses. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. (In Galatians analyzed and annotated this statement is more fully explained.)

Rom 4:6-8

And David is the second witness. David and Abraham are mentioned in the first verse of the New Testament. The covenant God made with Abraham and with David make these two men the leading men of the nation. Now Abraham had no law, but David was under the law. David describeth the blessedness of the man (whosoever he may be) to whom God imputes the righteousness without works. The beautiful 32nd Psalm is quoted. The blessedness of the believer is there described. Iniquities forgiven; sins covered; sin no longer imputed. He does not impute sin, but imputes righteousness. Forgiveness takes the place of sin, and everlasting righteousness has covered the believers iniquity, hiding it alike from the eyes of Divine glory, and from the conscience of the justified vessel of His grace; and significantly it is stated in that Psalm for this cause shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee in the time when Thou mayest be found. This is the way to be godly, confessing ourself a sinner, confessing sin and believing on Him, who justifieth the ungodly.

Rom 4:9-12

The question of circumcision is raised again. The Jew boasted in circumcision as placing him into a position of favor and blessing before God. Is this blessedness, justification by faith, sins put away, righteousness imputed, for the circumcision, the Jews, only, or does it come also upon the uncircumcision, the Gentiles? When Abraham was declared righteous he was still in uncircumcision. The historical account in Genesis shows that circumcision followed the declaration he believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness; circumcision did not precede his faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness. He was in uncircumcision, practically a Gentile, and circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. All this manifests the wisdom of God. It was divinely arranged so that Abraham might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised (Gentiles) that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which he had being uncircumcised. Here we have the best possible argument that ordinances, or sacraments so called by man, have no part in bestowing salvation upon man. Baptism is called a sacrament and ritualistic Christians hold that it is necessary to receive the blessing of forgiveness. Others who do not hold to corrupt ritualism, also teach that Baptism as an ordinance is necessary for salvation. This portion of the Epistle answers completely these unscriptural claims. For by Grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8-9).

Rom 4:13-25

This section is of deep interest and must be carefully studied. While we had the atoning death of Christ so far before us, resurrection is now brought to the foreground as another important fact of the Gospel. The faith of Abraham is defined. How did he believe? When the promise was given that he should have a son and numerous offspring (Gen 15:4-5), he believed God, who quickeneth the dead (resurrection) and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Abraham was an old man and Sarah was far beyond the time of childbirth; their case was humanly impossible. But Abraham believed that God could bring life from the dead, that He had the power to touch a grave and bring life out of it. Against hope he believed in hope–and being not weak in faith he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarahs womb; he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that what He had promised, He was able to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. From Genesis we know that he was also weak in faith and that he acted in unbelief. But this is graciously passed by. God, so to speak, had forgotten his unbelief and remembered it no more.

The application of all this is found in Rom 4:23-25. The promised seed was more than Isaac, it was Christ; so that Abraham believed the God who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. And we believe on Him also. Our Lord was delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification. His resurrection is the blessed and positive proof that our sins are completely put away. For this reason the resurrection of Jesus, our Lord, is the justification of the believer. We have then a threefold justification of the believer. We are justified by His blood; He bore our guilt and penalty. We are justified by His resurrection, because this assures us that the work is done and we are accepted, and we are justified by faith, which is reckoned for righteousness.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Do we then

The sinner establishes the law in its right use and honour by confessing his guilt, and acknowledging that by it he is justly condemned. Christ, on the sinner’s behalf, establishes the law by enduring its penalty, death. Cf. Mat 5:17; Mat 5:18.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

what: Rom 6:1, Rom 7:7, Rom 8:31

Abraham: Isa 51:2, Mat 3:9, Luk 3:8, Luk 16:24, Luk 16:25, Luk 16:29-31, Joh 8:33, Joh 8:37-41, Joh 8:53, Joh 8:56, Act 13:26, 2Co 11:22

as pertaining: Rom 4:16, Heb 12:9

Reciprocal: Jer 6:16 – Stand Mal 2:10 – all Rom 3:5 – what shall Rom 3:25 – remission 1Co 10:18 – Israel Heb 11:32 – what shall Jam 2:21 – Abraham

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE FOURTH CHAPTER is practically a parenthesis. In verse 28 of chapter 4 the conclusion is reached that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. To exactly the same point are we brought back in Rom 5:1, and then-but not till then-does the Apostle carry us on further into the blessings of the Gospel. In chapter 4 he develops at considerable length certain Old Testament scriptures which support his thesis, that before God a man is justified by faith alone.

When, in Rom 3:1-31, the Apostle aimed at convincing the Jew of his sinfulness, that he equally with the Gentile was subject to the judgment of God, he clinched his argument by quoting what the law had said. Now the point is to prove that justification is by faith, with the deeds of the law excluded, and again the Old Testament is appealed to. In days of long ago the faith of the Gospel was anticipated; and this was the case, whether before the law was given, as in the case of Abraham, or after it was given, as in the case of David.

The first question asked is, What about Abraham? He is spoken of as the father of circumcision, in verse Rom 4:12, and as such the Jew boasted very greatly in him. He was also the father of all that believe, as verse Rom 4:11 states. Had he been justified by works he would have had something in which to glory, but not before God. Note the two words italicized, for they plainly indicate that the point of this passage is, what is valid before God and not what is valid before men. Herein lies an essential difference between this chapter and Jam 2:1-26, where the word is, Shew me thy faith (verse Rom 4:18). We may also point out that whereas Paul shows that the works of the law must be excluded, James insists that the works of faith must be brought in.

We may put the matter in a nutshell thus:-Before God a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law; whereas, to be accepted as justified before men, the faith that is professed must evidence its vitality by producing the works of faith.

The case is very clear as to both Abraham and David. We have but to turn to Gen 15:1-21 on the one hand, and to Psa 32:1-11 on the other, in order to see that faith was the way of their justification and that works were excluded. The wonder of the Gospel is that God is presented as, Him that justifieth the ungodly. The law contemplated nothing more than this, that the judges, shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked (Deu 25:1). That the ungodly should be justified was not contemplated. But this is what God does in the Gospel, on the basis of the work of Christ, since Christ died for the ungodly. This opens the door into blessing for sinners such as ourselves.

We get the expression, this blessedness, in verse Rom 4:9. It refers to faith being counted for righteousness, or reckoned for righteousness, or righteousness being imputed. These, and similar expressions, occur a number of times in the chapter. What do they mean? Whether referring to Abraham or David or to ourselves who believe today, they mean that God accounts us as righteous before Him in view of our faith. We must not imagine that all virtue resides in our faith. It does not. But faith establishes contact with the work of Christ, in which all the virtue does reside. In that sense faith justifies. Once that contact is established and we stand before God in all the justifying virtue of the work of Christ, we are of necessity justified. It could not righteously be otherwise. God holds us as righteous in view of our faith.

The question raised in verse Rom 4:9 is this:-Is this blessedness for the Jew only or is it also for the Gentile who believes? The Apostle knew right well the determined way in which the bigoted Jew sought to place all the condemnation upon the Gentile while reserving all the blessing for himself. The answer is that the case of Abraham, in whom they so much boasted, proves that it is for ALL. Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. Had the order been reversed, the Jew might have had some ground for such a contention. As things were, he had none. Circumcision was only a sign, a seal of the faith which justified Abraham.

Abraham then in his justification stood clean outside the law. The law indeed only works wrath, as verse Rom 4:15 says. There was plenty of sin before the law came in, but there was not transgression. To transgress is to offend by stepping over a clearly defined and forbidden boundary. When the law was given the boundary was definitely raised, and sin became transgression. Now sin is not imputed when there is no law (v. Rom 4:13). That is, so long as the evil had not been definitely forbidden God did not put the evil down to mans account, as He does when the prohibition has been issued. This then was the work of the law. But long before the law was given Abraham had been justified by faith. Does not this display how God delights in mercy? Justification was clearly indicated four hundred years before the urgent need of it was manifested by the law being given.

Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace. Had it been by works it would have been a matter of debt and not grace, as verse Rom 4:4 told us. On the principle of faith and grace the blessing is made sure to all the seed; that is, the true spiritual seed of Abraham or in other words, true believers. For Abraham is, the father of us all. US all be it noted-ALL true believers.

This fact being established, the last nine verses of chapter 4 apply the principles of Abrahams justification to the believer of today.

Abrahams faith had this peculiarity, that it was centred in God as the One who was able to raise the dead. If we turn to Gen 15:1-21 we discover that he believed God when the promise was made as to the birth of Isaac. He believed that God would raise up a living child from parents who, as regards the process of reproduction, were dead. He believed in hope when it was against all natural hope that such a thing should be.

Had Abraham been weak in faith he would have considered all the circumstances, which were against it. He would have felt that the promise was too great and consequently have staggered at it. He did neither. He took God at His word with the simplicity of a little child. He believed that God would do what He had said He would do. And this, be it noted, is what here is called strong faith. Strong faith then is not so much the faith that performs miracles as that faith which implicitly trusts God to do what He has said, even though all appearances and reason and precedent should be against it.

Now these things have not been written for Abrahams sake alone but also for us. The same principles apply exactly. There is however one important difference. In Abrahams case he believed that God would raise up life out of death. We are not asked to believe that God will do it, but that He has done it, by raising up Jesus our Lord from the dead. How much simpler to believe that He has done it, when He has done it, than to believe that He will do it, when as yet He has not done it. Bearing this in mind it is easy to see that as regards the texture or quality of faith we cannot hope to produce as fine an article as Abraham did.

Where however the case of Abraham is far surpassed is in the glorious facts that are presented to our faith, the glorious light in which God had made Himself known. Not now the God who will raise up an Isaac, but the God who has raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Christ, who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification, is presented as the Object of our faith. And by Him we believe in God.

It is possible of course to believe on Him that raised up the Lord Jesus, without at all realizing what is involved in this wonderful fact. The last verse of the chapter states what is involved in it. Let us pay great attention to it, and so make sure that we take it in. Twice in the verse does the word our occur. That word signifies believers, and believers only.

Jesus our Lord has died. But He did not die for Himself, but for us. Our offences were in view. He was the Substitute, and assuming all the liabilities incurred, He was delivered up to judgment and death on their account.

He has been raised again by the act of God. But it is equally true that His resurrection was not simply a personal matter, and on His own account. We still view Him as standing on our behalf, as our Representative. He was raised representatively for us. God raised Him with our justification in view. His resurrection was most certainly His own personal vindication in the face of the hostile verdict of the world. Equally certainly it was our justification in the face of all the offences, which apart from His death were lying to our account.

His death was the complete discharge of all our dread account. His resurrection is the receipt that all is paid, the God-given declaration and proof that we are completely cleared. Now justification is just that-a complete clearance from all that which once lay against us. Being then justified by faith we have peace with God. We must read on from the end of chapter 4 into chapter 5 without any break whatever.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Abraham an Exemplar of Faith

Rom 4:1-5, Rom 4:13-25

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

In our verses there are several things relative to the faith of Abraham that are worthy of note:

1. What did Abraham find according to the flesh? The query is one of a far vista, for it deeply concerns every one of us.

(1) If Abraham were justified by the flesh he might have had whereof to glory, but not before God. He could have gloried before men, because men look at the outward appearances. Men delight to boast in their own worthiness and their own accomplishments. Men delight in parading themselves, as. though they, by their might or prowess, had done this or that After the flesh and before men, Abraham might have paraded his power to make money, and to increase his goods; he might have gloried in his feats of valor, such as overthrowing certain kings and delivering his nephew Lot; he might have gloried in his power in prayer; in his dedication of Isaac to death; in his years of faithful service and worship.

(2) Before God, Abraham could not have gloried in any of these, because, in what he did, power was given him of God. Before God, Abraham, like all of us, was but a sinner saved by grace. Every good he possessed in daily walk, every virtue he showed, and every act of faith he demonstrated, was all the gift of God. He was beautiful only by God’s beauty that God had put upon him,

2. If Abraham had been saved or justified by works, the reward would not be reckoned of grace but of works. The moment we pass into the realm of works, we pass out of the realm of grace. Rewards lie in those accomplishments of saints which follow after they have been saved by grace. For God is not unrighteous to forget our work and labor of love; therefore when He comes He says, “My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”

Rewards must, therefore, of necessity, fall far below the bestowment of grace, for this simple reason, that rewards can give no more than merit requires; but grace can give unbounding favors, because it is based on Christ’s sacrificial Blood, and His marvelous accomplishments for those who believe.

