Romans 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 God’s 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; Romans 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 (Luke 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 God’s 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 Paul’s 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 Paul’s purpose in more ways than one.

I. His controversy up to this point has involved two main positions. The first is Romans 3:28. The second, Romans 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 (Romans 3:1). Paul finds a remarkable proof-text in Genesis 15:16.

(1) The religious life of Abraham gathers round three leading moments. The first, when God bade him emigrate to Canaan (Genesis 12:1); the second, at Mamre, when God first made with the childless and aged man a covenant that he should have a son, etc. (Genesis 15:1); 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 (Genesis 22:1). At all these three turning times in Abraham’s 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 patriarch’s history is to be sought in the second, to which St. Paul here refers. On God’s side there was simply a word of promise; 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 the Promiser was held to be adequate as a ground for that sinful man’s acceptance into friendship and league with the eternal Jehovah.

(2) The apostle’s 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, Abraham’s 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 (Psalms 32:1).

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 Abraham’s 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 God’s promise, and Abraham’s 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 Israel’s 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 Hebrews 11:1, 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 earth’s families should be blessed. To believe in this explicit word was to believe substantially in the whole of God’s 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 God’s 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 man’s 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 God’s 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 Abraham’s 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 man’s purse, should go about to set up his own name upon the front thereof; and in Justinian’s law it was decreed that no workman should set up his name within the body of that building which he made out of another’s 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 God’s. Man’s 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 Paul’s 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 (John 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” (Matthew 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 man’s 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 God’s elect. You will find it described in James 2:20. 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 apostle’s 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 won’t 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 God’s 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, God’s 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 (Hebrews 11:17).

2. As it was prior to and independent of the law (Galatians 3:17).

3. As it related to the promised seed in whom Christ was dimly seen. (Prof. Jowett.)

Abraham’s 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.)

Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s character was not his holiness, but his faith. God’s 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 (Genesis 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 Abraham’s faith is the condition of participation in Abraham’s 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 God’s 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. James’s 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. Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s 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 God’s 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 men’s 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.)