The Time Of Abraham's Justification · Paul And James
God has caused to be recorded the justification of Abraham, by which method of justification can be verified all subsequent cases. This is a test case. It was used by Paul against the Jews, who taught salvation by the works of the law. It is also left upon record for the benefit of either Jew or Gentile today who may seek to be justified.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:23-25.)
Abraham's justification was, therefore, a typical example. The conclusions reached in the previous chapter must, accordingly, agree with the facts of this case. But it was concluded in the last chapter that salvation was bestowed upon the principle of faith and not upon the principle of works. Can this conclusion be justified by the facts of Abraham's justification? Let us see.
Remember, we are now searching for the principle or law of justification. It was not Paul's purpose to prove to the Jews a self-evident fact--namely, that Abraham was not justified by the law of Moses. This every Jew knew, and for this no Jew contended. Abraham lived, in round numbers, four hundred years before the law.
Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. (Gal. 3:16, 17.)
Certainly, then, Paul is not laboring in the fourth chapter of Romans to prove that Abraham was not justified by the law of Moses. If that had been his purpose, he could have reminded the Jews that Abraham lived four hundred years too soon to be thus justified. Paul was proving rather that Abraham was not justified upon the principle of works; and since the law put man upon that principle, the principle of works, the Jews could not, therefore, be justified by the law. Paul was fighting for a principle--a principle that would make room for the atonement of Christ. Only the principle of faith will do this. The principle of works, as we have shown, necessarily excludes the grace of God. Here, then, is a delicate point. The great hypothesis of Christianity is the blood of Christ, the procuring cause of man's salvation. All teaching must agree with this fundamental fact. And any doctrine of justification that is not based upon this fact cannot be right. But the doctrine of salvation by works is naturally incompatible with the blood of Christ for our sins. Hence, the Jews were wrong in contending for salvation upon the principle of salvation by works; and being wrong concerning the principle of justification, they were wrong in seeking to be justified by the law of Moses. Remember, under the law, as we have elsewhere explained, the Jews were necessarily shut up to the principle of works.
Now for proof that Paul was contending for a principle, note the following passage from him:
Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith. (Rom. 3:27.)
Moffatt translates the passage thus:
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is ruled out absolutely. On what principle? On the principle of doing deeds? No, on the principle of faith.
The principle of works, or "the principle of doing deeds," causes one to glory concerning himself. Certainly if by his own goodness man can merit the approval of God, "he hath whereof to glory." Witness the proud spirit of the Jews in general and the boasting of the Pharisee of Luke 18:11, 12 in particular:
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get,
Note carefully how the boasting spirit of the Pharisee was based on "the principle of doing deeds." Instead of a felt need of mercy, he gloried over his supposed righteousness. Paul says of Abraham:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory. (Rom. 4:2.)
He also wrote the Ephesians:
For by grace have Ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. (Eph. 2:8, 9.)
Contrast this proud spirit of legalism with the humility of the publican:
But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.
This publican had no good works of which to boast. He was a sinner and felt his Unworthiness. All he asked was the mercy of God. And one like him now is ready to be saved "by grace through faith."
Abraham, then, was justified upon the principle that excludes boasting, the principle of faith.
For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not toward God. For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. (Rom. 4:2, 3.)
The Scripture appealed to by Paul is Gen. 15:6:
And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it unto him for righteousness.
God had promised Abraham a son through whom Christ would come. Sarah, Abraham's wife, was barren, and Abraham's body "as good as dead." According to nature, God's promise to Abraham could not be fulfilled. But Abraham believed God's promise, nevertheless. And because of his faith he was justified.
But we shall let Paul tell us of this justifying faith:
For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to grace to the end that 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 us all (as it is written, A father of many nations have I made thee) before him whom he believed, even God, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things that are not, as though they were. Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be. And without being weakened in faith he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was able also to perform. Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. (Rom. 4:16-22.)
Thus we see that Abraham was justified upon the principle of faith, and not upon that of works. Note that faith always gives God the glory. It looks to God and not to man. It is a confession of human weakness and an acknowledgment of divine power. Faith is likewise the forsaking of self and an implicit reliance upon God. There is no greater faith than Abraham exercised on this occasion. His faith in offering up his son later on was not a greater demonstration of his faith in God. Indeed, it was the same faith. For Abraham to believe that God would give him a son when Sarah was barren and his "own body now as good as dead," he had to believe in God, "who giveth life to the dead." And thus he believed when he offered Isaac some twenty-five years later; for Abraham expected to take the life of his son, "accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead." (Heb. 11:19.) And when he believed God's promise to give him a son, he was "fully assured that what he had promised he was able also to perform."