No man could merit eternal life, or Heaven, or any of its glorious and eternal benefactions, because none of us could render a service to merit so great a prize.

3. The righteousness which is by faith. Rom 4:3 says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Rom 4:5 says, “To him that * * believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

What was it, then, for which Abraham believed God? He believed that God had found a way by which He could be just, and yet justify the ungodly. That was the underlying principle of Abraham’s faith-not merely that God had told Abraham to go out to a country that he knew not of, and that Abraham by faith went out; not merely that God told Abraham to offer up his son, and that Abraham by faith had obeyed, and was in the process of sacrificing Isaac, accounting that God would raise him up-not that alone.

The faith that was counted unto Abraham for righteousness was the faith that believed that God, through the death of Christ (whose day Abraham saw and understood) could justify the ungodly, Abraham believed that God would put his sins on Christ, and Christ’s righteousness upon him-he believed this, and nothing short of this; because anything short of this kind of faith, God could not have counted unto him for righteousness.

I. THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM WAS NOT A FAITH AFTER THE LAW (Rom 4:13)

Here is Rom 4:13 : “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” These words carry great weight. If righteousness had come to Abraham by the Law, then Christ had died in vain. If righteousness had come to Abraham by circumcision, then men could be saved by religious rites and ceremonies.

Circumcision was, however, only a sign or a seal of the fact that Abraham had obtained righteousness by faith, while he was yet uncircumcised.

Thus also Abraham’s righteousness by faith, being uncircumcised, is set forth by the Spirit of God to demonstrate the fact that uncircumcised Gentiles may now be justified by faith, apart from the works and the rites of the Law. What then?

1. If righteousness were by the works of the Law as given to the Jews, then all Gentiles would of necessity have been forced to become righteous only by being grafted into Judaism, and Judaistic rites. We who are Gentiles would have needed to become Jews, sealed by the seal of Judaistic circumcision. We would have been forced to become followers of Abraham, according to the flesh, and not after the Spirit.

2. If righteousness had come by Judaistic Law-works, then the Gentiles who know not the Law would have perished without the Law. Then the whole set-up of world missions as it now stands would have to be done away. Then the Church would need to be forever set aside, as an incubus on God’s method of redemption. Then the ordinances of the Church, which link us to the Cross, would need be done away. Then the proclamation of salvation by grace through faith would cease to be God’s plan of redemption. Then the Cross would be thrown out of the plan of redemption.

If righteousness is by Law-works, or Law-rites, then Christ would have died a martyr, and not a Redeemer; a murdered religious zealot, and not a God-sent Saviour.

Salvation would have been a work of the flesh, humanly reached through the deeds of the flesh, instead of a power of God through the Spirit. Then all the songs of the redeemed in Heaven would need to be hushed.

II. IF ABRAHAM WAS SAVED BY THE LAW, FAITH IS VOID (Rom 4:14)

Let us quote Rom 4:14 : “For if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.”

1. God’s promise to Abraham concerning his seed and their heirship would have long ago faded away under the basis of Law-works. If God had promised Abraham that of his seed He would raise up Christ, and promised it solely by virtue of Abraham’s worthiness and upon the worthiness of his children and his children’s children, then Christ had never been born. Any promise based upon anything humanly dependent is certain to fail, through the weakness of human flesh. The reason the Law cannot perfect is because the Law is made weak by the flesh; that is, the heart of man is deceitful above all things and is desperately wicked. Who can know it?

2. God’s promise to Abraham concerning his seed and their heirship would long have been made impossible if based upon religious rites and ceremonies. Even religious forms and traditions, Divinely given, soon are corrupted by man. Take the things commanded by God to Moses, concerning the Tabernacle and the worship of God; all these were soon spoiled by human additions and subtractions, even the rabbinical additions to the Judaistic demands. Hear the Lord Jesus as He speaks to the scribes and Pharisees. They had come to Him, saying, “Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” The Lord Jesus replied, “Why do ye also transgress the Commandment of God by your tradition?” These rulers in Israel had so mutilated what God had said, that Christ, said unto them, “Ye hypocrites, * * in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Take present-day Judaism: it is far, far away from the express commandments of God. Take also the present-day church, how has it gone away from the simplicities of the New Testament church! There is not one altogether true to the faith once delivered. Thus, if salvation was based upon Law-works or church rites, it would of necessity collapse.

III. THE LAW WORKETH WRATH (Rom 4:15)

1. How would you like to trust something to save you from wrath, that worketh wrath? Why, then, does the Law work wrath? We know that the Law is holy and righteous and good. How then can that which is good, work wrath? Remember, the Laws of God, like all just and holy laws, carry with them penalties for disobedience. The Law worketh wrath, because it carries these penalties upon the disobedient.

A law unenforced by penalties is a law that is void. A law given to the lawless will be quickly broken. Therefore the law must carry vengeance upon lawbreakers.

2. The giving of the Law was under throes of darkness, and a tempest, and an earthquake. Old Sinai did exceedingly tremble and shake. The reason for all this was that the Law was holy, but man was vile; the Law was righteous, but man was unrighteous; the Law was just, but man was unjust. He who would, as a sinner and breaker of the Law, appeal to the Law for salvation, is appealing unto the sword that is unsheathed to slay him. Shall we seek light from that which forebodes darkness and death? Shall we look for mercy where justice reigns?

3. The Law then becomes a schoolmaster to drive us to Christ. By the Law comes the knowledge of sin, but not a Saviour from sin. From the Law comes the pronouncement, “The wages of sin is death”; from faith comes the pronouncement, “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Nay, I had not known sin but by the Law. I had not known the depth of sin, if the height of God’s holiness had not been proclaimed by the Law.

What then? How can a sinner be just before God? The Law cannot justify the one whom it can only condemn. The Law cannot save that which it judges worthy of death. There remains, therefore, but one hope, and that is by the way of faith in Christ, even the Christ who died, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; even the Christ who was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

IV. WHEREIN THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM STANDS FORTH SUPREME (Rom 4:16)

Our verse is a rather long one. It reads: “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.”

1. Faith drives us away from the Law and into the arms of grace. Herein is the faith of Abraham disassociated from everything that is of the Law, and of any self-accomplishment. It was not the achievements of Abraham’s faith to which he looked for salvation. The achievements of Abraham’s faith were the result of his faith, not the object of his faith.

Abraham looked by faith unto a redemption which is in Christ Jesus. He looked purposely and distinctly, not vaguely and indefinitely. He saw Christ, saw His atonement, saw His resurrection, saw it all; and seeing, he believed. He cast himself onto the arms of God’s grace. His faith antedated his works, as well as his circumcision.

Yes, according to James, faith will work; and it will work wonderfully, even as Abraham’s faith worked. Abraham was justified by a faith that works; he showed us his faith by his works. However, Abraham’s faith that worked was not in the works of his faith, but in God’s grace, which saves.

2. If salvation were by works, then it would be by the works of an unregenerated heart. If salvation were by works, then it would be works that are impossible, and unacceptable to God; for the very best of the works of the flesh is enmity to God, and cannot please God.

The moment faith becomes supreme in the life, as a basis for salvation, that moment the works of the flesh are denied, and grace is enthroned.

3. Salvation by grace through faith makes the promise sure to all the seed of Abraham; not to the Jews only, but also to the Gentiles; not to the circumcision only, but also to the uncircumcision.

If salvation were by the Law, or by Law-works, or by Law-rites, then the Jew would have every advantage. But salvation by grace through faith is a message to every man. All stand alike guilty before God; and all, alike, may be saved by grace.

V. THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM UNVEILED-ITS SPIRITUAL VISION (Rom 4:7)

Here is a wonderful Scripture: “(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before Him whom he believed, even God, who quickened the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” We now begin to get an inside light on the far-flung meanings of Abraham’s faith.

1. He believed God. Here is something that goes deep down into Abraham’s grip of faith. His faith was not placed in things, nor in himself, nor in men. He believed God. How this expression brings to mind the words, “Have faith in God.” God is the only Rock that stands unshaken; He is the only Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep; He is the only Light that never fades.

God’s Word is the only Word that is forever and for aye, Amen. It is the only Word that never fails, never falters, never flees.

2. He believed in God who quickeneth the dead. Abraham, in the offering of Isaac, believed in the God who is the Resurrection and the Life. He believed more than this-he believed in the resurrection of the saints. We read that Abraham received Isaac from the dead in a figure. Yes, he saw the resurrection of Isaac, and of Christ, and of us all. What a faith in God!

3. He believed in God, calling those things which are not as though they were. Faith may have a far-flung vision; however, faith brings that far-flung vision into the immediate present. Faith gives substance to the things hoped for; and evidence to the things not seen. Faith makes things become so real that it acts as though they were present.

We often speak of eschatology, of things to come, of thing’s in the far distance. Do we speak of them as though they were here with us now? Do we believe as though we had in hand the things which we hope for? Are they ours before we get them? All this was true in the faith of Abraham. He considered God’s promises of future acquisitions as dependable as were God’s already received realities. Both to him were things already received. He had what he hoped for. He possessed what he was to obtain.

Let us each examine his faith in the light of the faith of Abraham.

VI. THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM REVEALED-AGAINST HOPE HE BELIEVED IN HOPE (Rom 4:18-19)

Our verse reveals a real faith: “Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.” The next verse adds: “And being not weak in faith, he considered not his body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb.”

1. Abraham’s faith was according to that which God had spoken, and not according to natural facts or factors. What if he were as good as dead? What if Sarah were past bearing? What did that have to do with God’s ability to do what He had said?

Must we limit God to work in the realm of the natural, or allow Him to work in the realm of the miraculous? Is God man, that His hand must be shortened that He cannot save? Is God not abundantly able to do what He promises? Shall faith limit God by man’s idea of limitations? Shall faith become unbelief, when anything outside the realm of what is possible with man comes up?

Does the fact that man cannot do it mean that God cannot do it? We are told to walk by faith: where shall we walk? We are told to live by faith: how shall we live? Shall we place ourselves inside the wonderful achievements of mortal man, and say to faith, “So far shalt thou go, and no further?” Even though man has never been able to walk, or to sleep in peace in a lions’ den, faith can so do. Man has never walked up and down in the midst of the fire, yet faith can walk there. We aver that what is impossible to men, is possible to faith.

2. As the church has lost faith in God’s Word of promise generally so, it has lost power to do wonders. We need some more Abrahams, and Moseses, and Elijahs, and Gideons, and Davids, and the like. With the coming of the church age, did God cease to work in the realm of the miraculous? Then it is because the church ceased to believe into that realm. When the church was born, did faith die? When the church came in, did God, who worketh all things after the counsel of His will, go out?

VII. ABRAHAM STAGGERED NOT THROUGH UNBELIEF (Rom 4:20-21)

1. Abraham staggered not through unbelief. We judge that the church, instead of laying her failure in the realm of the miraculous to the silence of God in this age, had better place her failures at the feet of her own unbelief. Unbelief is black with the frown of God. Unbelief is the foe of everything spiritual, and of every attempt and effective accomplishment of the present-hour saints.

2. Abraham was strong in faith giving glory to God. How the words slay us. Shall saints of yore know more of God than we know? Shall they stagger not, while we stagger? Shall they haste to give glory to God, while we languish on in unbelief? God forbid!

Abraham gave glory to God when he received the promise. Abraham never did receive a great bulk of what God had promised, but he died in faith, and everything promised shall yet be fulfilled, and his seed, even as it was said. The presence of Israel, the Jews of today, in such ever-increasing numbers, is a sufficient proof that God is about to do what He told Abraham He would do.

3. Abraham was fully persuaded that what God promised He was able to perform. Do we not have the God of Abraham for our God? Are we living in God who was, or who is? The God who of old was able to perform all that He had promised, is still able to do the same.

