Gooding, David: 6 - Justification Apart from the Law

Well, now, if I may call you to, to order, gentlemen, we have now got to apply ourselves to the actual text of scripture and consider some of its detail. And we begin at verse nineteen of chapter three of the Epistle to the Romans. Now we know that what things soever the law says, it speaks to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be brought under the judgment of God. Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. Let's notice the logic of that argument. By the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified. Why is that so? Why cannot be, cannot it not be that a man with all honest intent should try to keep the law and thereby be justified? That is a practical point that many people of the religious kind will raise to you if you try to talk to them about salvation not being by works. And they have a problem, why then did God give us the law if he didn't mean us to keep it? And doesn't the Old Testament proclaim the law of God as leading to life? Choose life. Do these commandments. Now that is perfectly true. The law as a guide to living is a very healthy guide. The whole of society would be more healthy if it kept the law of God. And as we shall later find in this epistle, we being justified by grace, the purpose behind it and before it is that though we are not saved by our keeping the law, yet it is God's intention that the righteous demands of the law shall be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. The law is good, says Paul in chapter seven. The fact that I don't keep it is irrelevant to this question. Is the law good and spiritual? Yes, it is good, and it is spiritual. It is understandable, therefore, that many an unregenerate person does not at first, uh, comprehend why salvation must be without the works of the law. Cannot a man make an honest attempt to keep the law and therefore contribute to his own salvation? And the answer is given in the second part of verse twenty. The first part states that by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight. The second part of the verse gives the reason for that. For by the law comes the knowledge of sin. However honestly and determinately we set out to keep God's law. And we should never imagine that that doesn't matter what the law says. But however honestly we set out to keep it, then if we use the law of a sta- as our standard, we come short of it. It is the law that makes us aware of our sin. And Paul, who tells us in Philippians three that for a major part of his life, before he knew Christ, he had made a valiant effort to keep the law, and as touching the, uh, righteous character that is formed by keeping the law, he was blameless, not faultless, but blameless. Yet tells us in Romans seven that eventually the law was above all his attempts to keep it, and he came through the law to be aware that he was a sinner and had come short. By the law comes the knowledge of sin. That is why salvation, justification cannot possibly be on the basis of our keeping the law. And now, apart from the law, a righteousness of God, that is God's way of acquitting us and remaining righteous himself, is manifest. This is not simply a Christian doctrine. It is witnessed by the law and the prophets. You'll see, and you will immediately think of certain passages in the prophets in particular, and Isaiah fifty three preeminent among them, that speak of the provision of a salvation, in spite of the fact that all we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. But the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all, and so forth. So this righteousness that is apart from the law, let's hear the facts. It's the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe. Notice the all. And the insistence that there is no distinction. In the context, Paul is thinking about the distinction between pagan heathen, chapter one, or the moralist heathen, chapter two, or the religious Jew. First half of chapter three. There's no difference. Whether you had God's revealed law or not, there is no difference. All have sinned in the past. And do in the present fall short of the glory of God, that is of the standards that God in his character and in his law has set. That there being no difference, all likewise without difference can be justified freely. Greek word means free and for nothing, gratis, without charge. Freely by his grace. But it is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It isn't that God is so gracious that in the end he'll have mercy upon anybody. That grace is the cause of, the source of, but it is absolutely necessary that the justification is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. And in what sense is it in Christ Jesus? Not in his example, but as a propitiation. This is exceedingly important. The substitutionary doctrine of the atonement, that he took my place, my substitute, and the propitiation that his sacrifice appeased the wrath of God against my sin, and therefore I can go free. It's disputed, for instance, by the modern, uh, Orthodox Church, if you please, not just the Catholic Church. If you read Bishop, I think he's the Bishop of Thyatira and some other place, eh, Timothy Ware of Oxford, who is an Orthodox bishop, belongs to the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. He has written a penguin or a puffin, I forget which, on orthodoxy, meaning by that the ortho- the doctrines of the Orthodox Church as distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. Uh, the Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory, you'll see. They do believe in the resurrection of Christ, of course. But he in that book denies, explicitly denies the substitutionary aspect of the death of Christ. He says that Christ suffered at Calvary to show us how to suffer. It is by our own suffering that we are forgiven and justified and set free. That is what Dostoevsky, the great Russian author, expounded in his novels. Though some people have written books about the gospel in Dostoevsky, but they surely missed that bit. Darsky FC holds that it is by our suffering that we are justified and set free, and that Christ came and suffered to show us how to do it. Therefore, orthodoxy, uh, in the person of Timothy Ware, not sure how true he is to the councils of that church, but according to Timothy Ware, he denies the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement. More