Here, then, is justifying faith. A faith that recognizes no help in man and trusts in God to do what might seem the impossible thing, glorifies God as nothing else can. After all, what is so pleasing to God as implicit faith? And what is so appropriate as faith in God? God does not stand in need of what man can do. He is not "served by men's hands, as though he needed anything"; but he is the great Giver, "seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things." God abounds wherein man lacks. He is omnipotent, man is weak; he is all-wise, man is ignorant; he is holy, man is unholy; in him is life, man is "dead" through his sins; he is merciful, man is condemned; he is Savior, man is lost. "All things are of God," and man is spiritually destitute. If man is capable of doing anything perfectly, it is to believe, to trust. Nothing is more becoming in him, as nothing is more needful.
And just as nothing honors God more than faith in him, so nothing has access to his blessings more than faith. By his faith Abraham was justified, and by faith we "have had our access" into the grace of God. Faith, as has formerly been suggested, is the proper response of the needy soul to God, the bountiful Giver. And faith in Christ is the proper response of the lost soul to the blood of Christ. It is the acknowledgment that the blood can do what God ordained it should do. Yea, it is more. It is the personal acceptance of its merits. No greater thing can man do. No greater honor to God can he give than to accept the Son in the same sense that God set him forth, and no greater offense against God is possible than to fail to believe in "his only begotten Son."
Now, when Paul proved that Abraham, the father of the Jewish race, was not justified upon the principle of works, but upon the principle of faith, he proved to the Jew that he could not be saved by the law of Moses. Abraham was not justified by works, but the law was of works. Abraham was justified by faith, "and the law is not of faith." (Gal. 3:12.) So, then, "they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham." (Gal. 3:7.) It was then impossible to be sons of Abraham through the law, because the law was of works, not of faith. So Paul wrote:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith; and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them. (Gen. 3:8-12.)
And not only did Paul prove to the Jews that they could not be saved by the principle of works, he proved to both Jews and Gentiles that they must be saved upon the principle of faith. This seems to be the most difficult lesson for man to learn. He is slow to surrender the principle of human merit. He wants the glory himself. He has always shown an innate tendency toward human merit. Even after the Jews, some of them, had accepted Christ, thus repudiating the law of works, they were constantly in danger of going back to the principle of law. This was the sin of the Galatians. Read again the above passage from Galatians. These people fell from grace, not by living ungodly, but by attempting to be justified upon the principle of works. Thus they severed themselves from Christ, for Christ must be accepted by faith. Access to grace is by faith. (Rom. 5:2.) Salvation is conditioned on faith "that it may be according to grace." (Rom. 4:16.) To condition justification upon the principle of works is to make grace void.
I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. (Gal. 2:21.)
How does justification by law make void the grace of God? Justification by law means justification by works, and works exclude grace.
But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. (Rom. 11:6.)
The time of Abraham's justification with reference to his circumcision is also a question of importance to both Jew and Gentile. Whether he was justified before or by his circumcision determined whether he was justified by faith or by works. Here the Jew was interested. And whether he was justified in circumcision or uncircumcision determined whether the Gentile was excluded or included, respectively. But let us hear Paul on this point:
Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his 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 righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision. For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect. (Rom. 4:9-14.)
Abraham, then, was justified before he was circumcised. This was not accidental or incidental, but a matter ordained of God for a purpose. Paul says he was justified before his circumcision "that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision." He refers here to the Gentiles. If Abraham had been justified by the law, the Gentiles would not have been included in the promise of God to bless all nations through Christ. "For not through the 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." Thus was Abraham justified in uncircumcision that the Gentiles might be included in the promise of God.
And since it was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith that Abraham received the promise, he was justified, not upon the principle of works, but of faith. And upon the right principle of justification rest all the blessings of Christianity. The blessings of grace cannot rest upon law. Hear Paul again:
For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to grace. (Rom. 4:16.)