Come, let us examine His promises to the Church. Let us take a tablet and write them down, one by one: then, with all of them written, let us write across that all God is able to perform, and He will perform even as we faith Him.

4. All this faith of Abraham which staggered not, was not written for his sake, but for us also. Righteousness was imputed to Abraham because he believed God. We too may have righteousness imputed to us if we believe in Him who wrought the supreme miracle of raising Christ from the dead; even the Christ who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. Hearken-here is the miracle of all miracles-a Saviour who is ours by faith.

AN ILLUSTRATION

Abraham, without knowing where he went, obeyed God, and Abraham has abundant rewards.

“‘Go, and dig there!’ advised a facetious miner, thinking to play a joke on the confiding tenderfoot who had asked where he should begin his mining. He pointed as he spoke to a crumbling prospect hole, long before abandoned. To the eyes of inexperience one spot looked as promising as another, and the new arrival set to work, with the result that in less than twenty-four hours he had uncovered one of the richest veins of tellurium ever opened in that camp. He was still so ignorant of what he had found that when another miner offered to sink the shaft forty feet for a half interest in the claim, the opportunity to relieve a pair of blistering palms was hailed with delight. Yet that forty feet of sinking paid something like 10,000, while, first and last, the great Melvina Mine of Boulder County, Col., has yielded nearly 140,000. ‘Treasures of wickedness profit nothing’ (Pro 10:2). Like Moses, seek the ‘greater riches than the treasures in Egypt’ (Heb 11:26).”

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

4:1

Rom 4:1. Paul’s question is to introduce his remarks about the works of Abraham and what they meant to him. The Jews not only claimed that God chose them over the Gentiles because of their better qualities, but that they and their law were good enough to be continued in authority for the sake of righteousness before God. That was the reason the Judaizers in Rome (and elsewhere) were so persistent in disturbing the Gentile Christians with their notions. And in defence of their position, they referred to Abraham who was said to be righteous on the ground that he was justified by works (Jas 2:21), jumping from the works of the law to those practiced by Abraham centuries before the law.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 4:1. What shall we say then! Then connects with what precedes, but the exact reference is open to discussion. Meyer and others take it as introducing a proof of chap. Rom 3:31, which they consider the proposition of chap. 4. The objection is that Paul is proving, not the agreement of the law and the gospel, but the true method of justification. It seems better to take Rom 3:31 as a transition thought, which is illustrated in this chapter, and taken up again in chap. 6, and to find here a proof of the positions set forth in chap. Rom 3:28-30, to which exception might be taken in view of the Divine origin of the law.

Our forefather. This is the better supported reading.

According to the flesh. This may mean, according to natural descent, or it may have the ethical sense, according to his sinful human nature (see chap. 7). In the former case it must be connected with forefather in the latter with hath found. The order of the common Greek text favors the latter; while the best authorities sustain a different order, which throws the emphasis upon hath found, but separates it from according to the flesh. It is possible, however, to join it with the verb, even while accepting this reading. The sense then is: what shall we say then that Abraham our forefather hath found (i.e., attained) according to the flesh (i.e., through his own natural efforts as distinct from the grace of God). The opposite would be according to the Spirit, according to the working of the Spirit of God. This evidently suits the context much better than the other view, which merely adds a seemingly unnecessary definition to the word forefather.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Section 2. (Rom 4:1-12.)

Witness of the Old Testament to justification by faith.

The apostle, not satisfied with this, turns round upon the Jew, and asks, Has he read carefully those precious books which God has given him? Of whose history ought he to know more than that of Abraham his father? With whose writings ought he to be more familiar than with those of David, Israel’s sweet psalmist? Yet God has given His testimony as to that principle of faith to which he demurs, right there where the eyes of His people would be most constantly directed! What a reproof of legality, coming from such a quarter! For us also, what a warning as to truths which nay be under our eyes in the pages of Scripture, which yet we have never seen there! not because they are not plainly to be read, but because our eyes have been dimmed by unbelief and worldly prejudice and pride of heart, as Israel’s were! May we seek to have all films of this sort purged away. Were every veil removed, how would the glory of Scripture break upon us!

1. The first witness which the apostle brings from the Old Testament books is complete in itself: it is in fact that of God Himself, and in connection with him whom they all acknowledged as under God the head of blessing for them. Were they to be blessed in another way than Abraham? Forefather he was according to the flesh, and the claim they had to him in this way they pressed to its full extent. Be it so: to them then, above all, should the lessons of his history have significance. How then was Abraham justified before God? They might plead perhaps his separation of himself from all that had natural claim upon him, in order to walk as a stranger in a land which, though God had promised it to him, he never got in possession. Was he then justified by works whose merit the rabbinical teachers so constantly brought forward? It is in fact just here that God had interposed with a remarkable and precise statement. If Abraham were indeed justified by works, then plainly he has something in which to glory; but, adds the apostle, “not before God.” He has told us already that “by works of law shall no flesh be justified before Him;” Abraham cannot therefore be an exception: but in his case Scripture itself can be appealed to; the head of the people to whom the law was given was in the wisdom of God chosen to have a specific testimony, not merely of his being righteous before God, but also as to the ground of it: it is distinctly declared that “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” This then was his justification; but it was not work of any kind that was reckoned to him for this: it was his faith; the principle of his justification is distinctly recorded for us in the Word to have been faith, not works.

This is the only example explicitly announced in the Old Testament of a person justified by faith; but here it takes precedence, as the apostle reminds us in Galatians, of any legal announcement whatever. Faith being reckoned for righteousness is clearly the same as being justified (or declared righteous) by faith. Faith is the ground upon which he is reckoned righteous. There being no actual righteousness to be found among men, God declares what he can accept as putting one among the righteous. He does not and cannot say that it is actual righteousness; which yet He must have indeed, but which man cannot furnish. For this He must look elsewhere, and we know, thank God, where He has found it. But here He simply declares what on man’s part He can take as evincing that. How beautiful an announcement it is, at so early a time, and in relation to such a person! How completely is law set aside in this, although it is not a general announcement as yet, but only as to an individual. Still how easy for one realizing his need, one might think, to make the inference. For those to whom Abraham was to be a covenant head of promise, how striking a figure should he be! But the apostle goes on to enforce still further the contrast between the principles which he has been comparing: “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.” And the greatness of the reward does not alter the principle involved: if you buy heaven cheap, still you buy it. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.”

Here the meaning of grace is brought out in the clearest way: God justifieth the ungodly; if it be through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus -through the Cross -then it is plain that the Cross is penalty for sin; it is not even for the comparatively righteous. But if God justifieth the ungodly, what work have I to do to be “ungodly?” And further, if I believe that He justifieth the ungodly, it will be part of the evidence that I believe this, that I drop all working to find justification at His hands. Here is the man whose faith is reckoned for righteousness.

There can be no possible mixture of contradictory things. The character and the quantity of work are not at all in question. “Worketh not” suits exactly, and only suits, a justification of the ungodly. And here also the grace of God acquires its power to subdue the soul to God, and win the feet from every evil way.

It is faith that is the true worker for God, as it is grace that breaks the dominion of sin. To modify grace is to destroy its power; to balance faith with works is to make men workers for themselves instead of God, and thus destroy that very fruitfulness of faith which it is desired to secure. The law-gospel is neither law nor gospel.

2. The apostle passes for the moment from Abraham to David. David also speaks of “the blessedness of him to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works;” and Paul quotes as to this what is significantly the first “maskil” psalm or “psalm of instruction.” The blessedness is of them whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord will in no wise reckon sin. This is indeed the beginning of instruction when we have learned this lesson. And the psalmist gives it us as the personal experience which we know it was for him: while he kept silence, his bones waxed old through his roaring all the day long; he confessed his sin to God, and did not bide his iniquities; nay, but said, “I will confess my transgression to the Lord;” and divine grace anticipated even the confession (Psa 32:1-11, see notes).

This is not all; for presently we find that this is no exceptional mercy to a David; nor again is there any who has no need of such a confession, and such mercy as is here shown. Nay, for “for this cause shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee in a time when Thou mayest be found.” He therefore who has never known this way of drawing near to God is not the godly but the ungodly! such is the need of grace on the part of all!

3. The apostle turns back again to Abraham, to raise another question very important to the Jew. This blessedness then, which is of grace and to sinners, can circumcision give a claim to it which the uncircumcised have not? Well, look once more at the history: faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness; when was it reckoned then? in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? How overwhelming an answer in the simple fact to all the high and exclusive claims made by the Jew! His own father Abraham was an uncircumcised man when he possessed the faith by which he was justified, and of that faith circumcision, the sign of God’s covenant with him, was the seal! As to Abraham none could deny that circumcision could not contribute to that righteousness which was his before it, and that to get his argument, the Jew must invert the facts of history. Standing as they do, Abraham appears as the father of all that believe, although uncircumcised, that God may consistently reckon righteousness to them also, and the father of circumcision (the one in whom began that separation to God implied in it) to those who not merely had the mark in the flesh, but who also walked in the steps of that faith of their father Abraham which he had while yet uncircumcised.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

As if the apostle had said, “What shall we say? Shall anyone affirm, that Abraham our father found or obtained righteousness by, or according to the flesh; that is, by being circumcised in the flesh, or by any works of righteousness which he had done? surely no: For if Abraham were justified by circumcision, or any other works of his own, he hath whereof to glory; that is, ground of boasting in these works by which he was thus justified. But manifested it is, that he had not whereof to boast and glory before God; therefore he was not justified by circumcision, nor any works of his own.”

Learn hence, That no righteousness of our own, no services we can perform, are sufficient to procure our justification in the sight of God: For if we are justified by our works, it must be by works either before faith, or after faith. Not before faith; for the corruption of nature, and man’s impotent condition thereby, will give check to any such thought. Surely, unrighteousness cannot make us righteous, no more than impurity can make us clean. Nor do works after faith, justify; for then a believer is not justified upon his believing, but by his works after his believing; and faith is not the justifying grace, but only a preparation to those works which justify; which is contrary to the whole strain of the apostle throughout the epsitle, who ascribes justification in faith in the blood of Christ without works.

In short, no righteousness of man is perfect; therefore, no righteousness of man can be justifying: There is nothing that a man doth, but is defective, and consequently, has matter of condemnation in it: Now, that which is condemning, cannot be justifying; that which falls short of the holiness of the law, can never free us from the condemnatory sentence and curse of the law. Now, all works after faith fall short of that perfection which the law requireth.