recently, the president of what it was, was it, uh, the Evangelical Union or something or other, announced to the world that you cannot have the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement. Because if God, uh, uh, uh, uh, punished Christ in our place, he would be guilty of child abuse. That by an evangelical. Published to the world. Gentlemen, we have to hold hard here to scripture. In all the multitudinous interpretations of the death of Christ. This one we must hold to, as all others, of course. One Peter chapter two, the sufferings of Christ are held out to us as an example that we should follow his steps. But here it's not the example side of his sufferings, but the propitiatory side of his sufferings. By the shedding of his blood, and now we notice the term propitiation through faith on our side, on his side, by the shedding of his blood. To pay the penalty of our sin. To satisfy the wrath of God. And And this. this to show God's righteousness. The salvation he provides is, of course, totally in agreement with his divine standard of what is just and right. To show his righteousness in two respects, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God. If you want to know what that means, another scripture you could refer to is found in Paul's address to the Areopagus in Acts chapter seventeen. The times of this ignorance God overlooked. That is, he didn't visit it with his divine punishment. For the passing over of sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God. Because not only the ungodly, but the righteous like Abraham, Enoch, Moses, David, Hannah, Sarah, being justified by faith, nevertheless sinned, didn't they? Uh, why did not God visit them with his wrath? For their sins. How could God be just and declaring Abraham just when it says Abram believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness, how could that possibly be if Abram, as the history shows us, was still in practice, he still sinned from time to time? On what basis could God possibly pronounce him to be just? Here it is, God's forbearance in those old times because of the propitiatory sacrifice that was to come. The value of that propitiation, of course, extended backwards to the beginning of time. For showing, I say, uh, his righteousness at this present season. Paul doesn't mean now it's autumn of this year, so not season in that sense, or springtime, this present time, this present Christian dispensation since the Lord Jesus has come, suffered at Calvary, and the coming of the Holy Spirit has begun this new dispensation of God's grace. To show God's righteousness at this season that he might himself be just, that is remain just, and yet the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus. Notice the exact terminology. Has faith in Jesus. Abram didn't know that, uh, the Son of God would be called Jesus, did he? No one else knew until the angel told Joseph and Mary. Notice, therefore, the significance of saying not just in Christ, but the faith in Jesus, that is the one who was born of the virgin, suffered at Calvary, is now in glory. Let him that have faith in Jesus. Where then is glorying? What's that got to do with anything? Yes, but, but this is a very basic principle of God's demands on men. It is stated in Jeremiah and again in one Corinthians one. So let's turn over to one Corinthians one just to see the point in another context. One Corinthians one. And Paul is expounding God's way of salvation through the cross, which is foolishness to the Greeks and a positive scandal to the Jew. And he ends that, that chapter, verse twenty eight, and the base things of the world and the things that are despised did God choose, yea, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory before God. That is a number one principle of man's true relationship before God. Why is that? Because God has every God, anything good you have, you got from him. It would be stupid and inappropriate and an insult to God for us to start glorying in as though we were something special and the credit belonged to us. Let not the rich man boast in his riches. Let him be glad of them, enjoy them, use them, but not boast himself superior because of them. Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom. We should be wise. We should love wisdom. That means we should be philosophers, because philosophy, gentlemen, means the love of wisdom. And if we should love wisdom, we should, we are philosophers, aren't we? We are philosophoi. But let not a man put his, uh, basic trust in his wisdom and glory in that. Let not the white, the rich man put his trust in his riches, his basic trust and confidence. Let not the strong man put his basic trust and confidence and glory in that. And you see the meaning of the term glory. It's a bit difficult to put it in one word in English, to boast, yes, if you like, but it also implies a basic confidence. Let not the man that puts on his armor glory as the man who puts it off. That's a little bit of practical advice to men in the ancient world who went out fighting. They might trust in their armor, but wait on, old boy, you wait till the battle is over and you've won it before you put your trust in your armor. In the same way, do you see? Let not the warrior who goes out to arm boast as he that puts off his armor. This basis, this question of our glorying, what is our basic confidence in, and what therefore do we exult in and pride ourselves on? This lies at the heart of our relationship with God. And therefore, when it comes to salvation in particular, it immediately comes up, verse twenty seven, Where then is glorying? Well, it is excluded by this very principle of justification. By what manner of principle, if you like, by what manner of law, what manner of principle. The word law, gentlemen, can mean s- it has various connotations in Greek, and therefore in Paul's writing. Here he means by what manner of principle is this glorying excluded? By works? Well, no. You see, if justification depended on our works, then in the end we should have to have confidence in our work, shouldn't you? And you will have found it in your personal work and explaining the gospel to religious people in particular, and you say you're saved. And if they're polite, they look at you a little bit with reserve, and if they're not polite, they say you're daft. Uh, you'll say, you'll say, you saying you're better than we are? You should be aware, gentlemen, that when