Had Abraham been justified by works and not faith, grace would have been excluded. No place would have been left for a Savior. Under law man must save himself. There is no place for blood that can take away sins. Herein lies the importance of the question discussed in the Roman and Galatian Epistles. Paul was making a fight in behalf of grace. The legalistic error he was fighting ruled Christ out entirely. And if Christ was ruled out, all men were lost, both Jews and Gentiles. Strange that men will plead for a doctrine that makes void the grace of God and seals their own condemnation. But they are still doing it!
The discussion of Abraham's justification is not considered finished until an effort is made to harmonize the apparent discrepancy between Paul and James. I am not vain enough to suppose that what I say here will forever settle this matter. All I care to do is to call attention to certain facts regarding the matter. But let us first hear James:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. (James 2:21-24.)
Note first that James and Paul appeal to the same Old Testament Scripture: "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness." We have seen in the previous study that Paul used this very Scripture to prove to the Jews that justification is not upon the principle of works, but upon that of faith. It has also been pointed out how that the principle of works makes void the grace of God. Shall we now conclude that James flatly contradicts Paul's teaching and conditions justification upon the principle of works? This much is evident to all: If James meant to condition justification upon the principle of works, or upon the incongruous mixture of faith and works, as principles, all efforts at reconciling James and Paul are vain. Nothing can possibly be plainer than that Paul advocates a justification based upon faith as he repudiates a justification predicated upon works. Moreover, nothing is more evident to the reflecting mind than that Paul was right in making faith the principle of blessing under grace. Grace and faith mutually imply each other, as do law and works; and grace and works, as well as law and faith, mutually exclude each other. And this is not theology; it is according to the very nature of things.
This we can be assured of: Paul and James were writing for different purposes. Paul's purpose was to explain the method of justification under Christ. This is the primary purpose of the Roman and Galatian Epistles. James was reproving idle brethren. Some brethren had become inactive, and James is telling them that a faith that permits one to do nothing is a dead faith. He refers to Abraham's offering up Isaac to show how faith should act. Their references to Abraham are different. Paul referred to the time when God made the promise to Abraham that a son would be given him. This was before Isaac was born. James refers to a time when Isaac was more than twenty years of age. (Some say Isaac was as much as thirty years of age.) A period of at least twenty years separates the references of Paul and James. This point is significant. Paul never mentions the offering up of Isaac when he discusses the justification of Abraham. Indeed, the offering of Isaac came many years too late to have anything to do with the justification spoken of by Paul. Abraham was justified before Isaac was conceived--certainly before he was born. Remember, Paul dates Abraham's justification before his circumcision. (See Rom. 4:10.) Now, "Abraham was ninety years old and nine when he was circumcised." (Gen. 17:24.) But Paul says he was justified "in uncircumcision"--that is, before his circumcision. (Rom. 4:10.) He was, therefore justified earlier in his ninety-ninth year or before his ninety-ninth year. But all this was before the birth of Isaac. "Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him." (Gen. 21:5.) So Abraham's justification antedated by approximately one year the birth of Isaac. But there are good and even necessary reasons why Abraham was justified before even the conception of Isaac. When God promised Abraham a son, his body was "dead," and Sarah was barren. No sooner had God made the promise than Abraham believed it. "He wavered not through unbelief." If any time had intervened between the making of the promise by Jehovah and its acceptance by faith of Abraham, he would have "wavered . . . through unbelief." Again, Abraham "in hope believed against hope." On one hand, he had God's promise. Here is hope. And, on the other hand, he was confronted by the handicaps of nature. Here is the lack of hope. Nature gave him no hope, but God's promise did. Hence, he "in hope believed against hope." But if his faith followed the quickening of his body and Sarah's womb, not to mention the subsequent conception of Isaac, faith ceases to be faith and hope is not hope.
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. (Heb. 11:1.)
But hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth? (Rom. 8:24.)
Indeed, herein lies the excellence of Abraham's faith: that he believed against all indications of nature. There is nothing unusual in believing that a child may be born to parents with normal bodies. Neither is there anything unique in believing that a child will be born after it has already been conceived. Abraham believed when he was "yet looking unto the promise of God," and, therefore, before God had fulfilled his promise; for Abraham was "fully assured that what he had promised, he was able also to perform." The chief difficulty in believing God's promise was to believe God was able to quicken the bodies of Abraham and Sarah. The subsequent conception of Isaac and his birth would follow in the ordinary course of nature.