Learn, 2. That the design of God, was to justify us in such a way as to strip us of our own. Not of works, least any man should boast, says the apostle often. We are justified by faith, to exclude boasting, which would not have been excluded by the law of works.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 4:1-2. What shall we say then The apostle, in the preceding chapter, having shown the impossibility of mans being justified by the merit of his obedience to any law, moral or ceremonial, or any otherwise than by grace through faith, judged it necessary, for the sake of the Jews, to consider the case of Abraham, on being whose progeny, and on whose merits, the Jews placed great dependance; as they did also on the ceremony of circumcision, received from him. It was therefore of great importance to know how he was justified; for, in whatever way he, the most renowned progenitor of their nation, obtained that privilege, it was natural to conclude that his descendants must obtain it, if at all, in the same way. Was he justified by works, moral or ceremonial? That is, by the merit of his own obedience to any law or command given him by God? And in particular, was he justified by the ceremony of circumcision, so solemnly enjoined to be observed by him and his posterity? That Abraham was justified by one or other of these means, or by both of them united, the Jews had no doubt. To correct their errors, therefore, the apostle appeals to Mosess account of Abrahams justification, and shows therefrom, 1st, That he was not justified by works, but simply by faith in the gracious promise of God, independent of all works; and, 2d, That his circumcision, not performed till he was ninety-nine years of age, had not the least influence on his justification, he having obtained that blessing by means of his faith, long before that time. To this example the apostle appeals with great propriety, both because circumcision was the most difficult of all the rites enjoined in the law, and because Abraham being the father of believers, his justification is the pattern of theirs. Therefore, if circumcision contributed nothing toward Abrahams justification, the Jews could not hope to be justified thereby, nor by the other rites of the law; and were much to blame in pressing these rites on the Gentiles, as necessary to their salvation, and in consigning all to damnation who were out of the pale of their church. He begins his reasonings on this subject thus: What shall we say that Abraham, our father Our great and revered progenitor, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found That is, obtained? Hath he obtained justification? The verse is differently understood by expositors. Chrysostom and Theophylact join the words , according to the flesh, with Abraham our father, thus: What do we say Abraham, our father according to the flesh, obtained, namely, by works? See Rom 4:3. But as in no other passage Abraham is called the father of the Jews according to the flesh, it seems the ordinary translation is to be preferred; and that flesh in this passage being opposed to spirit, signifies services pertaining to the flesh or body, on account of which the law of Moses itself is called flesh, Gal 3:3. According to this sense of the expression, the verse may be paraphrased thus: Ye Jews think ritual services meritorious, because they are performed purely from piety. But what do we say Abraham our father obtained by works pertaining to the flesh? That he obtained justification meritoriously? No. For if Abraham had been justified meritoriously by works of any kind, he would have had whereof to glory He might have boasted that his justification was no favour, but a debt due to him; but such a ground of boasting he had not before God. Or more concisely thus: If Abraham had been justified by works, he would have had room to glory: but he had not room to glory: therefore he was not justified by works. By flesh here Bishop Bull understood those works which Abraham performed in his natural state, and by his own strength, before he obtained justification; but the above-mentioned interpretation seems more agreeable to the apostles design here. Nevertheless, in some other passages, where he speaks of justification by works, he hath in view, not ceremonial works only, but moral works also, as is plain from Rom 3:20; where he tells us, that by the deeds of the law, or by works of law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Tenth Passage (4:1-25). Faith the Principle of Abraham’s Justification.

Abraham being for the Jews the embodiment of salvation, his case was of capital moment in the solution of the question here treated. This was a conviction which Paul shared with his adversaries. Was the patriarch justified, by faith and by faith alone, his thesis was proved. Was he justified by some work of his own added to his faith, there was an end of Paul’s doctrine.

In the first part of this chapter, Rom 4:1-12, he proves that Abraham owed his righteousness to his faith, and to his faith alone. In the second Rom 4:13-16, he supports his argument by the fact that the inheritance of the world, promised to the patriarch and his posterity, was conferred on him independently of his observance of the law. The third part, Rom 4:17-22, proves that that very posterity to whom this heritage was to belong was a fruit of faith. In the fourth and last part, Rom 4:23-25, this case is applied to believers of the present. Thus righteousness, inheritance, posterity, everything, Abraham received by faith; and it will be even so with us, if we believe like him.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? [The word “found” means “obtained” (Heb 9:12) or “got” (Luk 9:12) Knowing that the Jew would resist and controvert his conclusion that the Jew would have to be justified by faith, just as the Gentile, Paul further confirms his conclusion by a test case. For the test he selects Abraham, the father of the race, and the earthly head of the theocracy. No more fitting individual could be chosen, for the nation had never claimed that it had risen higher than its head; therefore, whatever could be proved as to Abraham must be conceded to be true as to all. What, says Paul, in the light of our proposition, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath obtained, by his fleshly nature, apart from the grace of God; i. e., as a doer of the law (Gal 3:2-3)? Surely, he obtained nothing whatever in this manner.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Romans Chapter 4

In dealing with the Jew, and even in dealing with the question of righteousness, there was, besides the law, another consideration of great weight both with the Jews themselves and in the dealings of God. What of Abraham, called of God to be the parent-stock, the father of the faithful? The apostle, therefore, after having set forth the relation in which faith stood towards the law by the introduction of the righteousness of God, takes up the question of the ground on which Abraham was placed as well-pleasing to God in righteousness. For the Jew might have admitted his personal failure under the law, and pleaded the enjoyment of privilege under Abraham. If we consider him then thus according to the flesh (that is, in connection with the privileges that descended from him as inheritance for his children) and take our place under him in the line of succession to enjoy those privileges, on what principle does this set us? On the same principle of faith. He would have had something to boast of if he was justified by works; but before God it was not so. For the scriptures say, Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not counted of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. For thereby, in fact, he glorifies God in the way that God desires to be glorified, and according to the revelation He has made of Himself in Christ.

Thus the testimony borne by Abrahams case is to justification by faith. David also supports this testimony and speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom righteousness is imputed without works. He whose iniquities are pardoned, whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord does not impute sin-he is the man whom David calls blessed. But this supposed man to be a sinner and not righteous in himself. It was a question of what God was in grace to such a one, and not of what he was to God, or rather when he was a sinner. His blessedness was that God did not impute to him the sins he had committed, not that he was righteous in himself before God. Righteousness for man was found in the grace of God. Here it is identified with non-imputation of sins to man, guilty through committing them. No sin is imputed.

Was then this righteousness for the circumcision only? Now our thesis is, that God counted Abraham to be righteous by faith. But was he circumcised when this took place? Not so; he was uncircumcised. Righteousness then is by faith, and for the uncircumcised through faith-a testimony that was overwhelming to a Jew, because Abraham was the beau ideal to which all his ideas of excellence and of privilege referred. Circumcision was only a seal to the righteousness by faith which Abraham possessed in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all believers who were in the same state of uncircumcision, that righteousness might be imputed to them also; and the father of circumcision-that is, the first model of a people truly set apart for God-not only with regard to the circumcised, but to all those who should walk in the steps of his faith when uncircumcised. For, after all, the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham nor to his seed in connection with the law, but with righteousness by faith. For if they who are on the principle of law are heirs, the faith by which Abraham received it is vain, and the promise made of none effect; [17] for, on the contrary, the law produces wrath-and that is a very different thing from bringing into the enjoyment of a promise-for where there is no law there is no transgression. Observe, he does not say there is no sin; but where there is no commandment, there is none to violate. Now, the law being given to a sinner, wrath is necessarily the consequence of its imposition.

This is the negative side of the subject. The apostle shews that with regard to the Jews themselves, the inheritance could not be on the principle of law without setting Abraham aside, for to him the inheritance had been given by promise, and this implied that it was by faith: for we believe in a promise, we do not ourselves fulfil a promise that has been made to us. Accordingly the righteousness of Abraham was-according to scripture-through this same faith. It was imputed to him for righteousness.

This principle admitted the Gentiles; but here it is established with regard to the Jews themselves or rather with regard to the ways of God, in such a manner as to exclude the law as a means of obtaining the inheritance of God. The consequence with regard to Gentiles believing the gospel is stated inRomans 4:16, Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed of Abraham to whom the promise was made; not to that only which was under the law, but to all that had the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all before God, as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations.

Thus we have the great principle established. It is by faith, before and without law [18]; and the promise is made to man in uncircumcision, and he is justified by believing it.

Another element is now introduced. Humanly speaking, the fulfilment of the promise was impossible, for in that respect both Abraham and Sarah were as dead, and the promise must be believed in against all hope, resting on the almighty power of Him who raises the dead, and calls things that are not as though they were. This was Abrahams faith. He believed the promise that he should be the father of many nations, because God had spoken, counting on the power of God, thus glorifying Him, without calling in question anything that He had said by looking at circumstances; therefore this also was counted to him for righteousness. He glorified God according to what God was. Now, this was not written for his sake alone the same faith shall be imputed to us also for righteousness-faith in God as having raised up Jesus from the dead. It is not here faith in Jesus, but in Him who came in power into the domain of death, where Jesus lay because of our sins, and brought Him forth by His power, the mighty activity of the love of God who brought Him-who had already borne all the punishment of our sins-out from under all their consequences; so that, by believing God who has done this, we embrace the whole extent of His work, the grace and the power displayed in it; and we thus know God. Our God is the God who has done this. He has Himself raised up Jesus from among the dead, who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. Our sins were already upon Him. The active intervention of God delivered Him who lay in death because He had borne them. It is not only a resurrection of the dead, but from among the dead-the intervention of God to bring forth in righteousness the One who had glorified Him. By believing in such a God we understand that it is Himself who, in raising Christ from among the dead, has delivered us Himself from all that our sins had subjected us to; because He has brought back in delivering power Him who underwent it for our sakes.

Footnotes for Romans Chapter 4

17: The careful reader of Pauls epistles must attend to the use of this word for. In very many cases it does not express an inference, but turns to some collateral subject which, in the apostles mind, would lead to the same conclusion, or some deeper general principle, which lay at the groundwork of the argument, enlarging the sphere of vision in things connected with it.

18: (chooris nomou, Lit: apart from law, which had nothing to do with it.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

THE EVOLUTION OF THE REDEMPTIVE SCHEME OUT OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

1. Then what we say that Abraham, our father according to the flesh, hath found?

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Rom 4:1. What shall we say then that Abraham, our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? How was he a sinner, an idolater, justified? Was it by the flesh, as indicated by the word father? Was it by works in submitting to circumcision, on which ye jews lay the major emphasis? If so, he has the glory of boasting over the disobedient, but not before God, in whose eyes the brightest acts of human obedience are but defective duties. When God has promised, even believing can never be the meritorious cause of a sinners justification. It follows then, oh jews, that you must cease to lay the strong emphasis on circumcision, you must believe your own scriptures, and accede to the christian doctrine, that Abraham our father was justified by faith.

Rom 4:3. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. This history is laid down at large in Genesis 15. The Hebrew chashav, or as the LXX, , or , to reckon or impute, implies first that he had not this righteousness before; though Abraham might be a righteous man, before he received these promises, high in the favour of God. Here was a cloud of new promises, or righteousness promised of God.

Abrahams faith rested on the perfections of Him that had promised, and his faith was divine; for his own age, and that of his wife, forbade all hope. Yet Abraham believed in Him who is able and faithful to perform. He hoped against all probability of hope, that he should have a son, and be the father of nations, numerous as the stars of heaven; yea, that he should be the progenitor of kings and prophets, and eventually of the Messiah.

Rom 4:6-8. David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness. David is here with propriety introduced after Abraham, for he, equally with Abraham, had received the promise of the Messiah to be born in his line. 2 Samuel 7. Psalms 132. On the subject of justification, to use a word of Indian eloquence, we stumble at noon, and are afraid of the thorns. We have to avoid unitarianism on the one hand, and antinomianism on the other. Steering therefore between the rocks of Scylla on the Italian shore, and the subterranean river of Charybdis, on the opposite coast, we must take the bible, and the bible only for our pilot. In the above verses, two grand ideas are associated, ideas which can never be divided; the imputation of righteousness, and the remission of sins, otherwise called the nonimputation of sin.

Now, if it be really true, that pardon is all the justification of which the sinner is capable, why should David, in Psalms 32., here quoted, add four things.

(1) that he is blessed.

(2) that he is just.

(3) that this happiness follows great heaviness, and full confessions of iniquity, as in Rom 4:4-5.

(4) that his sorrows are succeeded by gladness and rejoicing in the Lord: as in Rom 4:11.

The antinomian gives joy from another source, and in language unknown to the primitive church. Que tous ceux qui sont entez au Seigneur Jesus Christ par l Esprit d iceluy, sont hors des dangers d etre condamnez, combien quils soyent encore chargez de pechez. CALVIN, Geneva, 1562. That all those who enter, or believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are out of all danger of being condemned, how much soever they may yet be loaded with their past sins. I would recommend all persons so burdened to take Davids course of humble confession, as in the above psalm.

Rom 4:10. Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Faith was reckoned to him for righteousness, before he was circumcised. Therefore faith shall be reckoned to us for righteousness, if we believe in him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. Abrahams faith rested solely on the promises.

Rom 4:11. He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith. The wound indeed by this rite designated death, but the seal designated life by the promised Seed, as is farther indicated by the Holy Spirits sealing us unto the day of redemption. This is the gift of righteousness by faith, or as in chap. 10., the righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise; including the gift of Christ, and all the blessings of his salvation.

Rom 4:16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; not to that race of men only which are of the law, but to those gentiles also who are of the faith of Abraham. If salvation be then by grace, there is no merit in believing: on the contrary, it had been in Abraham the greatest demerit not to have believed the promise of God, who called him to leave his country.

