| CloserLook > Romans > Romans 4:1-25 | |
|
Listen
to audio |
|
|||
ROMANS 4: 1 to 25
Well, we didn't get very far in our study of Romans chapter 4, did we? As you will remember, Paul was addressing believers, no doubt of Jewish heritage, on the subject of faith. Surprisingly, the very first person he mentioned was the father of their nation. Yes, Abraham was a man of implicit faith. So much so, that we spend the rest of our lesson following in his footsteps. Today, I would like make one more little detour, and once again, our subject is Abraham. His life parallels that of the New Testament believer in at least two ways. Both are possessors of a righteousness that is not their own. And whether we realize it or not, both are "strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Abraham looked, "for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God", and "--- our conversation (or citizenship) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" Phil. 3:20. "A tent or a cottage, why should I
care?
They’re building a palace for me over there;
Tho’
exiled from home, yet still I may sing:
All glory to God, I’m a child
of the king."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Returning to Romans chapter 4, we read these words in V1-3
"What shall we say then
that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? No, Abraham's righteousness wasn't earned, it was "counted unto him" because
of his faith.
And by that, I don't mean he was being rewarded for the quality
of his faith, or any other personal attribute for that matter.
No, it was the object of his faith that made all the difference,
and we will be talking about that in a few minutes.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Certainly, Abraham wasn't a perfect man, and his faith
wasn't perfect either.
In fact, it faltered quite seriously on several
occasions.
And by the way, we are still living with the results of one of those lapses of faith today.
No, Abraham wasn't perfect, but he was teachable,
and that made the difference.
Over the years, God had being able to bring him along,
little by little, until he reached the high ground described in Gen.
15:6, "And he believed
in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Reaching back in scripture, Paul points to this very verse, as his
example of faith, without works.
Here was a man who had received righteousness as a free gift,
entirely on the basis of his faith.
And by the way, it was a righteousness that rendered him completely
acceptable before God.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So, what exactly did Abraham have faith in?
Certainly, he believed
God's promises, concerning land and descendents, but that's not what this verse
is talking about, is it?
No, somehow, his implicit
faith in God's promises went far beyond the temporal.
Somehow, he became the
recipient of a righteousness that was not his own.
And, if we look closely,
we will find that the object of his faith wasn't so much God's promises,
as is was God Himself --- "And
he believed in the LORD".
As a result, God "counted it to him for righteousness."
Now, by definition,
righteousness is an attribute, an accomplishment attributed to a
particular individual.
Whose accomplishment are we talking about here?
Certainly, it wasn't
Abraham's.
No, it was someone
else's accomplishment, and from our study of Romans chapter 3, it is quite
obvious that it could only be Christ's accomplishment.
Yes, Abraham must have
been the recipient of Christ’s personal righteousness, as none other
would have been acceptable with God.
So, how did Abraham
become the processor of such a wonderful gift?
Had he been personally
acquainted with the Son of God?
I realize that such an
acquaintance would not have been absolutely necessary, for many Old
Testament saints received the gift of righteousness, simply by seeing
the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament sacrifices.
But to answer our
question, the answer is yes, Abraham did have a personal acquaintance with Jesus Christ.
One of those occasions,
of which there were several, is recorded in Genesis 18.
This was the time when
the Lord Jesus, in company with two angels, actually visited Abraham and Sarah
in their home.
Gen.18:1-2 "And the LORD appeared unto him in the
plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the
heat of the day; Many commentators agree that this was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.
But the more to the
point, Jesus Christ Himself, positively confirms these personal
encounters.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You might remember the
incident, recorded in John 8, when Jesus was having a considerable dispute with the Pharisees.
Throughout his ministry,
these men had steadfastly refused to recognize His deity, putting
him down as nothing more than the son of a carpenter.
You can imagine their rage, when He said, in V56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad". Yes, Abraham was acquainted with the Son of God. And it appears he had identified Him as God’s promised Redeemer. But more to the point, it appears that somehow, through his faith in the Abrahamic covenant, he received the gift of Christ's righteousness. So, is there any connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the Lord Jesus Christ? Actually there is, and might I say, a very definite connection. Paul brought that surprising truth to light, in Gal. 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
Let me try to explain what
Paul is driving at here.
It all hinges on the
little word "seed".
In the original, the
word is zera’, and like its English counterpart, is a collective noun.
That means it can be
either singular or plural, depending on the context.
For instance, in Gen.
12:7, it could be interpreted either way, while in Gen.21:12 it is
definitely singular, because it refers to Isaac.
So, why would God use of collective noun.
If He wanted to positively
identify Abraham's numerous descents, why didn't He use a word like
sons, or children, or even descendents.
Such words would be immediately
recognized as plural.
But He didn't do that,
did He?
No, He used a collective
noun, which could be taken either way.