Now, the faith of Abraham was typical not only in the nature of the faith itself, but also as to its object. The object of his faith was God, "who giveth life to the dead." As we have seen, the bodies of both Abraham and Sarah had to be quickened before God could fulfill his promise. Now God promises salvation through a crucified and risen Savior. And the object of justifying faith today is God, "that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." The typical significance of Abraham's faith in this particular is strongly implied in the following conclusion of Paul:
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:23-25.)
And now from another viewpoint it can be seen why Abraham could not have been justified by works. Such a justification would not have involved a faith typical of faith in Christ. His works, then, would have been typical of that which would be the condition of justification--namely, our own works of righteousness. These would have left no place for the atoning blood of Christ.
So, then, whatever use James made of Abraham's faith some twenty years after his justification that typifies the sinner's justification cannot affect Paul's teaching. That Abraham's justification began before the birth of Isaac and was not consummated until he offered his son upon the altar years afterwards would not only contradict Paul's statement that he was justified "in uncircumcision," but would make his salvation a matter of works and not of faith, and thus make void the Roman and Galatian Epistles. Furthermore, this position would imply a deficiency in Abraham's faith at the time of God's promise to him of a son--an implication evidently contrary to the divine eulogy found in the fourth chapter of Romans. Abraham never possessed a more perfect faith than at the time he believed God's promise relative to a son. Remember the handicaps of nature which this giant of faith ignored. See him "waver not through unbelief, but wax strong through faith, giving God the glory." And then see God beholding approvingly this faith and because of it reckon to Abraham righteousness. God never uttered one word of criticism of this faith; neither has any inspired writer. Not one syllable in all the Bible, properly understood, hints at imperfection in his faith at this time. Not even James implies that Abraham's faith was in any sense imperfect. Indeed, James does not contemplate Abraham's faith at all when he accepted unreservedly God's promise to give him a son. James is studying the patriarch's faith when God told him in after years to offer this son upon an altar. The faith of Abraham on this latter occasion related to God's power to raise Isaac from the dead after he should have offered him. It did not relate to God's power to quicken bodies and give a son contrary to nature's laws. And so Abraham's act of offering Isaac did perfect, or "complete" (as Moffatt renders the word), his faith on this latter occasion. Had he refused to offer his son, a lack of faith in God would have been manifested. His obedience, therefore, did perfect, complete, or confirm his faith in God--that is, the whole transaction as God ordained it was finished when Isaac was offered. And this suggests a fundamental principle of divine government--namely, that when a command is given which depends on faith for its performance, faith is not considered or accepted until the command has been obeyed. Faith and the command based upon it cannot be divorced. And faith that stops short of obedience to the command with which it is, by divine arrangement, joined, is a dead faith. So when Abraham received the command to offer his son, his faith then depended upon his obedience and was not to be considered apart from it.
But what works commanded of God did Abraham perform at the time God promised him a son? He did all that was possible: he believed unwaveringly in God's word. He did all that God required, for God reckoned his faith for righteousness. If this is not faith perfected, completed, let some one be kind enough to point out its imperfections. Then when his criticism of the patriarch's faith is finished, let the critic turn and read Paul's eulogy in the fourth chapter of Romans.
Now, James was reproving Christians for idleness. They had separated their faith from God-given commands. Hence, their faith was not completed, finished. It was dead. Here is James' lesson.
The notion that faith without works is void in all cases is neither sensible nor Scriptural. This would logically signify that faith could not exist apart from physical action. It would also mean that the blood of Christ is insufficient to save, and that it must be complemented by human effort. Saving faith is reliance upon the blood of Christ for salvation. If faith by nature is dead without works, then its object cannot procure salvation. The confession of faith and baptism "in the name of Christ" have been shown to be nothing different from faith as to their meaning. They are not to be classed with works. Paul denies that baptism is a work of righteousness. (Tit. 3:5.)
It is said that "by faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God." (Heb. 11:3.) But what can one do about it? One can do nothing with this statement but believe it. Yet his faith with reference to this fact is not dead.
James does not teach that works quicken faith. If it takes works to quicken faith, it would have to remain forever dead; for a dead faith will not cause one to act. A lack of works, however, proves faith to be dead. A faith that refuses to obey is a dead faith--that is, when there is a command to obey.
And even though baptism is not to be classed as a work of righteousness, still, since God has commanded it in connection with faith, a faith that will not lead one to be baptized is a vain faith.