Rom 4:17. Before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and gave him Isaac in hoary age. Then, oh remember, that how depraved soever thy heart may be, however hard and stubborn its habits, this God can give thee a new, a circumcised heart, to love the Lord with all thy powers.

Rom 4:18. Who [that is Abraham] against hope believed in hope, against every appearance of hope in the powers of nature.

Rom 4:23-24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, but for us also, that we may believe as Abraham believed, and obtain all the righteousness of God by faith. Oh for a heart to follow this father of the faithful, that we may inherit with him all the promises of righteousness, and obtain an eternal inheritance.

Rom 4:25. And was raised again for our justification. The resurrection of Christ demonstrated the completion and acceptance of his satisfaction for sin, and gave a triumph to his work upon the cross. As death is the punishment of sin, the glory of his resurrection was essential to the full assurance of the saints, that they also should rise, and reign with him in glory.

REFLECTIONS.

The apostle having stated his astonishing and most consoling doctrine of justification by faith, takes the lead of the pharisees in giving their objections in the fullest force. What say we then, did our father Abraham, according to the flesh, find this justification? No, most assuredly he did not. His piety, his probity, his obedience in leaving his country, were but preparatives. When he received the promise of a son, naturally impossible, because of Sarahs age, he believed God, and it was reputed, as Calvin reads, or reckoned to him for righteousness. This is a very close and happy argument. Justification by faith was prior to the law, and Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Abraham was justified while in uncircumcision: it was fourteen years after the promise, before the ordinance of circumcision was instituted as a seal of righteousness by faith. This argument, however revolting to the jews, was unspeakably acceptable to the gentiles; for they being in Abrahams situation in regard of circumcision, might unquestionably find the same favour. A justified state is pronounced doubly happy. Blessed is the man whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity. Who can describe the felicity of the soul when its fears of punishment are all removed by an assurance arising from the love of God shed abroad in the heart, and when it exults in all the privileges of adoption and grace.

A justified state is happy also in embracing all the promises, and in the anticipation of future glory. Abraham when he had no son, by virtue of faith in the promise, saw the Messiah as already born, and himself, though then childless, surrounded with nations of children. True faith staggers not at difficulties, but anticipates all the glories of sanctifying grace, and of the world to come.

But in what sense was faith accounted to Abraham for righteousness, and promised to be reckoned to us for righteousness, on condition of believing in the resurrection of Christ. Because it embraces Christ, all his merits and atoning blood, and is the sole ground of our justification. Hence, whether we are said to be justified by faith, by the knowledge of Christ, or by his blood, or by the grace of God through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, the several expressions have in substance the same import.

But what is meant by a justifying righteousness, so much debated in our theological writings. On this subject, after carefully reading the best writers on both sides, I must say that I know of no justifying righteousness but the blood of Christ, in which the gentile church washed their robes and made them white. Rev 7:14. I verily believe that St. Paul by the imputation of righteousness, and nonimputation of sin, means negatively the same thing. The controversy on justification began by Zuinglius. Anxious to oppose the popish doctrine of justification which confounds the merits of Christ with penances and good works, he framed the notion of justification by the imputation of a double righteousness. This writer maintained that Christ fulfilled the whole law for us, having magnified and made it honourable; consequently, that our obedience is perfect and complete in him. This he called the imputation of Christs active righteousness, which gives a full title to eternal life. He further maintained, as the church of God has always done, that Christ was obedient unto death, and was made a curse for us. This he called the passive righteousness of Christ, imputed to us to take away our guilt and condemnation.

To the first part of this doctrine, which places to our account the satisfaction, merits, or passive obedience of Christ, no objection was ever made by men deemed orthodox. To it alone they ascribe the glory of their redemption, their justification, and eternal felicity. But to the second, which asserts that Christs active righteousness, including all his personal virtues, or human righteousness, serious and unanswerable objections have been made by Vorsius, Parcus, Piscator, Limborch, Wotton, J. Goodwin, Baxter, Bradshaw, Barrow, Bull, and many others.

(1) This statement supposes either the whole or a part of mankind to have actually obeyed and suffered in Christ, while they were in sin or yet unborn. It is true, the saints were elect according to the foreknowledge of God, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, there being no futurity with God, who calls things that are not as though they were. But to suppose that a man is so in Christ as to be justified from eternity, and to possess sinless purity and perfection, is language very assuming, and difficult to defend.

(2) It supposes God to have fixed and determined the nature and number of our crimes, and Christ to have supplied in every instance the defects of our obedience by his obedience, and to have atoned precisely in kind, by suffering for each of our crimes. Here indeed the whole mistake is couched. The fact is, he neither obeyed in kind, nor suffered in kind for us, as all the elaborate writers on the atonement have allowed. He paid what was an adequate ransom for man, or in other words, made plenary satisfaction for sin. The truth of this will further appear, if we consider, that punishment is but partially remitted. What are those groans and tears, those cries and lamentations which pierce the heart? What are all those displays of vengeance and wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men? What is the reign of death even over infants, and over men, none of whom have sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. They are so many salutary visitations of God to diminish crime, and to aid the operations of grace; but at the same time so many proofs, that if Christ had both obeyed in kind, and suffered in kind for us, the righteous God would not have inflicted such tremendous punishments on all generations of men.

(3) This supposition of a double righteousness imputed, exclusively of the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, makes the righteous God speak in double language. To Adam he said, DO or DIE: to Christ, our second Adam, he said, DO and DIE. This is in effect the same error as that for which E. Irving was excluded from the church of Scotland, and others since from the church of England. Acting under the new covenant, the meritorious righteousness of his person, which obtained eternal life, must have corresponded with that economy. At the same time it is equitable to allow, that the removal of death by the oblation of the cross, of itself implies the gift of righteousness and life. But if that gift proceed from the equal imputation of Christs active merits, we must of necessity be all equally glorious in the life to come! All this redundancy and all these inconsistencies are avoided by saying, that the Father accepts the sufferings of his Son, as the satisfaction or meritorious righteousness, for the violation of the law; that he absolves and adopts offenders, when with a broken and contrite heart they believe in Jesus Christ. The propriety of this definition will farther appear, on considering in what views a sinner does not need the imputation of a double, or more properly a triple righteousness. By a participation in the satisfaction which Christ has made on the cross, connected with all the sufferings of his life, pardon is accompanied with adoption, and with the renewal of the soul in righteousness and true holiness. The scheme destroys itself: a sinner does not need an active and a passive righteousness imputed, and a righteousness wrought within by the Holy Spirit.

(4) If opinion had been all the difference, it would not have been great. But the chief point on which those great and good men took the alarm was, the licentious liberty of which they saw certain characters avail themselves. They saw men warmly attached to what they called the doctrines of grace, and ostentatiously zealous in ascribing to Christ the whole glory of their salvation, yet with passions unrestrained, and corruptions unsubdued. They lived in conformity to the world, and defended their liberty, affirming that they were not under the law, but under grace. They gloried to acknowledge their sinfulness, but maintained that they had in Christ a spotless robe of righteousness; his oblation having satisfied for their sin, and this personal righteousness being imputed to them for personal justification.

(5) Against these errors those ministers raised a high voice. They apprized the people, that no such imputation of double righteousness was to be found in the sacred writings, and warned them against reliance on any notions, or on any creeds which did not lead to sanctifying fear, and the imitation of the Lord Jesus. They regarded the doctrine of making void the law through faith with horror, how holy soever some might be who embraced the opinion, and called on heaven to forbid the thought. They affirmed that the law being an image of the immutable rectitude of God, was immutable in its obligation, and ready to be enforced against all apostates in full penalty for past and present sins. Hence they still required converted publicans and sinners to glorify God by the fruits of righteousness. For wisdom is justified of all her children. And, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

(6) They affirmed farther, that the faith by which we are justified was not a mere instrument, but the grand condition of conformity to the new covenant. An instrument, whether considered as a writing, or an implement of labour, is incapable of vice or virtue, all praise or blame being attached to him who made the writing, or to him who employed the implement. Whereas faith elevates the soul to God, and ennobles all the affections. The sinner viewing the glory and grace of Christ, penetrated with contrition for his past offences, says concerning every promise which God has made to man, Let it be unto me according to thy word.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rom 4:1-11 a. The Example of Abraham.

Rom 4:1. The Jewish objector once more: What about Abraham then? (mg.); if the circumcised Israelite is justified on no more favourable terms than the Gentile outsider, how was it with our great forefather? Abrahams case was the instantia probans for Jewish theology.

Rom 4:2 f. If Abraham had been justified by works, Paul replies, he has ground of glorying; but however great his glory amongst men, he has none Godwards, Nay, Scripture says, But Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness (cf. Gal 3:6 f.).

Rom 4:4 f. Arguing on this text in the sense of Rom 3:27 f., Paul contrasts the worker claiming his pay of debt with the believer to whom, ungodly as he doubtless had been, righteousness is credited on terms of faith, by way of grace.

Rom 4:6-8. The patriarchs experience resembled that stated in Psalms 32, the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord will no longer impute sin.

Rom 4:9-11 a. Now, the sentence of justification was pronounced on Abraham before his circumcision. This ceremony was not the basis of a righteousness acquired by works, but the seal set upon the righteousness conferred through faith. Faith antedates Circumcision, as it underlies the Law (cf. Gal 3:17). Circumcision was properly a sacrament of faith.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Abraham and David Justified by Faith

Now there is deepest patience and grace shown on the part of God through Paul, His instrument in writing this epistle: for it is blessed to see that He gives no mere peremptory statement of truth. There is rather a perfectly ordered reasoning from a basis of known and admitted facts – a reasoning that cannot but appeal to spiritual wisdom. Every objecting argument, whether of Jews or Gentiles, is fully met.

Rom 4:1-25 then takes up two test cases to confirm the conclusion of Rom 3:28. The first of these is Abraham – a most important consideration for Jews in particular; for being the father of Israel (they making him their chief boast), Abraham was the original depositary of all the promises of God for blessing, to the nation Israel specially, but indeed also to Gentiles. No Israelite would dare to gainsay this truth, though doubtless they gave little attention to the distinct promise of blessing to Gentiles – “all nations of the earth.”

But the matter of Abraham’s own personal justification is first raised. Can it be said that Abraham was justified before God? – and while he was still in flesh? and if so, how was he justified? Did his works justify him? If so, he had an occasion for boasting, “but not before God.” His works are doubtless a testimony that justify him before men, but “in God’s sight” it is a different matter. The eye of God penetrates more deeply. Jam 2:18; Jam 2:21 reminds us of Abraham’s being justified by works when he offered up Isaac; but James deals with justification before men, not before God. His words are “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works” (Jam 2:18).

“But what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Now this is mentioned in Abraham’s history many years before he “offered up” Isaac. The former is in Gen 15:6, the latter in Gen 22:1-24. How thoroughly distinct then is justification before God, from justification before men.

It is blessed to contemplate this simple, sublime statement so early in the history of men – “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” This is the whole character of justification. For naturally man has utterly no righteousness. But God supplies the righteousness He demands. On man’s account is a great debt of unrighteousness; but “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” God credits to the account of “him that believeth in Jesus” a righteousness that fully and forever removes all debt, all unrighteousness; and leaves an account in which God Himself can take unfeigned delight.

Now one who works for a reward does not at the end consider that it is given him by grace: he has earned it and would be most resentful if anyone suggested that it was a “gift of grace”: his working has made his employer his debtor. Does God so employ men on this business basis? Men may suppose so, but their work is nothing to Him. He has given them no such contract. They are like men working, with no authoritative instruction, to build a railroad where no train will ever travel.

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” God is no debtor to man: He is a Giver; and any blessing from God to man can never be on the ground of man’s works, but only on the ground of God’s grace. Judgment is according to works; but salvation, thank God, is according to grace. And this verse 5 is marvelously plain and decisive for eyes that have been opened by the Spirit of God. “Working” is put over against “believing on Him that justifieth the ungodly.” Do I work for justification, or do I receive it freely by God’s grace through faith in His Son? It is one or the other. There is no mixture: the two are distinct. But God cannot impute righteousness to my account in virtue of my works. Why?Because they are not perfect in righteousness: they savor all too strongly of unrighteousness. But the virtue of the work of Christ is a different thing: it is perfect, faultless, unadulterated; and on this ground God can freely impute righteousness to the account of “him which believeth in Jesus.”