you say you're saved and sure of it, you cause in many religious people an underlying insecurity. They're doing their best to keep God's law, and they hope that they are succeeding, and they hope at the final judgment, if they don't get a starred first, they'll get at least an allowed second or possibly a third, or maybe an allowed pass, that is people who come below the bottom line but are allowed on conditions of mercy and whatnot to pass. And you come along and tell them that you are certain of salvation. Well, they're not. And if you are and can be, well, that suggests to them they're not doing enough. Makes them feel very insecure. No wonder they fight you. You're making them feel very secure, insecure. And therefore you have to explain this next bit, that in claiming to be justified, you're not claiming anything in your own merit. In fact, your confidence isn't in you, but in God. And altogether of his grace, yes. We conclude, therefore, we reckon, therefore, here's our conclusion, that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Now comes another question. Is this available only for Jews? No, indeed not. Is he not the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. And verse thirty adds that both Jews and Gentiles shall be saved on the exact same principle, by faith or through faith, whichever way you put it. But now verse thirty one comes as a capstone on this particular part of the argument, as you'll see, the major theme is that justification is apart from the law. It is through the death of Christ. It is through God's grace. It is through Christ's blood. It is by faith on our side. But in saying that justification is not by the works of the law, do we make the law of none effect? Are we therefore saying that the law doesn't matter? It doesn't matter what the law says. We're saved by faith, so it doesn't matter what the law says, and thus undermine the law. Here, therefore, it would be very important to see why justification by faith does not undermine the law. Indeed, it is useful to turn the tables on those folks who think salvation is by, um, uh, keeping the works of the law, to show that it is they who undermine the law. I remember years ago being taken by a friend of mine to meet a business friend of his. And my friend and I were involved in a gospel campaign outside the city of Cambridge. And she, uh, uh, invited the both of us to tea. A wealthy woman. She hadn't attended the meetings, of course. But she inquired of my friend Williams, he said, tell me, what, what, what, what do, what, what do you say to the people in your tent thing? And so he told her, you see. And in the course of that, he said that there's salvation and how you could be sure of salvation. Oh no, William, she says, you can be sure of salvation. So she turned to me. I was young and in those days handsome, but that's a long while ago. And she said, what about you? I mean, are you sure of salvation? I said, yes, madam, I am indeed. Oh no, she said. No, no. You're a very good living man, of course. I- I, I can see that. But you know, you're only starting out in life, and you might make some bad mistakes later on, of course. And what happened, will happen to you then? I said, ma'am, but I should still be saved, shouldn't I? Oh, no, of course not, she said. Oh, I didn't understand that. Um, I thought I should be s- so say, well, wh- why not? I mean, what does my faith depend on? It depends on your works, my boy, she said. How well you keep God's law. And you might make a mistake. So I said, well, ma'am, so what about you? When you arrive before God's judgment throne, what do you think God will say about you? That you have striven enough and done well enough? Well, she obviously hadn't anticipated that too realistically. And she said, well, I think God will say, look, you did, you did go astray there a bit, my dear, and you did what was wrong, but then consider only how provoked you were. Yes, you sinned, but but on the whole, uh, and I'm merciful and and and and do come in. I said, he won't say anything of the sort. She said, how do you know? I said, because he's already written down what he will say. I quoted her this verse, you'll see, that every mouth might be stopped and the whole world become guilty before God. I can see the woman's face now, she went pale white. God will never damn me, she said. But now look what she's implying. Admitting she didn't keep the law as it should be, but in the end God will say, well, all things considered, my dear, you did come short, but it doesn't matter. That is to undermine the law. Whereas God's way of salvation maintains the law. How does it? By demanding that when we come short of the law, however little or much, the penalty of that coming short must be paid so that the honor of the law mu- shall be upheld, one hundred percent upheld. It is thus upheld through the sacrifice of Christ. Notice, therefore, and this was but a superficial exposition, but notice how every phrase in that statement is important. We need to grasp every step in the argument and the point of each several statement. Now comes chapter four. Let's look at our, our, uh, layout of the argumentation in this section. We had it before, let's look at it again. Well, what I'm concerned about is not trying to expound every verse in this chapter, we haven't the time in these sessions, but to get across the importance of following the logic of the arguments. Why does this chapter four now come in here. A little bit frustrating when you first meet it. Chapter five is going to list the marvelous benefits of justification. Why doesn't he proceed immediately from, uh, uh, from this thing here to telling us the benefits? Why all this in between? And is it largely irrelevant anyway? No, it isn't irrelevant, of course not. It is an integral part of his exposition of the principle of justification by faith. And in the first place, it answers the question as follows: if justification is by faith, what do you mean by faith? And that he will explain at the end of chapter four. But the first bit is to cite authority, biblical authority, for the principle of justification by faith. For, as he pointed out in chapter one, the gospel of Christ, the gospel of God was promised before by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his son. This doctrine of justification by faith, therefore, is not a novelty thought up by Paul. Now Paul cites, to prove that point, cites his