At least it could be
taken either way, until Paul explained that God was referring to Christ.
Gal.3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
So you see, the promises
that Abraham believed in, can only be realize in their entirety, when
True, they did become a
great nation, and in Solomon’s time they occupied most, if not all of the
Promised Land.
However, until they
accept their Messiah, they can never enter the kingdom of heaven that John
the Baptist talked about.
So in the end,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Returning to Romans
chapter 4:2, you will notice that Paul, in his effort to highlight Abraham's faith,
didn't downplay his good works.
In fact, his said,"--- if Abraham were justified by works,
he hath whereof to glory".
Yes, when it came to works, Abraham had an impressive
record, earning him the respect of his neighbors.
For instance, when he wanted to buy land to bury his wife in, his
neighbors were most cooperative ---"Hear us, my lord: thou
art a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead;
none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead. Gen. 23:6
Yes, if anyone could have relied upon his good works to fit him
for heaven, it would have been Abraham.
However, what does
No, God's standards are higher and holier than anything man can obtain,
or even conceive.
But Abraham wasn't building upon a foundation of good works.
He had found the pearl of great price,
and it was righteousness by faith, and by faith alone.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
At this point, Paul appeals to their reasoning,
making a direct comparison between works and faith.
V4 "Now to
him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."
If you put in a good day’s work, you can expect a day's pay.
Your employer owes it to you.
V5 "But to
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
That's where Abraham stood.
His righteousness wasn't a reward for services
rendered.
No, God didn't owe him anything.
Abraham had merely "believed God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness."
It was a gift, placed on his account by pure grace. And yes, there is a great difference between works and grace. Under works, everything depends upon the sinner. Under grace, everything depends upon the Saviour. Under works, God can only give us a fair trial. But under grace, He "that justifieth the ungodly", can give us a free pardon. Yes, He can be just, "and the
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
And that’s
the ground Abraham stood on.
He "believed
God, and it was counted unto him (not owed to him), for righteousness."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But Paul wasn't finished, yet.
He now calls attention to another prominent
individual from their Jewish heritage.
In these verses, Paul is referring to David's words, written
in Psalm 32, after the public exposure of his great sin.
You can read about that dark period in his life,
in 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12.
Basically, David had broken 3 of the 10 Commandments.
He had coveted another man's wife, committed adultery, and finally,
committed murder.
Two of these offenses are punishable by death.
And the Old Testament system of sacrifices makes no provision for willful
sin.
I think that's what David was referring to in Psa. 51:16, when he wrote,
--- "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else
would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt
offering."
No, there was no remedy for his sin under law, but there was
under grace.
That's why we find these words in V17 of this same Psalm --- "The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God,
thou wilt not despise."
Yes, the only hope David had, in this otherwise hopeless
situation, was the grace of God, and a righteousness that was not
his own.
And he found it.
In fact, I am quite certain, that the man he wrote about in Psalm 32 was
no other then David himself.
Psa. 32:1-5 "Blessed
is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Yes, David was the man,
to whom God imputed "righteousness without works" Rom.4:6.
And he was the man, to whom God would "not
impute sin", Rom.4:8, even though he was worthy of death.
That's why Nathan could say, in 2 Sam. 12:13, "The
LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
However, God’s grace
doesn't give us a license to sin.
God could save David's immortal
soul, because of His Son’s substitutionary death, but he still had to reap what he sowed.
2 Sam.12:14 "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast
given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also
that is born unto thee shall surely die."
And that wasn't the end
of it.
2 Sam.12:10 "Now therefore the sword shall never
depart from thine house; because thou hast
despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And then, Paul addresses another error,
concerning the doctrine of salvation.
This time it wasn't faith plus works, but
rather, faith plus religious ordinances.
This problem had surfaced in the early church, when the
Gentiles began to be added to the body of Christ.
We can read about it, in Acts 15:1 "And certain men which came down from Judaea
taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of
Moses, ye cannot be saved."
After due consideration,
the church had come down on the side of faith alone, and that should
have settled it.
However, it appears that this misconception was still around when Paul penned the book of Romans. Building upon the established fact that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto
him for righteousness", Paul asks the question, in V9-11, "Cometh this blessedness then upon
the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham
for righteousness. So, it all comes down to
the sequence of events.
Abraham had been
justified by faith, some 14 years before he received the sign of
circumcision (and you can check that out by
comparing Gen. 15:6 with Gen.17:10).
Consequently, circumcision had nothing to do with
God's gift of imputed righteousness.
So in reality, those Judaizers,
whom we read about in the book of Acts, were trying to impose a requirement on
the believing Gentiles that would have disqualified Abraham.
So, if circumcision had no saving merits of its
own, what was its function?
Paul answers that question, in Rom. 4:11.
As far as Abraham was concerned, it was a sign,
or "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:"
So, you see, its only purpose was to bear testimony to a work of
faith that had been already accomplished in
his life.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And now, I need to draw your attention to a parallel
situation that exists today.
In the Church of Jesus Christ, there are only two
ordinances.
They are the Lord's Supper, which is a feast of remembrance,
and baptism.
Baptism, like circumcision in the old Jewish economy,
is merely a sign of an accomplished work.
It’s a testimony to a work of grace, which has already
occurred in the life of the Christian.
True, it is an act of obedience, but it has no
saving value of its own.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And then Paul directs their attention to another false teaching that had appeared, along with the issue of circumcision.
In Acts 15:5 we read "But there rose up certain of
the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of
Moses."
Here again, Abraham is exhibit A.
Rom.
Again, like circumcision, it was a question of timing.
The law had been given about 400 years after Abraham's death, so
there was no possibility that it could have been added to faith as a
condition of Abraham's imputed righteousness.
But what about Abraham's descendents, certainly they
where under the law.
Paul addresses that situation in the very next verse.
V14-15 "For
if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the
promise made of none effect: No, you can't have two different systems,
especially when the one only "worketh wrath".
If Abraham's descendents could have prevailed by the works
of the law, then Abraham's faith would have been "made void".
And that brings us to another point that Paul
covered, not in this chapter, but in Galatians 3:17-18 --- "And
this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the
law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it
should make the promise of none effect."
There is a basic
principle presented here.
Once a legal
document is signed, sealed, and delivered, it cannot be overthrown by that
which comes thereafter.
Consequently,
the Law of Moses, which was introduced 430 years later, could not disannul "the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in
Christ".
Yes grace, and the gift
of grace, was in operation long before the requirements of the Law.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Rom. 4:16-17 "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, If salvation had been based upon trying rather
than trusting, then it could have never be "sure".
It would come and go, based upon the performance of the individual ---"Therefore it
is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the
promise might be sure to all the seed ---".
Certainly, that is a wonderful true, but what
is this part about Abraham being "the father of us all".
Now, the promise that he would be "a father of many nations" has been literally fulfilled.
Abraham was the father of Ishmael, and through him he
became the father of the Arab nations.
Through Isaac, he became the father of the nation of
And then, after the death of Sarah, he took another wife,
by the name of Keturah.
She presented him with six sons.
I can't honestly say I have checked it out, but I
would assume they became the heads of nations also.
However, Paul wasn't referring to Abraham's physical
posterity, when he said, in V16--- "but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father
of us all".
No, he was referring to Abraham's spiritual seed,
those from every tribe and nation, who would come to Jesus Christ by faith, and
like he Abraham, would be partakers of Christ’s righteousness.
Yes, in addition to the children of
And by the way, his spiritual seed has not replaced his earthly seed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And while I'm on the subject, I would like to draw
your attention to an interesting sidelight.
Although I cannot dogmatically make a
connection here, I think it is most instructive to consider God's words, in
Gen.22:17 --- "I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore".
Was God merely using these examples to impress Abraham with the unlimited nature of his descendents, or was there a deeper meaning.
Perhaps, the stars of heaven and the sand which is upon
the seashore were deliberately chosen to foreshadow the heavenly and
earthly nature of his descendents.
And by that I mean, the Church of Jesus Christ and God’s Chosen People
Israel.
And might I add once again, we should never make the mistake of trying
to substitute stars for sand.
God has future plans for the bride of Christ, but He also has future
plans for His Chosen People.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V17-18 "(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him
whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things
which be not as though they were. Yes, Abraham believed God’s promises implicitly.
V19-22 "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 Sarah's womb: Yes, Abraham believed the impossible --- "he considered
not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet
the deadness of Sarah's womb".
And not only that, but he was willing offer up Isaac to God,
because he was "fully
persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform."
He could do that, because he believed in a "God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as
though they were."
And you know what, we serve the same God of the impossible that Abraham did.
If we limit Him to the realm of possibility, we
will miss a great deal.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yes, the Lord needed to become the God of the impossible in Abraham's life.
That's why He withheld his son, until a normal birth was way beyond the realm of possibility.
For years He held back on Abraham's most cherished
desire.
But in the mean time, He honed his faith to the
point He could finally say --- "Abraham
believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
V23-25 "Now it was not written for his sake alone,
that it was imputed to him; Yes, God asks us to believe in the impossible,
doesn't He?
He asks us to believe that He "raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead".
He asks us to believe, that this same Jesus "was delivered for our offences, and
was raised again for our justification."
And, He asks us to believe that the "righteousness of God" can be obtained by faith, and by faith alone. "--- Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts
|
Home | Bio | Site
Map | Genesis | Hebrews | Romans | John | Misc |
; Phone: 519-894-2369