Now briefly considered, more or less as a parenthesis, is the testimony of “David also.” Here is the first king of God’s choice in Israel. Unlike Abraham, he was born, and lived “under the law.” But did he therefore have a different means of justification than did Abraham? It is a vital question, but one that David himself answers with marvelous clarity and decision. In Psa 32:1-2 he “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.” Where is the law in all this? Where are man’s works? There is no place for them. David himself recognizes such blessing as absolutely and only the work of God in unmingled grace.

David here speaks of blessing to one who has disobeyed the law – a sinner, a transgressor. Now in such a case the law spoke only of cursing. Blessing was indeed promised by law, but only on the ground of obedience; while disobedience called from it an absolute curse.

David speaks of forgiveness as obtained: the law could accuse; it could not forgive. David speaks of sins covered now: the law exposed sins; it could not cover them. David speaks of the Lord not imputing sin; whereas the law had been compelled to impute sin: it could not do otherwise. But He who gave the law is greater than the law, and by the exercise of grace is able to reverse the imputation.

The reader of Psa 32:1-11 will quickly see that David flies not to law for his refuge on the occasion of his grievous sin. When Psa 51:1-19 (written concerning the same occasion) is also read, this will be most abundantly plain. He did not even seek relief by means of sacrifices provided under law (Psa 51:16-17); for he knew that such sacrifices could not meet his case: his sin demanded immediate death, if law was to be carried out. But his plea is simply, “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions” (Psa 51:1). Moreover, in Psa 32:1-11 (v. 5), he can say “Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” Blessed answer, according to mercy, certainly not according to law!

But verse 9 raises the question – is this blessedness obtainable only by those who are circumcised – that is, those outwardly connected with God’s earthly testimony? The answer is evident: Abraham received this blessing – was counted righteous by faith – before he was circumcised – indeed at least thirteen years before.

Circumcision was a sign, however (and merely a sign) which he received as an identifying seal of the righteousness of faith he already possessed. It signified simply the cutting-off of the flesh – thus impressing the lesson that this righteousness was not mixed with any fleshly activity or merit, upon which circumcision put the outward stamp of death.

Abraham was thus the first man “in whom real separation to God was first publicly established.” (See note in New Translation). Hence, he is “father of all them that believe” – that is, publicly their father – whether or not there is the same public separation with them. The point is not at all in their outward identification with Abraham, for Abraham’s own outward sign was the seal of previously imputed righteousness – a seal that marks him as “the father of all them that believe; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”

So that he is “the father of circumcision” not only to those who are circumcised, but to those who walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised” – those who have the same faith on account of which Abraham was circumcised.

For the promise to Abraham that he should be heir of the world was not by law, and not therefore conditional upon his obedience to law; but rather by the righteousness of faith – that is, as a result of righteousness already fully established, not required to be established by future works. The promise was therefore unimpeachable; there was no possibility of its failure. Gen 17:1-8 gives us the promise in no uncertain terms, as an absolutely settled issue with God, needing only time for its fulfillment. Only after this (in vv. 9-14) do we see God giving Abraham the sign of circumcision.

Now if, as the Jew would feign argue, only those who are of the law have title to the inheritance, faith would be made a vain, useless thing, and the promise of God would be as worthless and ineffectual as the word of a wicked man. What folly and virtual infidelity, what blind, unyielding unbelief, what vain confidence in flesh and despising of God is that man guilty of, who insists that he can be justified by works, or who objects to grace being shown to those who have gone out of the way.

“Because the law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression.” A sinner, forbidden under penalty, to sin, will only incur the penalty. Hence, to impose law upon a sinner is to bring him under wrath, for he becomes a transgressor (not merely a sinner: he was that before the law was given: transgression is disobedience to a given law). Sin was certainly in the world before, and for sin the Gentiles as well as Jews are under judgment to God; but the law put the Jew demonstratively under wrath by making him a transgressor.

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.” Not one of the true seed of Abraham is to be excluded, as would be the case if the promise were given on the principle of law; but the principle of faith is the only ground upon which all the seed could be blessed, while at the same time this principle shuts up all to the grace of God as the only spring of blessing. But only thus is the promise sure to either Jew or Gentile believers, yet absolutely sure.

Before God, Abraham “is the father of us all” – all those who are of faith. God declared this before Abraham had yet obtained Isaac – he whom God called his “only son,” not considering Ishmael, for being born of a bondwoman, he was a bondman. But at the time all natural circumstances were utterly opposed to the fulfillment of the promise. Abraham was virtually dead, and Sarah also, so far as the birth of a child was concerned. But Abraham’s faith rose far above circumstances when God spoke. So indeed did Sarah’s (Heb 11:11), though at the first she doubted.

But this is a blessed example of the patience of faith that believed in a God of resurrection. At the birth of Isaac, just as at his being bound on the altar as an offering we see that Abraham recognized even in death no hindrance to the fulfillment of God’s promise. Plainly he saw that it is God’s prerogative to call “those things which be not as though they were.”

Contrary to all natural hope, he “believed in hope” – that is, he fully trusted God although it meant purely anticipative faith, not that the word “hope” suggests the least thought of doubtfulness. The spoken word of God he bowed to, accepting it simply as such: in God’s sight he was then made the father of many nations, according to the Word spoken in Gen 15:1-21 – “So shall thy seed be.”

He was not weak in faith: he simply accepted the Word of God as true and unbreakable, apart altogether from the consideration of circumstances – whether it was his own dead body or “the deadness of Sarah’s womb.” He knew that God was not dependent upon the energy of natural life, whether in himself or in another upon whom he might be naturally inclined to lean. Faith in the living God always involves the repudiation of confidence in flesh.

Only unbelief and confining God to man’s limitations, would have caused Abraham to hesitate: but he “was strong in faith, giving glory to God.” Blessed simplicity indeed; blessed reality! Yet it is the only proper attitude for any creature, let us mark well. To “give glory to God” is the very reason for our existence. If we do not practice “the obedience of faith,” we are robbing God of His glory: we neither take our own proper place, nor give Him His. May our souls contemplate this seriously and well.

Are we “fully persuaded” of the truth of the Word of God? Are we prepared to stand upon it, whatever the expense or personal humiliation? Will we stake everything upon this, that what God promises, He is able to perform? To speak of our faith is one thing: to speak and act in faith is another. To be “fully persuaded” of the truth of God, is to be fully submissive to it, and to thereby have a character of calm, unruffled, uncomplaining patience – not indeed indifference, but the patience of an exercised and chastened spirit, that trusts the living God, and distrusts all that is of the flesh.

Abraham therefore was counted righteous because of faith in the God of resurrection. But the written Word concerning this result is not given merely for Abraham’s sake. This is plain: there is a value far more comprehensive than this: the Word is written for the sake of souls in every age. “But for us also, to whom it (righteousness) shall be imputed if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus from the dead, Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”

There is of course, a manifest distinction between Abraham’s position and ours. Abraham believed the promise of God, though not accomplished. We are asked to believe God in regard to the accomplished work of Christ in death and resurrection. Abraham believed in the promise of resurrection: we believe in the fact of resurrection. Yet it is not merely belief in resurrection that is required, nor belief in any other truth, simply, but faith in the living God, who has raised Christ from the dead.

But our justification is inseparably bound up with His resurrection. He was delivered up to death for our offenses. But if He had remained in the grave, where would be our comfort and assurance? How could we believe He had justified us if He were not living? But He “was raised again for our justification.” Blessed be God for the unspeakable peace of this knowledge! Faith can have no doubts as to the full accomplishment of righteousness when it beholds the One who suffered for sins now raised by the glory of the Father – perfectly accepted by the God who had judged Him fully for sins. Thus His resurrection is proof that He has utterly exhausted the judgment: sin put Him to death; righteousness raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory. That same righteousness now justifies “him which believeth in Jesus.” He is a Savior whom death could not hold: He is “alive forevermore.” Blessed Object for faith! Perfect, unchangeable assurance to the heart renewed by grace!

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

Hath found; hath obtained. The meaning is, “What advantages are derived by the Jews through the Abrahamic covenant and ritual?”

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

SECTION 12 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH RECEIVES SUPPORT FROM THE CASE OF ABRAHAM

CHS. 3:31-4:17

Do we then make law of no effect through faith? Be it not so. Nay, we establish law. What then shall we say that Abraham has found, our forefather according to flesh? For if by (or from) works Abraham was justified, he has a ground of exultation; but not in reference to God. For what says the Scripture? But Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.

But to him that does work, the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt: but to him that does no work, but believes on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. According as also David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works, Blessed are they whose lawlessnesses have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered over. A blessed man is he to whom the Lord will not reckon sin.

This pronouncing-blessed then, is it upon the circumcision, or also upon the uncircumcision? For we say that to Abraham was reckoned his faith for righteousness. How then was it reckoned? While in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received a sign, that of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had in his uncircumcision; that he may be father of all that believe in uncircumcision, that to them also the righteousness may be reckoned; and father of the circumcision, to them not of circumcision only, but also to them who walk in the steps of the faith in uncircumcision of our father Abraham.

For not through law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through a righteousness of faith. For if they of law are heirs, faith has been made vain, and the promise has been made of no effect. For the Law works out anger: but where no law is, neither is there transgression. Because of this, it is by faith, in order that it may be according to grace, in order that the promise may be sure to all the seed, not to that of the Law only but also to that of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all-according as it is written, Because a father of many nations I have made thee-before God whom he believed, who makes alive the dead ones, and calls the things which are not as though they were.

Rom 3:31. A question suggested by the inference in Rom 3:29-30 that justification through faith shuts out all boasting that God is in a special sense the God of the Jews. This assumption was based on the fact that to them only He gave the Law. Paul asks, Do we, by preaching a doctrine which ignores the distinction of Jew and Gentile, set aside the Law, which created that distinction?

Law: in its usual sense, viz. the Old Testament, viewed in its general character as a declaration of Gods will and as a standard of right and wrong. There is nothing here, as there was in Rom 3:21, to limit the word to the Pentateuch.

Of-no-effect: as in Rom 3:3; cp. Mat 15:6. It might seem that Paul, who preaches faith without reference to circumcision or previous obedience to law, denied the authority of the Old Testament. For there the favour of God depends on obedience to precepts, and circumcision is commanded as a sign of Gods special covenant with Abrahams children. Now, to the Jews, the Old Testament was the authoritative standard of right and wrong. Does not the doctrine of justification through faith discredit, not only Jewish boasting, but those sacred books which were to the Jews the ground of moral obligation? If so, two bad results will follow. Pauls teaching will weaken, in those who receive it, the authority of the Scriptures, and thus weaken the moral obligations therein embodied; and the Gospel will be rejected by others whose conscience tells them that the voice of Sinai, which still speaks from the pages of the Old Testament, is the voice of God. Cp. Act 6:13.

We establish law: by preaching faith as the condition of justification, we give additional proof of the divine authority of the sacred books.

So serious and so plausible is the above objection that we cannot conceive Paul, who is so careful to prove everything, meeting it by a mere assertion, viz. that contained in this verse. A full proof of this assertion, we shall find in his exposition, in Romans 4, of the faith of Abraham. Even the narratives of the O.T. are included in the Law: for they announce the principles of Gods government. For another example of a narrative in Genesis quoted as law, see Gal 4:21.

Rom 4:1. What shall we say? what shall we infer? as in Rom 3:5. If we defend the authority of the O.T., how shall we explain its teaching about Abraham?

Our forefather: speaking as a Jew to Jews.

According to flesh: in contrast to the spiritual fatherhood of Rom 4:11.

Rom 4:2. Reason for introducing the case of Abraham. Gods covenant with him proves that he found favour with God, and was in this sense justified. Now, if this justification was derived from works, he has a ground-of-exultation. This last word is cognate to, and recalls, those in Rom 3:27; Rom 2:17; Rom 2:23. Paul proclaims a Gospel which shuts out all boasting; and he now introduces the case of Abraham in order to test by it the objection that, by overturning Jewish boasting, the Gospel overturns the ancient law.