Old Testament authority. Cites what the lawyers might call a precedent. A case that has gone before and has already been settled, and establish a precedent. Example of case law then. What shall we say that Abram, our forefather according to the flesh, is found. And of course, now he's answering the objection of the Jew who put his trust in the Old Testament, and to whom the doctrine of justification by faith might sound a bit curious when he first heard it. But Paul is saying, my dear Jewish friend, my fellow Jewish friend, you know, what I'm preaching to you is straight Old Testament. And if you want to have the very foundation of the Jewish race, of course, you have to go back to Abraham, not to Moses, do you? It was Abraham that was the father of the faithful, not Moses. Abraham, the first Hebrew. And what about Abraham, therefore? If Abraham were justified by works, he is whereof to glory, that is before his fellow men, and say, well, I'm justified, you see, but I did manage things better than you did. Even so, he would not, uh, be appropriate for him to glory before God. But what determines it is not how you might like to interpret Old Testament, it's what the Old Testament actually says. For what says the scripture? We haven't the time, but gentlemen, it is important actually to, when appeal is made to scripture, to read it. See what it exactly says. This is Genesis. Anybody, anybody here confesses to know where the, where, where it is stated in the Old Testament? Pardon? Chapter fifteen. yes, marvelous. It gets ten out of ten. Anybody qualified for a star ten? What verse? Huh? Six. yeah, well, you're marvelous. Genesis fifteen six, one of the basic texts of our faith. And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. What says the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted for him for righteousness, verse three. Now the difference between works and grace. Because he stated in chap- the end of chapter three, it is by the grace of God. Do see. Justified freely by his grace. Well, what does he mean by grace? Now, to him that works, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that works not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. You see, the difference between, uh, works and grace is altogether important if you're going to understand what you mean by grace. And here, of course, we should remember that in many circles, the Roman Catholic Church is one of them, but also in high Anglicanism and a good many other versions, they'll agree with you that salvation is by grace. But if you should probe deeper, they will say that it is by God's grace that we're able to do the works that qualify for salvation. You see, we have to do the works. The works have to come up to standard, they have to qualify for salvation. But if and when we qualify by our works for salvation, we shall then admit, of course, well, it was God's grace that helped me to do the works. Is that what you mean by grace? When we're justified by grace, God gives us the grace to do the works that qualify for being justified. No, it is not. It is important to d- define our terms, and here is Paul, the master at it, defining his terms as he goes along. Eh, to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt, and as multitudes of, of preachers have pointed out, if you're working for a hundred and fifty pounds a week, or whatever it is you get, and you get to the end of the week, and the boss gives you your wages, you don't say, oh, how gracious of you to give me, uh, uh, uh, and fifty quid. He owes it to you. If he didn't give it to you, he would be convicting, c- uh, committing an offense against the law. You could sue him for it. You've done the work. You've earned the wages. The boss is indebted to you. It's a frightful thought if anybody got it into his head that the salvation of God is by our works, and God, so to speak, is indebted to us. We put God in his debt, he's obliged to give us salvation. That's absolute nonsense. Grace means the opposite of that. Notice verse five: To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Definition of what you mean by grace. It's not of works, to him that worketh not, but believes. And God justifies, here described as the ungodly. They don't have to become saints before he justifies them. They don't have to improve themselves before he justifies them. God can justify the ungodly that believe, and is righteous to do so because of the propitiation that is in Christ. I was traveling to Cork once on a train from Dublin, and it was pretty full. When I got into the compartment, I saw a seat vacant beside a priest, so I thought that might be a place to sit. So I sat beside the dear priest, you see, and got out a Greek Testament. I have to confess I did it on purpose. And sat doing no harm to anybody, reading the Greek Testament. And as I suspected, so it happened. His curiosity got to such a pitch he couldn't, uh, uh, uh, uh, resist asking me. So you're reading? Yes. What is that you're reading? The New Testament. Yes. Oh, you must be a very good man to be reading the New Testament on the train. But what is that language? Is that Latin? No, he said, no, it's not Latin, it's Greek. Greek? Oh. Oh. Well, you must be a very good man. But, uh, uh, why do you read it? Oh, I said I read it because, you see, I'm one of those people, uh, that has found salvation and I'm absolutely sure of salvation, and that's why I like to read this, you see. Oh yes, he said, yes. But of course, but I ca- you can't be sure of salvation, you know. I said, what, can't I? Well, I thought I could. Ah, why not? Well, he said, it all depends on your works, doesn't it? Salvation does. Well, I said, I didn't know that. Yes, he said, you see, you see the parable that the Lord Jesus taught, uh, of the, of the men who were given a talent, you see, and they came before him, and some had worked well with their talents, and they were rewarded, you see. And then there came the miserable chap who, who hadn't worked, you see. And you know what happened to him? He was put in a bad place. I have to work to get salvation. I said, I never knew that that meant that. I said, I tell you what it was. I- I- I'm reading it here, for instance. So I- I- I- uh, read it out to him, you see, from this aforesaid Greek. To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. That's there exactly so, says he, you see, you have to work. I, I said, half a minute, let me read the next verse. But to him that worketh not. I said, what about him? Oh, he's no good, dear. I mean, he's no good whatsoever. He, you know, will be in danger of going to the bad place. I said, that's very curious what you say. Let me read the whole verse. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Hm. I don't know what that means, he said. I never, I never read that before. I don't know what it means, he said. That then Paul was an old rascal, wasn't he? Yes. This importance of how you define the word grace. When it comes to justification by God's grace, it doesn't mean God gives us the grace to do the works that merit the salvation. It means it is not by works, it is of God's own undeserved grace and favor. He quotes Abraham, he quotes also David. Abraham was justified, so was David, but here it was a question of forgiveness. And, uh, and, uh... here, as you notice, let's read the works, uh, let's read the verses. Even as days of also pronounces blessing upon the man unto whom God reckons righteousness apart from works, saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute, reckon sin. You'll see David, when he wrote that psalm, was repenting over a grievous sin that he did. Would God, in the legal sense, hold that sin against him eternally? Not only the negative then being declared righteous, but would that still leave the sin to be faced and to be punished in the sense of eternal punishment? No, the sin was covered from that point of view. God sent Nathan to tell David so. He was forgiven. Not by works in the context, by definition, not by works. But forgiveness. The two sides, therefore, pronounced right with God, and our sins, in that sense, blotted out from the record, in the sense that they will not be brought up against us in the final judgment. Gentlemen, just let me turn aside to remind you of the term, uh, of the meaning of the basic terminology. When, according to the New Covenant, God promises that our sins and iniquities will, he will remember no more. That does not mean that God will forget that we have been sinners. The notion that God will forget that we've been sinners is impossible, of course, if you take notice of what the choirs of heaven are singing. Worthy you are because the Lamb was slain and has redeemed us to God by his blood. When we get home to heaven and hear the choir singing it, we shan't nudge our fellows standing beside us, shall we, and say, look here, I don't understand this bit. Why was the lamb wounded in the, in the first place anyway? Shall we? Shall we forget that we once were sinners? And will God look upon his dear son and say, I can't think now, why was he wounded at Calvary? Can't think what that was about now. No, no, none will ever get that, surely. What it means is as follows. In an ancient court like the court of David and other kings in Judah, there were summary court officials. There was the man, uh, over the house. He was the chief steward. He ran the palace and all its affairs. He organized the law courts, the king's bench division. He organized all visitors and received diplomats and ambassadors and things, all that kind of thing. He was over the palace, the major domo. Then there was a head of the army, of armed forces, of course, captain of the host. Then there was a fellow called, in our old English, a recorder, or the remembrancer. Both words mean the same, of course. He was the man that kept the records of the good things people had done and the bad things they had done. And from time to time, the king would summon the recorder to his presence and get him to read out the record in the books. So one of the Persian kings, he couldn't sleep one night and told the recorder to come, and he had to read in the books. And you'll come across, uh, this man, he'd done some grievous thing, plotted an assassination or something. Well, the king would want to know, has he been dealt with? Has he been punished? No? Well, then punish him then. This man has done some good. Has he been rewarded? Well, not yet. Well, get about and do it then. That's what is called a remembrance of sin. You'll see. And when God remembers people's sins, in that sense, then the punishment follows. What God has promised to do is their sins and iniquities I will not, in that sense, bring up before the court of my justice, examine them, and then execute the penalty on them. Their sins and iniquities I will not remember anymore because the penalty has already been paid. So then we come to verse nine, and what will that add? Nine to twelve will add the question of when exactly did, um, Abram, was Abram justified? So let's put this up on the board because the argument is detailed and complicated. In chapter four, Paul is citing Old Testament, for Old Testament authority, biblical authority, for the idea of justification by faith. He quotes the experience of Abram as a precedent, a legal precedent, case law. If Abram was justified that way, then the precedent tells us that everybody can be justified that way. And if they're going to be justified, must be justified that way. The experience of Abram then, according to Genesis fifteen six. Abram believed God, and his faith was reckoned for righteousness as an act of God's grace. The experience of David, case law again, precedent, Old Testament authority, for the doctrine of justification by faith through grace. Iniquities forgiven. It's the negative side cancelled. Sin not reckoned. That is not brought before God for his judgment on it. Righteousness is reckoned apart from works. Is Paul the evangelist? If you're going to evangelize Jews, you better have the case from scripture. Wow, you better. And anyway, it's the word of God and authoritative. Now we come to the next two points. The relation of the institution of circumcision to justification. And the relation of the law to the promises that God made to Abraham. Mm-hmm. So, verses nine to twelve, the question arises of when exactly was Abraham justified? Justified. Was it before he was circumcised? Or after he was circumcised? You say, what does it matter when he was circumcised? Oh, it matters a lot. Because if he were circumcised before he was justified, you could argue, and the Jews would, yes, but you see, he was justified because he was already circumcised, and then his justification was one step further, you see. And you have to be ju- circumcised in order to qualify for salvation. And you see what a practical problem that was. Acts