Why Is Abraham the Example of Justification?
Why is Abraham cited as the great example in the Word of God of one justified by faith alone? Out of the many characters in the Bible, there are two main reasons why he was selected by Paul through the Holy Spirit in Romans 4.
Reason 1: Abraham was chosen in order to counter the anticipated Jewish objection to the rich gospel teaching of the preceding verses in Romans 3: “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe” (22); “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (24); “To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (26); “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (28). Clearly our justification or righteousness before God is all of grace, by faith and not works, and only in Christ crucified and risen!
However, the legalistic Jews would contradict this with their own ideas regarding Abraham. The following are some of their nomist claims. “Abraham was the only righteous man of his generation,” referring to inherent righteousness. “Because of his merits, he was chosen to be the ancestor of the Jews.” “Abraham began to serve God at the age of three” (though Joshua 24:2 describes him as an idolater in Ur of the Chaldees before Jehovah effectually called him). “Abraham kept all the precepts of the law, which he knew beforehand by a kind of intuition.” “He was the first of seven righteous men who brought back the Shekinah which had retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it could take up its abode in the Tabernacle.”
Thus Paul, the former Pharisee who was trained “at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3), sets forth the biblical view of Abraham to answer this common Jewish objection to the gospel truth of justification by faith alone.
Reason 2: The Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul, refers to Abraham in Romans 4 because he is a particularly good illustration, example, demonstration, proof and pattern of God’s gracious justification, as set forth in the previous verses (Rom. 3:21-31).
Various factors are involved in this. First, instead of merely quoting an Old Testament prophecy that people would be justified by faith alone in the messianic age, Abraham is given as a concrete individual in the Bible. Second, unlike a lesser figure, say, Baruch, Jeremiah’s assistant, Abraham is a “big” character in Scripture. Third, unlike a foreigner, someone like Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, Abraham is of the line of the Israelites or Jews. Fourth, unlike a later figure, say, the prophet Malachi, Abraham is foundational to the Israelites or Jews, as their great forefather. Fifth, God had inspired a clear Old Testament text stating that Abraham was justified by faith alone (Gen. 15:6).
Thus Romans 4, that amazing chapter on justification through faith only, opens with Abraham and returns to him often. He was a concrete individual, a great figure in the Old Testament, someone as Jewish as they come, yea, a founding father of Israel! Paul opens the chapter with these words: “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?” (1). “For what saith the scripture?” the apostle asks, before quoting this unequivocal text from Genesis: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3).
This appeal to the example of Abraham is Paul’s typical approach when proving justification by faith alone in Scripture. This is not only his method in Romans 4 but also in Galatians 3.
The phrase “as pertaining to the flesh” in Romans 4:1 has been understood in two different ways. First, it could modify “our father,” the immediately preceding phrase: “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?” Then it would refer to physical descent, as it does elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Rom. 9:5). Romans 4:1 would be stating that Abraham is the father of Paul, first-century Jews in Rome and, indeed, all Jews. This interpretation is orthodox, makes sense in the context and has support among commentators, such as John Calvin and William Hendriksen.
Second, others, including Charles Hodge and Robert Haldane, reckon that “as pertaining to the flesh” in Romans 4:1 modifies “hath found,” the immediately succeeding phrase: “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?”
According to this reading, “flesh” refers to that which is outward or external, as in Philippians 3:4-6: “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” In other words, what did Abraham find or discover, by divine wisdom, when he considered his standing before Jehovah “as pertaining to the flesh,” that is, in light of his outward or external circumstances or qualifications? This understanding of Romans 4:1 is also within the boundaries of orthodoxy and fits with the context.
For our purposes, we do not have to choose between these two interpretations of “as pertaining to the flesh.” But we do have to answer the question of Romans 4:1: “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?” So what did Abraham find, discover, learn or come to know regarding his legal status in the eyes of God? To that we turn next time, DV! Rev. Stewart
The Idea of the Organic in Scripture (9)
The same truth of John 15:1-8, that God works with an organism, is taught in Psalm 80, where the entire nation of Israel is compared to a vine. This vine was brought out of Egypt and planted in Canaan where it grew and flourished (8-11). But the Psalmist asks plaintively why God had neglected and cut down His vine (12-13).
In the days when it prospered, Israel contained elect and reprobate, but the elect were dominant in the land and kept the laws of God. When the vine was cut down, the reason is that the nation was, as a whole, wicked and idolatrous. It was known as an ungodly nation, even though there were 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (I Kings 19:18). When, at last, the nation was corrupt and beyond repentance, it was taken into captivity—first, the Northern Kingdom, then Judah, the Southern Kingdom.
But Daniel and his three friends went into Babylon, as did other elect as a part of the vine that was cut down. The Scriptures speak of a small plant nearly dead, once again nourished and growing. The captivity was God’s way of cutting away dead branches from the vine, so that the small twig that was left could grow again unimpeded.
We ought to notice that the Northern Kingdom was lost as a nation, forever. Since the time of Jeroboam I, it had served idols and, before its end, God had called the few elect out, through the invitation of Hezekiah to come to the Passover in Jerusalem (II Chron. 30).
If one understands this fundamental truth, he will see that such texts as Ezekiel 33:11 and similar verses cannot be used to prove a well-meant and loving offer to the reprobate, but teach that the gospel is preached to the organism of the nation of Israel with its calling to repent. No one may say that God is pleased that a man perish, as if He were a sadist. He is serious in His demand that men turn from their sins. That also explains why, repeatedly in the prophets, threats of dire punishment and glorious promises are preached to the nation of Israel as a whole.
As I said before, Scripture teaches the organic ways of God’s working; the well-meant offer is individualistic and Arminian. No wonder Arminians are always jumping from text to text without giving any serious thought to the verse itself or attempting to interpret it in its context or in the light of the whole of God’s Word, for Scripture is itself an organic unit, a portrait of God revealed in Christ in all His works.
Hence Scripture interprets Scripture and can never contradict itself. Scripture does not say, on the one hand, that God loves all men (the well-meant offer), and also that God accomplishes His decree of election and reprobation in the way of preaching, on the other. Nor can one fall back on lame excuse of “apparent contradiction.”
One more point must here be emphasized. That God preaches the gospel, through Christ and His servants, to organisms means also that He deals with people in their generations. God visits “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them” that do not keep the second commandment (Ex. 20:5).
There are two aspects of this truth. The one is positive and the other negative. The positive is that God saves His elect church in the line of generations (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39). The Baptists make the sad mistake of denying Jehovah’s organic work in the two testaments of Scripture, in spite of the fact that Stephen calls Israel in the Old Testament God’s “church” (Acts 7:38) and Scripture teaches that the church is one from the beginning of time to the return of Christ.
Covenant instruction in the home, the Christian school and the church is the means that God uses to continue His covenant in generations. I personally have known families that can trace their ancestors back to the Reformation in Switzerland and the Netherlands. One family, for example, has an ancestor who was married by Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer who lived in the early sixteenth century.
This does not mean that all the individuals in every generation are saved, for some parents are unfaithful in their calling to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Prov. 22:6). But it does mean that, although God was constantly pruning the vine, the original vine brought forth many generations that were truly His people.
The negative aspect of this is that, because branches in the vine are not individuals but generations, once a branch is cut out of the vine, those who are unfaithful are lost in their generations.
The same is true of nations composed of families. America and Europe once had the gospel and their churches flourished. But recent generations have appeared that are bent on the extermination of Christianity. They look to be nearing success. God is taking the gospel away from these nations, for His command to repent is met with the scorn, opposition and hatred of those who truly teach and preach the gospel of the cross.
This also applies to churches. Once a church forsakes the truth, even in small measure, that congregation or denomination becomes worse as it develops in false doctrine, until reformation becomes the only way of saving the elect and this remnant is saved by way of secession. God calls His faithful out of a church that has become like Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22). The “door” (20) is not the heart of individual Laodiceans but the door of the congregation that no longer is hot or cold but lukewarm and distasteful to God.
Nor does Jehovah return again to such a church or denomination, although sometimes one may be saved from an apostate family or church as “a brand plucked out of the fire” (Zech. 3:2). “Revival” is not the answer. As opposed to solid biblical reformation, revival is merely a shallow, emotional and artificial religion. We need a genuine return to the full scriptural and creedal Reformed faith regarding doctrine and life, preaching and sacraments, church discipline and government (Acts 20:27).
I personally have relatives who have drifted away from the church among whose generations only a few still even belong to any congregation. Most no longer bother about the Lord Jesus Christ or His church at all.
This organic conception of Jehovah’s works has no room for the Arminian notion of the well-meant offer with its impotent and frustrated God, who loves all men and wants everyone in the world to be saved but fails miserably. I ardently wish that this great truth were understood and believed! Prof. Hanko