But not in reference to God: his exultation would be, not an exultation in God, like that in Rom 5:11, but something infinitely inferior. If from works done in obedience to law Abraham had obtained the favour and covenant of God, God would be to him, not the free Giver of every good, but only a master who pays according to work done; and Abrahams confidence would rest upon, and his expectation be measured by, his own morality. Cp. Gal 6:4. The Gospel gives us that nobler joy which arises from confidence in God. This better exultation, a justification derived from works could not give, to Abraham or to us.

Rom 4:3. By introducing Abraham after saying that the Gospel confirms the Law, by admitting that justification from works would give him a boasting which Paul has proved that no man can have, and that it would deprive him of the only well-grounded exultation, Paul has implied clearly that Abrahams justification was derived from a source other than works. This he now proceeds to prove: for what says the Scripture? This last word denotes a single passage. The whole collection is called Scriptures, as in Rom 1:2; Rom 15:4; Rom 16:26.

Paul quotes Gen 15:6, perhaps the most important verse of the Old Testament. In Rom 12:1; Rom 12:7; Rom 13:14, we read of Gods promises to Abraham and of Abrahams conduct on receiving them; but from Rom 15:3-4 we learn that the promise had not been fully believed. In Rom 15:5, God solemnly repeats it. And now, for the first time in the Bible, we are told the effect produced in mans heart by the word of God: He believed in Jehovah, i.e. he was fully assured that Gods promise of posterity as numerous as the stars will be fulfilled. See under Rom 4:18. These words are the more conspicuous because of the purely outward character of nearly all Bible narratives. Equally remarkable are the words following.

Righteousness: fulfilment of a condition, inward or outward, on which God is pleased to bestow blessing, spiritual or temporal: see under Rom 1:17. God reckoned Abrahams faith to be a fulfilment of the only condition required; and, because he believed, gave to him the blessing promised. God commanded him to offer sacrifice; and in that sacrifice again revealed Himself. In the same day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram:

Gen 15:9; Gen 15:18. Of that covenant, circumcision was afterwards appointed to be the sign: Gen 17:10. Thus Abrahams faith put him in a new relation to God.

Reckon: as in Rom 2:26; Rom 8:36; Gen 31:15; Pro 17:28, etc.

Reckon for righteousness: an important parallel in Psa 106:31, which is a comment on Num 25:10-13. God graciously reckoned the loyal act of Phineas as something which He will reward with an eternal priesthood. Similarly, in Deu 24:13, He promised to reward the return of a pledged garment; and, in Deu 6:25, general obedience to His commands. Same phrase in 1 Macc. ii. 52, expounding Gen 22:16-18. Hence, in Jas 2:21, Abraham is said to have been justified by offering Isaac. The two phrases are practically equivalent. The reckoning may be spoken of as the mental act of God; and justification as the formal declaration of it.

Thus the Book of the Law declares that Abraham obtained the favour and covenant of God by belief of a promise. And, of that covenant, all the blessings which afterwards came to Israel were a result. Whatever distinguished the sacred nation from the rest of mankind, their deliverance from Egypt, the Law, the possession of Canaan, and the voice of the prophets, was given because of Abrahams faith: so Exo 2:24; Deu 9:5. The question in Rom 4:1 is answered. Abraham found justification through faith. Consequently, the preaching of faith is in unexpected harmony with the Old Testament; and thus confirms the divine authority of the Law.

Gen 15:6 is quoted also in Gal 3:6; Jas 2:23; and ten times in the works of Philo, an older Jewish contemporary of Paul.

The rest of 12 expounds Gen 15:6. In Rom 4:4-5, Paul will show that it implies justification apart from works, which in Rom 4:6-8 he will confirm from Psa 32:1-2; and justification without circumcision, of which rite he will in Rom 4:9-12 explain the purpose. He will show in Rom 4:13-15 why the promise was given to Abraham apart from law; and (Rom 4:16-17) on the simple condition of faith. He will thus show that the Law is in harmony, not only with the Gospel proclaimed in 10, but with the levelling of Jew and Gentile which was to the Jews so serious an objection to it.

Rom 4:4-5. Proof, from Gen 15:6, that Abraham was justified apart from works, and had therefore no ground of exultation. Rom 3:4 describes the case of one whose claim rests on works, and Rom 4:5 that of another who has no works on which to base a claim. It is then evident that Abraham belongs, not to the former, but to the latter, class. Paul assumes that there is no merit in faith, that it does not lay God under the least obligation to reward us. Consequently, whatever follows faith comes, not by necessary moral sequence, but by the undeserved favour of God: so Rom 4:16. Therefore, that Abraham obtained the covenant through faith, proves that he had done no work to merit so great reward. For we cannot give a man as a mark grace, i.e. undeserved favour, what we already owe him as a debt. Consequently, the recorded faith of Abraham puts him apart from those who obtain blessing by good works.

The reward: or pay for work done.

Rom 4:5. The opposite class, to which Abraham does belong. That a mans faith is reckoned for righteousness, and thus put in place of works, proves that he does no good work which fulfils the required condition.

Ungodly: as in Rom 1:18. That Abraham was such, we need not infer: and his obedience to Gods call proves his fear of God. Paul states a general principle, in a form which applies to his readers rather than to Abraham. He obtained by faith a numerous posterity, and through the promised seed a fulfilment of the earlier promise that in him should all families of the earth be blessed. The promise made to us is escape from the wrath of God, and eternal life. To make this dependent on faith, implies that all men are exposed to punishment: and to expect justification through faith is an acknowledgment of ungodliness, and a reliance upon Him who justifies the ungodly. By thus turning from Abraham to the sinner, Paul prepares a way for the quotation in the next verse.

Thus Gen 15:6, which asserts that Abraham was justified through faith, implies also that he was justified apart from works. Therefore he has no ground of self-exultation, but a good ground of exultation in view of God. Consequently, Paul, by proclaiming a new law which shuts out all boasting on the ground of works, does not overthrow, but supports, the authority of the Old Covenant and of the Jewish Scriptures.

Rom 4:6-8. A quotation from Psa 32:1-2, in harmony with the foregoing.

David: as in Rom 11:9 from Psa 69:22-23. The name is found (Heb. and LXX.) in the heading of each Psalm. But to this we cannot give any critical value. Paul quotes the O.T. as he found it. See further in Diss. iii.

Blessedness: the highest form of happiness, found only under the smile of God: so Mat 5:3-11. This sacred sense is not absent in Act 26:2, 1Co 7:40. So Aristotle, Nic. Ethics bk. x. 8. 8: To the gods, the whole of life is blessed; to men, so far as it is some likeness to divine activity: cp. 1Ti 1:11, the blessed God, 1Ti 6:15.

David is quoted to support, not faith reckoned for righteousness, but righteousness apart from works. Here we have a man guilty of acts of lawlessness and of sins. But they are forgiven and covered-over: cp. Jas 5:20.

To reckon sin, is practically to inflict punishment: so 2Ti 4:16; 2Co 5:19; Phm 1:18. We have in Psalms 32 the joyful song of a pardoned man. Breaches of law have been forgiven, and a veil cast over sins. Consequently, in the future God will not reckon the man a sinner.

The Lord: see under Rom 9:29. In Psa 32:5, the Psalmist confesses his sin, and rejoices in forgiveness. He finds in God a refuge from trouble, and bids others rejoice in Him: Psa 32:7; Psa 32:11. We have here a clear case of righteousness without works, of a man on whom, in spite of past sins, God smiles with forgiving grace. Thus the negative side of Pauls teaching is proved to be in harmony with the ancient Scriptures. Although Psalms 32 is not quoted in proof of justification through faith, we notice Psa 32:10, He that trusts in Jehovah, mercy shall compass him about.

Psalms 32 is quoted only in passing: and Paul returns at once to Gen 15:6. As the words quoted do not mention faith, they were probably not quoted to prove expressly that the preaching of faith supports the Law. But, as we learn from Rom 3:19, they have the authority of law. And, by supporting an inference following necessarily from justification through faith, viz. justification without works, they point to another harmony of the Law and the Gospel; and thus confirm the divine origin of both.

Rom 4:9-12. Further evidence, from the historic origin of circumcision, in support of the Gospel which announces righteousness apart from it, followed by an exposition of the purpose of the rite.

Rom 4:9-10. This announcement-of-blessedness: in Psa 32:1-2. Is it for the circumcision as such, or also for the uncircumcision? abstract for the concrete, as in Rom 2:26; Rom 3:30.

For we say etc.: reason for Pauls question, in which he takes his readers along with him, and for the tone of triumph in which he asks it. Paul and they have now learnt from Gen 15:6 that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. He asks, How then was it reckoned? While in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? To this last question, there is only one answer. For fourteen years, Abraham was in covenant with God before he was circumcised. Consequently, the rite is not needful for the validity of faith or for a covenant relation with God. All the distinguishing blessings of the Jewish race were a reward of the faith of an uncircumcised man. Pauls answer is an emphatic repetition of his own question.

Rom 4:11-12. An explanation of the purpose of the rite, supplementing and strengthening the foregoing argument.

Sign of: Mat 24:30; Luk 11:29.

Circumcision was enjoined as a visible mark or token of the covenant of God with Abraham in the day when he believed: Gen 17:11; Gen 15:18.

A Seal: a solemn and formal attestation of that to which it is annexed. So 2Co 1:22; Eph 1:13; 2Ti 2:19. Specially appropriate to circumcision, this being a visible and permanent attestation. The sign of the covenant, ordained by God in the day when Abraham believed, was a divinely-erected monument of the covenant and of the validity of faith even apart from circumcision.

That he may be etc.: purpose of this sign and seal, viz. that the faith of Abraham, thus made prominent, may lead many others to a similar faith, and that thus he may be father of a great family of believers; and that all who believe, even without circumcision, may be able to call Abraham their father, and to claim the inheritance of sons. The meaning of father is explained by heirs in Rom 4:14 : cp. Gal 3:9; Gal 3:29, also Gen 4:20-21.

That to them also etc.: further purpose of the rite. Gods purpose was, by leading both Jews and Gentiles to a similar faith, to make them partakers of the righteousness which comes through faith.

Father of circumcision: suggested by also in Rom 4:11, which implies that Gods purpose embraced others besides Gentiles. Even among those who bear in their bodies the sign of the covenant, Abraham was to have a spiritual posterity. But his true children are those only who imitate the faith of their father, which was earlier and nobler than circumcision.

Walk: go along a line: so Gal 5:25; Gal 6:16; Php 3:16; Act 21:24. Cp. Rom 6:4; Rom 8:4; Rom 13:13; Rom 14:15. Every act is a step forward in some direction.

Faith in uncircumcision: emphatic repetition of the point of the argument in Rom 4:9-12.

Rom 4:13. Not through law; about which as little was said as about circumcision when God made the covenant with Abraham.

The promise: as stated in Gen 12:1-3; Gen 12:7; Gen 15:18; Gen 22:17. In these passages nothing was said about law, in reference either to Abraham or to his seed. The fulfilment of the promise was not conditioned by obedience to a prescribed rule of conduct.

That he should be heir of the world: the promise described, not in the form given to Abraham, but as we, taught by the Gospel, now understand it. Abrahams children, i.e. those who imitate his faith, will one day possess a new earth and heaven: and this, because given to his spiritual children, will be the reward of his faith. Of this greater gift, Canaan was but an earnest. It will be obtained, not through law, but through a righteousness of faith, i.e. a state which the judge approves and which comes through faith. On the historic independence of the promise to Abraham and the Mosaic Law, see Gal 3:17.

Rom 4:14-15. Reason why the promise was given apart from law.

They of law: who make law their starting-point in seeking life, and whose claim is derived from law: so Gal 3:10; cp. Rom 2:8; Rom 3:26; Gal 3:7; Gal 3:9.

Heirs: who receive the blessing in virtue of their imitation of, and therefore spiritual descent from, Abraham.

Is-made-vain, or empty: same word in 1Co 1:17; 1Co 9:15; Php 2:7.