chapter fifteen, gentlemen. Do study it. They came down from Judea to A- Antioch, uh, to Jerusalem. They came to Jerusalem, I'm sorry, uh, uh, Paul and Barnabas came from A- A- Antioch, but uh, others came to Jerusalem to the council. And they were of the Pharisees who believed. And they held, look here, you can't tell Gentiles that they're simply justified by faith. To be justified, to be saved, they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. And the apostles had to face the question. And lay down the principle beyond all doubt. And it was, of course, that we're justified by faith, not only Jews, but also Gentiles. Justified by faith. Jew and Gentile stand on the same platform and ground, not by circumcision, not by the works of the law, but through faith. And here Paul is pointing out the historical basis for that argument. When was Abram circumcised? Anybody here remember what chapter in Genesis Abram's circumcision is recorded? Hmm? Hello? Seventeen. Yes, go to the top of the class. Seventeen. What chapter is it where he was justified? Pardon? um Fifteen. yes. Oh, great stuff. Now you see an implication. Paul regards the very historical order of the events in Genesis as being inspired authoritatively. The chronology is important. He was justified before he was circumcised. And that shows us that justification does not depend upon circumcision. Biblical authority for it. Later on, he was circumcised, and so all his posterity had to be circumcised as a signal, amongst other things, that they were physically descended from Abram. But the point remains that if Abram was justified without circumcision, and circumcision therefore is not necessary to salvation, the fact that all subsequent descendants of Abram, uh, the male side were circumcised, shows that important as that sign was, it didn't gain salvation for them. It didn't even help to have them saved. Their justification had to be the same, on the same basis as that of Abraham, which is what these two verses tell us. Us. Then there is a second thing. The relation of the law to the promises of God. God made all sorts of promises to Abram. That in him and in his seed shall all the nations of the world be blessed. Promised him that his seed should possess the world. I cannot now go into those, the details of those explicit promises. But now again the question comes. When those promises were made to Abram, that through him and his seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And when God gave a, a promise and a covenant to Abram of a possession of the land, was that dependent on his being circumcised? No, indeed not. Those promises were made to Abram according to chapter fifteen onwards, the possession of the land of Israel. Before he was circumcised, they were promised to him and to his seed. And why is it important to get hold of that? Let's read verse fourteen. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect. Meaning, if the inheritance were by, uh, the law, then you all you have to do is to keep the law, and you would get it. Faith would become irrelevant. Secondly, faith is made of none effect. It would be, uh, irrelevant in the context. But then, if it were of the law, the promise would become of none effect because we can't keep the law. The law works wrath. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. You can't transgress a law that isn't there. But once the law comes in, any breach of it is a transgression. But we'll notice why it is of faith then and not of the law. 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 only to that which is of the law, that is Jews, but to them also which are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. Now, gentlemen, that is a large topic, and I haven't the time now to, uh, discourse upon it in detail, but I want to bring it to your attention because it is a important argument about the gospel that, in my experience, many believers miss. They are so glued to the notion that Abram was promised an earthly inheritance in the land of Canaan. Good for him, but we Christians are promised not an inheritance on earth, dear me, that's rather below our dignity, but an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us, do you see? So that we're not interested in the covenant made with Abraham, nor in the inheritance that that covenant guaranteed to him. I'd like to read to you a verse in, uh, Galatians chapter three that reminds us of what we inherit through Abraham. It's Galatians chapter three. It is verse, uh, fifteen. Brothers, I speak after the manner of men. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one makes it void or adds thereto. 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. So Paul is saying that when God made this covenant with Abraham, Genesis fifteen, the very same chapter in which Abram was justified, God made a covenant with him and with his seed to give him certain inheritance. The word seed was meant primarily by God to indicate Abram's seed, which is Christ. Now, you might find that a bit steep until you had time to think about it. I ask you just to accept the fact because you happen to believe the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, is inspired and wouldn't dare contradict it. So the covenant God made with Abram and his seed, the seed is Christ, says Paul. And it was to that seed that God promised this great inheritance, yes? It was promised to Christ. Yeah? Anybody got any objection, serious objection, to Christ in- inheriting the, the promised inheritance? Huh? I mean, after all, it started off by being, uh, some acres in the Middle East. A land in the Middle East. Any objection anybody has here to Christ being heir to that? Wouldn't think it's unworthy of Christ to say, and to claim an earthly inheritance, I mean? Would it be less than spiritual of Christ to think of that? Isn't he content with a heavenly inheritance, my boy? No, no, you say, wait a minute, oh, half a minute. No, he's going to rule from shore to shore. He's going to claim dominion over this planet and any others that exist anyway. Righto. Christ is going to inherit it because he is Abram's seed. But now look at the end of the chapter. You'll see. Verse twenty seven: for as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abram's seed. And heirs according to the promise. If you've not seen that before, you might feel yourself richer than you ever imagined you were. You are an heir to the promises covenanted to Abraham about this great inheritance. Because it was promised to Abraham and his seed, and now by God's grace, you've been incorporated into Christ. You have put on Christ. You are Abram's seed, therefore. And if you are Abram's seed, you are heirs in the terms of that covenant to thee and to thy seed. Well, shout in- internally, don't disturb the peace, you maybe shout a bit, uh, quiet, hallelujah. Gentlemen, you are richer than you might have imagined. And that being so, if you've got any common sense in your head and practicality, you'll want to know, is that inheritance secure for me? On what ground is this given? Was it given after the law was given or before the law was given? But historically, there's no doubt about it. Abraham was justified before the law was given. Abraham was given this covenant of inheritance before the law was given. And the law that came four hundred years after us cannot change that covenant to make it of none effect. Did not depend on the law, but on God's gracious promise that Abraham believed. And the reason why it is through faith and grace is this, we come back to Romans four sixteen. 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. Shout hallelujah do. What magnificent things these are. The promise, absolutely sure, but you'll have to study your Old Testament to see the chronology of it. The justification before the law. The promise and the covenant before the law. Justification by faith before he was even circumcised. And the covenant that guarantees the inheritance, Genesis fifteen again, before he was circumcised. It's important that it inspires an authoritative chronology of God's great acts of salvation in the Old Testament. So here is Old Testament authority and precedent. Paul was a lawyer, you mustn't forget that, not a Roman lawyer, though he knew a di- a bit about that. He was a Jewish lawyer before he got converted. Uh, what is the rest of the chapter four about, before we come to enjoy all the wonderful details of the effects of our justification? Well, now we come to the part that is going to illustrate for us what you mean by faith. And you will notice a difference in the, in the nature of the argument now at this point. When it comes to being justified and the grounds thereof, by faith, and the inheritance and the promises, Paul cites Abram's case as an actual man walking on two legs, who was literally justified, and asks on what principle was he justified. He's not a type, gentlemen, at this stage. Not talking typology, we're talking about a literal man who was literally justified, who was literally given a covenant of this inheritance. It's an actual case, and it establishes a precedent valid for us as well. But now when it comes to the fact that this was all Abraham believed God, it was received by faith. What do you mean by faith? Because somebody mentioned it a while ago, in the interval, I think it was, that if you try to tell some people that we're justified by faith without works, they will say, but even faith is a work, isn't it? Well, there is a scripture that says that to that effect. The work of God is that you should believe on him. But what it means by work in that context is another point, of course. But let us adhere to this for the moment. Paul is now going to use analogy. One thing like another thing. And why he has to do that is obvious, isn't it? When Abram believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness, Genesis fifteen six, what was it that he believed God about? God- faith is always a response, you know, to what God has said. What was it that Abram believed God about? When it is said that he believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Was it he believed that Jesus had died for his sins? Yeah? Oh no, obviously not. Well, what was it he believed in? Well, come on, have a go. Genesis fifteen. what was it about? Genesis fifteen says, and Abraham believed God. What does Genesis fifteen five say? What was it he believed? Pardon? Soon shall I see David. Yes, that's right, you see. So shall thy seed be. In other words, from chapter one uh, chapter fifteen verse one, Abraham has a word with God and says, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless? And he that shall be possessor of my house is Damasek Eleazar, his steward. And Abraham said, behold, to me thou hast given no seed, and though one born in my house is mine heir. What's the good of your promising me all this great inheritance and everything else when I'm very old and I got no son? And God's reply to that was, verse five— uh, verse four: behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, this man shall not be thine heir, but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad and said, Look now toward heaven and tell the stars, if thou able- be able to mal- to tell them. And he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. What Abram believed God about was that God was going to give him a son. Yes? If we're going to take this as history, gentlemen, we must take it literally at this point, yes. And that was the promise. It wasn't, of course it wasn't, God came to him and said, you know, Jesus has died for your sin. God couldn't have said it, not then. It was that he was going to have a son, and he believed God. But you say, what is the good of your citing to me then Abraham as a precedent? God is not promising me a son, is he? How is his case parallel to mine? Well, now that's the point, isn't it? If you're going to say that Abraham was justified by faith because he believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Um, how is his case similar to ours? So that we can pattern ourselves on that. Well, now Paul is asking us to, uh, to think the analogy between Abraham's faith and ours. And how at base and at heart they represent the same thing. For it goes on to show in chapter four that God made this promise to Abraham, he's going to have a son, he's going to give him a son. That's chapter fifteen. But Abraham was already old, and Sarah was barren. It's a delightful little story in Genesis, uh, you know. Chapter sixteen says how Abram- Sarah one day came to Abram. She said, Abram, dear. He said, what, my love? And she said, I've been thinking. He says, have you really, Sarah? Good. And what were you thinking, my dear? Well, she said, I was thinking about that promise that God made us. Oh yes. You mean the promise about our, he's going to give us a son? Yes, said Sarah. And what have you been thinking, my love? She said, well, I've been thinking this, you see. When God said I'm going to give you a son, didn't just mean he's going to give us a son like that, Abram. Uh, I know you believe God, but you see, um, uh, God helps those that help themselves. And what he meant was that we've got to do our part and use our resources, and then he will bless our efforts, Abram. Oh, is that how it is, said Abram? I thought of that before. But we don't have any resources, Sarah, my dear. I mean, not to put a fine point on it, but you're barren, my dear, aren't you? Yes, she said, but I, we have some resources. You could take Hagar and, uh, father a child by her. Well, if you say so, said Abram. Is, uh, that's what God means. You have, we have to do our best to, to, to fulfill his promise, you see. And so Ishmael was born. And Abram rather liked him. And God said, sorry, Abram, no. Oh, please, said Abram, let him be the one that you promised. No, says God, no. No, no, not him. You see, Abram, when I said I was going to give you a son, I meant I was going to give you a son. Uh, not by your contrivance. And so now God left Abram till he was virtually dead as far as fathering any child is concerned. He was decrepit. And Abram, oh, please notice the authorized has just, uh, followed a f- a a a mistaken manuscript to the point, Abram did not consider his body. That's nonsense. He did. Of course he did, is the true reading of the manuscripts. Abram considered his body now as good as dead. He c- he was al- uh, alive enough to father Ishmael, but now he was not. He was virtually dead. If now he was going to have a son, it must be that God would intervene and bring a son out of a virtually dead body. That's what faith meant. And Fa- Abraham was required to go on those years believing, against hope, so to speak, spite of the apparent and growing impossibility. He believed in a God that could bring life out of death. That's faith in God, helpless dependence on God, that God would work. How is that faith analogous to ours? If we're going to be justified by faith, then we've got to show that same kind of faith. And Paul points out what the analogy is, do you see? Now, verse twenty three: it was not written for his sake alone that it was reckoned unto him for righteousness, 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. So how is that parable? How is that an analogous? How is that, uh, like Abraham's faith? Well, our faith for justification depends not only on the death of Christ, but on his resurrection. Because if he's dead, there's no salvation anyway. It's absolutely vital for us that Christ should rise from the dead. Now let me ask you, gentlemen, what do you contribute to Christ rising from the dead? Anything in particular? So let me use a, a, a, a, a, a, a crude, um, illustration. Suppose you and I were living in the time of the apostles, and Christ had been buried. He was in the tomb. Yes? So this is the first day after he was buried. And we're all standing around the tomb. And we know in our hearts that unless he ri- rises again from the dead, w- we should never be saved. Yeah. And we remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he's going to Jerusalem and be crucified and, and, and, and rise from the dead. Unless he rises from the dead, we cannot be saved. So we stand around the grave and we say, well, now look, now we're required to believe. I tell you what, let's, let's, let's, um, we've got to really believe, you see, not just believe, really got to believe. And believe the proper way, and with with the the real volume of belief. You see, however you me- you measure belief on the Richter scale, you you've got to do it the right way round. So let's all stand around the grave and join hands and say, we believe, we believe, we believe, we believe, believe, and as we believe, God will raise him from the dead, you see, by our faith. Well, you laugh at that, but you, you be serious for a minute. There are many people that look upon faith like that. Salvation's by faith, but now you have to believe the right way. Do you see? You've got... I'm not betraying secrets, gentlemen, I tell you that over the years I've had more than one person come to me in great distress as believers. Are they saved at all? I know it's by faith, but you see, they've heard the preacher say the devils believe, that doesn't do them any good. And when I believed, was it the right kind of faith? You see, and they tell me, I can't remember. You'll say, what, was I looking to Jesus alone when I believed? Um, I can't remember, so I mightn't be saved. And said one man, I, I, I have not been saved all these years. Now I shall have to go to the elders and tell them I've not been saved, and I shall have to be baptized all over again, and oof. The anxiety caused. He said, I get down and, and I say, now this time I'm going to believe the right way round. My faith only in God, you see? And then I feel better. But then the next day, doubt come in, did I believe the right way? Even so. And unconsciously they're turning faith into a work that merits the salvation. So you, you have to just not believe, you have to believe to the right strength and in the right way and through the right power to qualify. But we've heard Paul saying that faith is not a work in that sense, it's the very opposite. Our faith, gentlemen, did not cause Jesus to rise from the dead. Ah. He rose from the dead because of what God did. If God didn't do it, we're not saved. There's nothing you can do about it. You better start trusting God. That God did it and brought life out of death. All this evidence galore that God did it and that Jesus is risen. But you see the point about faith, don't you? Our faith in that sense is like Abraham's faith. But we don't make any contribution to this. It is God that did it. Christ was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification. So what we've been doing this morning is to look now at this doctrine of justification by faith, and we've tried to follow the arguments through. The statement of the case, the Old Testament authority for it, and then the question of what is meant by faith. We shall have to spend a part of our third session today on looking briefly at the results of justification by faith. Sorry to have kept you so long, but your lunch will s- will s- taste all the better for having starved an extra fifteen minutes.