Made-of-no-effect: as in Rom 3:3; Rom 3:31; Gal 3:17. These two words are practically equivalent. Of the statement in Rom 4:14-15 is a proof.

Works-out anger: brings men under the anger of God. For none can obey the Law as it claims to be obeyed: and God is angry with all who disobey.

But where no law is, there are no prescribed limits, and therefore no transgression or overstepping of limits: same word in Rom 2:23; Rom 5:14. Before the Law, there was sin, but it did not assume the form of transgression. If when God gave the promises, He had annexed the Law as their condition, He would have made fulfilment impossible. For none can keep the Law as it needs to be kept. Therefore He said nothing about law. He thus winked at or passed over the sinfulness of those to whom He spoke; in view of the propitiation afterwards provided: cp. Rom 3:25.

Notice here another summary of DIV. I. The causes which made justification from works impossible to us made it impossible to Abraham. The constant recurrence of this teaching reveals its importance in Pauls theology.

Rom 4:16. Because of this: viz. that the Law works out anger, and would if it were the condition of fulfilment make the promise without result. Therefore the inheritance is by faith. According to grace: God fixed faith as its condition in order that it might be in proportion, not to mans merit, but to Gods undeserved favour. As in Rom 4:4, Paul assumes that there is no merit in faith.

Sure: a firm basis for confident reliance. God made faith the condition of the promise, in order that all the seed, not only Jews but Gentiles also, may have a firm ground for expectation of fulfilment, and this measured not by their works but by Gods grace. Had obedience to law been its condition, they could have looked forward to nothing except His anger.

Who is father etc.: actual fulfilment of the purpose stated in Rom 4:11.

Of us all: including Jews and Gentiles.

Rom 4:17. According as I have made thee: a parenthesis asserting that the foregoing is in harmony with a promise of God to Abraham (Gen 17:5) at the time of the change of his name. Israel was not many nations but one nation: and the sons of Hagar and Keturah were not heirs of the covenant. To what then did this promise refer?

To something important: for it was embodied in a change of name. The only adequate explanation of it is that it refers to Abrahams spiritual children. Jew and Greek, Englishman and German, call him to-day their father. Thus the Gospel again confirms the divine origin of the Law by affording an explanation and fulfilment of a prophecy therein contained and otherwise unexplained.

Before God etc.: completing the sentence interrupted by the parenthesis. Abraham stands before God whom he believed, who, as we shall see under Rom 4:19, makes alive the dead, and calls, i.e. summons to His service and disposes of as He will, the things which are not as though they were. This description of God calls to our mind those elements of His nature on which Abrahams faith rested. Cp. Gen 17:1 : I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou perfect. God speaks to men and things not yet existing, and they come into being, and dispose themselves at His command. These words refer to the many nations whom, before they existed, God gave to Abraham to be his children. Before Him whose voice is heard and obeyed by nations unborn, to whom the decay of natural powers, even when amounting practically to death, was no obstacle, Abraham stood; and believed. And, because he believed, he stood in that day before God as the father of the whole family of believers of every nation and age.

REVIEW. We shall best understand this section by attempting to rebuild Pauls argument from the materials he used. In Gen 12:2; Gen 12:7; Gen 13:16, God promised to make of Abraham a great nation, to give to his children the land of Canaan, and to make them numerous as the dust of the earth. In obedience to God, Abraham left his fatherland. But in Gen 15:1-3 we find him in fear and unbelief. It is night; and there is darkness around and within. Although God has promised him a numerous posterity, Abraham speaks of a servant as his heir. God brings him out from the tent in which the lonely man nurses his loneliness, directs him away from the darkness around to the everlasting brightness above, and declares that his children shall be numerous as the stars. Abraham stands before Him who made the stars and calls them by their names, who is the Author of life, whom even death cannot withstand, who controls even men and things not yet existing. He hears the promise, believes it. and looks forward with confidence to his children unborn. His faith is recorded in the Book of the Law, where, in Gen 15:6, we read for the first time the effect upon the heart of man of the word of God. We also read that God accepted Abrahams belief of the promise as a fulfilment of the divinely-appointed condition of fulfilment. In that hour he stood before God as father of unnumbered children. The words of Gen 15:6 are soon explained by the act of God. Sacrifices are slain; and in the presence of shed blood God makes in that day a covenant with Abraham. Of this covenant, the birth of Isaac, the deliverance from Egypt, the giving of the Law, the possession of Canaan, and all the distinctive privileges of Israel, were a fulfilment; We see then that the blessings of the Old Covenant were obtained by Abraham, for himself and for his children, by faith.

Again, since Abraham obtained the covenant by believing a promise, it is evident that he had performed no works of which it was a due reward; else it would have been given him as a debt. The words of Gen 15:6 remove him from those who earn something by work and put him among those who know that they are sinners and believe the word of Him who justifies the ungodly. Consequently, Abraham was justified without works. Therefore, though he may well exult in view of the grace of God, he can exult no more than we in view of his own works. Justification without works is also taught by David, who calls himself a sinner and rejoices in a pardoning God. Again, when Abraham believed, he was uncircumcised: and nothing was said about the rite till fourteen years after he received the covenant. Therefore, circumcision is not essential to the validity of faith, or to the favour and covenant of God. What then is the use of circumcision?

It was a sign of Gods covenant with Abraham: Gen 17:11. And, since the covenant was obtained through faith, circumcision, the visible and divinely ordained sign of it, was a solemn and public attestation by God that faith, even without circumcision, is sufficient to obtain the favour of God. In our days, God has announced justification for all men on the one condition of faith. Therefore, remembering that the Old Covenant was preparatory to the New, we cannot doubt that the rite of circumcision was ordained in order to call attention to Abrahams faith, and thus to lead his children to similar faith. And, since the Gospel proclaims salvation for Jew and Gentile alike, we cannot doubt that circumcision was delayed in order to teach the believing Gentiles of future ages that they may claim Abraham as their father and the righteousness of faith as their inheritance.

We are prepared for this levelling of Jew and Gentile by the fact that, at the time of Abrahams faith, as little was said about the Law as about circumcision. The reason is evident. If the promises had been conditional on obedience to law, they would have been practically useless, and Abrahams faith an illusion. For neither he nor his children could keep the Law. The only result would have been disobedience and punishment. We therefore infer that nothing was said about law in order that sin, although existing, might not be a breach of the covenant; and that faith was chosen as its condition because God was minded to bestow the blessing as a gift of pure favour, and in order that believers, both Jews and Gentiles, might look forward with certainty to a fulfilment of the promise. In the Christian Church, we see fulfilled the purpose for which circumcision was ordained, and the promise that Abraham should be a father of many nations. He stands to-day in actual fact, as he stood then in the purpose and foresight of God, as the father of us all.

In 11, Paul proved that the Gospel breaks down the barrier hitherto existing between Jew and Gentile. Now this barrier was erected by the Law. To break it down, seemed to be a denial of the divine origin and authority of those Sacred Books which were to Israel the ground of moral obligation. But now Paul has proved from these Books that the covenant which was to the Jews the source of all their instinctive privileges was obtained by Abraham through faith and apart from circumcision and from law. An inference from this, viz. justification without works, has been confirmed from another part of the Holy Scriptures. This unexpected harmony confirms both Law and Gospel, for it reveals their common source. Consequently, the Gospel, which by the resurrection of Christ is itself proved to be divine, affords proof of the divine origin of the Law. If therefore, after saying that the Gospel confirms the Law, we are asked what benefits Abraham obtained for himself and his descendants, our reply is, justification through faith, without works and without circumcision.

In this section, Paul has touched one of the strongest internal proofs of the divine origin of the revelations recorded in the Bible, viz. the profound harmony which, amid a great variety of outward form breathes through the whole.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

4:1 What {1} shall we then say that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the {a} flesh, hath found?

(1) A new argument of great weight, taken from the example of Abraham the father of all believers: and this is the proposition: if Abraham is considered in himself by his works, he has deserved nothing with which to rejoice with God.

(a) By works, as is evident from the next verse.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. Abraham’s justification by faith 4:1-5

Paul began this chapter by showing that God declared Abraham righteous because of the patriarch’s faith.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

He started with a rhetorical question that he used often in Romans (cf. Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14; Rom 9:30): "What then shall we say?" By referring to Abraham as "our forefather after the flesh" (Rom 4:1) Paul revealed that he was aiming these comments at his Jewish readers primarily. Abraham’s case is significant for Gentiles as well, however, because in another sense, as the father of the faithful, he is the father of "us all" (Rom 4:16). "All" refers to all believers, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 10

ABRAHAM AND DAVID

Rom 4:1-12

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 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 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 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 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 covenant. Do not their justifications speak only to those who stand, with them, inside that charmed circle? Was not Abraham justified by faith plus circumcision? Did not the faith act only because he was already one of the privileged? This felicitation therefore, this cry of “Happy are the freely justified,” is it upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision? For we say that to Abraham, with an emphasis on “Abraham,” his faith was reckoned as righteousness. The question, he means, is legitimate, “for” Abraham is not at first sight a case in point for the justification of the outside world, the non-privileged races of man. But consider: How then was it reckoned? To Abraham in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision; fourteen years at least had to pass before the covenant rite came in. And he received the sign of circumcision (with a stress upon “sign,” as if to say that the “thing,” the reality signed, was his already), as a seal on the righteousness of the faith that was in his uncircumcision, a seal on the acceptance which he received, antecedent to all formal privilege, in that bare hand of faith. And all this was so, and was recorded so, with a purpose of far-reaching significance: that he might be father, exemplar, representative, of all who believe notwithstanding uncircumcision, that to them righteousness should be reckoned; and father of circumcision, exemplar and representative within its circle also, for those who do not merely belong to circumcision, but for those who also step in the track of the uncircumcision-faith of our father Abraham.

So privilege had nothing to do with acceptance, except to countersign the grant of a grace absolutely free. The Seal did nothing whatever to make the Covenant. It only verified the fact, and guaranteed the bona fides of the Giver. As the Christian Sacraments are, so was the Patriarchal Sacrament; it was “a sure testimony and effectual sign of Gods grace and good will.” But the grace and the good will come not through the Sacrament as through a medium, but straight from God to the man who took God at His word. “The means whereby he received,” the mouth with which he fed upon the celestial food, “was faith.” The rite came not between the man and his accepting Lord, but as it were was present at the side to assure him with a physical concurrent fact that all was true. “Nothing between” was the law of the great transaction; nothing, not even a God-given ordinance; nothing but the empty arms receiving the Lord Himself; -and empty arms indeed put “nothing between.”

The following is extracted from the Commentary on this Epistle in “The Cambridge Bible” (p. 261): “[What shall we say to] the verbal discrepancy between St. Pauls explicit teaching that a man is justified by faith without works, and St. James equally explicit teaching that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? With only the New Testament before us, it is hard not to assume that the one Apostle has in view some distortion of the doctrine of the other. But the fact (see Lightfoots Galatians, detached note to chap. 3) that Abrahams faith was a staple Rabbinic text alters the case, by making it perfectly possible that St. James (writing to members of the Jewish Dispersion) had not Apostolic but Rabbinic teaching in view. And the line such teaching took is indicated by Jam 2:19, where an example is given of the faith in question; and that example is concerned wholly with the grand point of strictly Jewish orthodoxy-GOD IS ONE. The persons addressed [were thus those whose] idea of faith was not trustful acceptance, a belief of the heart, but orthodox adherence, a belief of the head. And St. James [took] these persons strictly on their own ground, and assumed, for his argument, their own very faulty account of faith to be correct.”

“He would thus be proving the point, equally dear to St. Paul, that mere theoretic orthodoxy, apart from effects on the will, is valueless. He would not, in the remotest degree, be disputing the Pauline doctrine that the guilty soul is put into a position of acceptance with the Father only by vital connection with the Son, and that this connection is effectuated, absolutely and alone, not by personal merit, but by trustful acceptance of the Propitiation and its all-sufficient vicarious merit. From such trustful acceptance works (in the profoundest sense) will inevitably follow; not as antecedents but as consequents of justification. And thus it is faith alone which justifies; but the faith which justifies can never be alone.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary