Justification: A Full Slate — John Murray

Abraham Was Justified Before Circumcision

The fourth chapter of the Encyclical of Romans, beginning at verse 9. Come up with blessedness then upon the circumcision only, but upon the uncircumcision also. For we say that faith was weakened to Abraham for righteousness.

How was it then weakened? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of righteousness of the faith, which he had yet been uncircumcised.

The argument of the apostle in this particular chapter, at this particular point, is based upon the fact that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. And that is such an obvious fact that it might not seem at all necessary for the apostle to conduct any extended argument concerning it.

For the statement with reference to Abraham, which occurs in Genesis 15, 6, and Abraham believed in the Lord and he reckoned it to him for righteousness, is a statement which applies to Abraham at least fourteen years before the right to circumcision had been instituted.

We don't find reference to circumcision until we come to Genesis 17, when Ishmael was thirteen years old, and therefore about thirteen years at least must have elapsed between the time with reference to which it is certain that Abraham believed in the Lord and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and the time when circumcision had been administered to Abraham and to his seed when he was ninety-nine years old.

So why, why labor the point? It's an obvious fact of history. And yet, you see, the apostle Paul in this particular chapter is facing great pain to point out that Abraham was cast aside long before he had been circumcised.

Circumcision Is Not the Ground of Justification

Why? Because a great many of the Jews had completely misinterpreted the relation of circumcision to Abraham's justification for Abraham's righteousness. They had completely misunderstood the relationship of circumcision to faith, and consequently it was necessary for the apostle Paul to base an argument on this very simple and obvious historical fact that Abraham believed in the Lord and it was counted to him for righteousness long before there was any institution of circumcision.

Now what was the misunderstanding on the part of a great many Jews with reference to whom the apostle Paul had a great deal of concern in this particular example? Well, the misunderstanding is that they had in one way or another regarded the circumcision of Abraham as that by which he attained to righteousness.

They had been controlled by this principle, that is, their thinking had been controlled by this principle, that a man was justified in the sight of God by his work, justified in the sight of God by what he himself is and by what he himself does.

And they had regarded circumcision as definitely pointing to that conclusion because after all, circumcision is a certain work that is performed. It is something which Abraham did, did indeed in obedience to the divine command, but nevertheless something which he performed and which in that respect is in the category of a work.

And they had regarded circumcision, therefore, as an index to that kind of working on the basis of which Abraham was accepted with God and was justified. And they had applied that misunderstanding of the relation of circumcision to justification, to the justification of Abraham, to the whole of their own thinking.

And the great fundamental error of their thinking was, of course, that a man was justified and accepted in the sight of God by reason of what he himself is or by reason of what he himself does. And the argument of the apostle in this particular chapter is directed very definitely to the correction of that fundamental error.

There is no more basis of fundamental error in the whole realm of what we call religion than to think that a man is accepted in the sight of God, is justified by God on the basis of what he himself is or on the basis of what he himself does.

And therefore it was not at all superfluous for the apostle Paul to appeal to that very simple fact of history because it was a very cautious, a very effective way of exposing this fundamental error of Jewish thinking.

And you can see, therefore, the relevance and the effectiveness of his appeal to such a simple historical fact that Abraham was justified before God and had been righteous in the sight of God long before.

And therefore circumcision could have had absolutely nothing to do with his actual acceptance with God. It had its own practice, it had its own place, but it was not anything on the basis of which he could have been accepted with God as righteous because he had been accepted with God as righteous long before ever he had been circumcised.

The Continuing Relevance of Paul's Argument

So you might well ask the question,.

Is this of any consequence to us? The fundamental historical facts to which the apostle Paul appeals here are well known to us, and therefore truly it is unnecessary for us now, of age, in our particular situation, to argue the point that the apostle Paul did.

Well, that is very, very far from being the case. It is just as relevant to us in our certain situation here in the year of our Lord, 1958, to base an argument upon these simple historical facts as it was for the apostle Paul himself at the beginning of this Christian era.

First of all, there are just approximately 1 ,900 years since the apostle Paul turned reciprocal. According to all evidence, according to most reasonable evidence, reciprocal was written in 58 AD. That's just exactly 1 ,900 years ago and a few months.

The last of 1 ,900 years does not make in the least degree irrelevant this particular argument of his point. So why now? Why is it not irrelevant for us? Why is it just as necessary for us today to take a stance of simple historical facts as it was for the apostle 1 ,900 years ago?

Just for this very reason. I said that Romans had gone at the fundamental era of all that we call religion is to think that we are accepted in the sight of God on the basis of what we ourselves are or on the basis of what we ourselves do.

That's the fundamental religious era. There is nothing that is more in direct contradiction to the faith of God's people. There is nothing that is more temporally in contradiction to the revelation which God has given us.

Nothing that is more directly in contradiction to the gospel of the grace of God than that particular tenet. We are accepted in God's sight on the basis of what we are us or on the basis of what we do.

And yet, in the late ascendancy of our own minds, and I mean the late ascendancy of the hearts and minds of every one of us, is just that fundamental religious era. There is nothing that is more characteristic of us, naturally, than just to think along that very pattern, to think after that very pattern of thought.

Moral Decency Cannot Justify a Sinner

Let me give you just a few examples. I suppose you know just as well as I do that when a great many people are confronted with the question of their relationship to God and their hope for eternity, the spontaneous, natural response of their hearts and minds is as presents is possible.

Well, I don't lie. I don't commit adultery.

I don't murder. I live a very honest, upright life. I'm very decent in my behavior. I'm a good neighbor. I don't want to do harm to anybody. They begin to talk to you about their own decency of behavior and conduct, and then they will perhaps say, whether they will say it or not, it's the implication of their thinking, Well, since I'm such a decent person, I don't believe that the Lord will have to use me.

So it's a grand thing for people to be decent. It's a grand thing for people not to be notorious and treacherous of God's law, and to live outwardly an upright life in society. It's a splendid thing indeed.

And we're always very thankful for people who are decent, who are good neighbors, who are good helpful members of society, and who do not have transgressed God's law of religion. But don't you see that in that kind of response to the question, How do I expect to be justified in the sight of God?

How do I expect to be accepted with God as righteous? Don't you see that that attitude of mine, that characteristic response of ours and mine, is just that, or the pattern of the basic fundamental religious error, that we are to be accepted in the sight of God and justified by Him on the basis of what we are and on the basis of what we do.

Religious Ordinances Cannot Establish Acceptance With God

Take another person. He or she is confronted with this question, Well, what is your relationship to God? How do you expect to stand before God in the day of His awakening or His judgment? And perhaps you'll get an answer as to this, right?

Well, I was baptized. I'm a member of the Church, and I go to the Lord's table, and I'm aware of many things that are connected with the Church of Christ. Yes, and nothing necessarily objectionable about any of these things.

Baptism is a divine ordinance. The Lord's Supper is a divine ordinance. Attendance upon the means of grace is an obligation when things are not yet. And though besides a person who has had past many a person or God from these institutions of God's appointment, don't you see again that that is just that, or the pattern of the basic religious error of which we are speaking, that a person is going to be accepted in the sight of God on the basis of what he does, and particularly in this case on the basis of what he does in connection with the Church of God.

Ancestral Faith Is Not a Substitute for Personal Faith

Take another instance. I suppose you find such people too, I have. You confront them with the great basic question of their relationship to God, and the kind of answer you'll get is this, well, I had a very godly mother.

I had a very godly father. And you get a rare chance. You get a long story about the godly forebears that that particular person has. And your only inference can be, is this, that as related to this fundamental religious question of our acceptance with God as righteous, they're really basing their expectation of acceptance with God honestly on their godly answers.

And it almost amounts to ancestral worship. Very close to it. Now, it's a damn thing to have a godly parent. And lo, besides a person who despises the godliness of his parents or the godliness of his ancestry, it's an inestimable privilege.

And the grace of God normally flows along the line of heaven and godliness. The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, and from them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children, to such as keep his covenants, and to those who remember his commandments to do.

I say again, lo, besides a person that despises a godly ancestor, and lo, besides, still more, the person who contradicts and runs counter to, that's going to be counted, let us say, by the evil of his godly parents.

But again, notice this, that in relation to the central question, you have the same fundamental religious errors. Because it all comes back to this, that we are going to be accepted with God in one way or another on the basis of some particular relationship, on the basis of some particular human relationship.

And it was just precisely that pattern of thought coming to expression in various ways that the Apostle Paul was dealing with in this particular case. And that is why he takes such a obvious religious name.

It is to be derived from the fact that Abraham was justified long before he was born. And that that position was not the ground of his justification, but simply the field, the final field of that justification which he had with God on an entirely different level.

The First Mark of the Blessed Man: Conviction of Sin

And the Apostle Paul is giving us here in this particular chapter the gospel of the grace of God. And he's propounding for us that in which the blessedness of a righteous man consists. In other words, he's giving us the mark of that blessedness that consists in our acceptance with God in this place.

That's all right. I am not going to mention that. God has shown how necessary it was for the Apostle Paul to provide us with his arguments, and how necessary it is for us to take ourselves from the relevance of his arguments on the question that is the greatest, basic, and fundamental question in our acceptance with God, which comes up to be stated by him.

And the first thing that is to be noted, or at least the first thing I shall mention, is that the criterion of the blessed man is this. Now remember, that's what I'm talking about. We're talking now of the blessed man.

The criterion by which a blessed man is to be known from the past is this, that the truly blessed man, the man who enjoys the favor of God, is the very man who, when he is confronted with this basic religious question of his relation to God and of his standing before God, the first thing that brings up for his argument is not at all his righteousness, not at all his decency, not at all his relationship, particularly fellow man, in the social structure of society, but the thing that blooms up first of all on the horizon of the truly blessed man is that he doesn't think first of all,.

Continuously and immediately, of his goodness,.

Of his wickedness, of his iniquity. That seems very strange indeed, doesn't it? But it's the only thing that is consonant with the situation that belongs to us as sinners before God. And I tell you this, that there is no blessedness beyond true and final blessedness, belonging to our passion, and that's the first thing that that person thinks when he is confronted with this question.

Of his sense, his iniquity.

The truly blessed man is the man who is overwhelmed overwhelmed.

First of all, the sense of his own wickedness, his own,.

And that he has no standing with God at all on the basis of what he is, on the basis of what he has done. The sense, the first criteria of the blessed man,.

The person who recognizes that the only thing he deserves.

On the basis of what he is, or on the basis of what he has done, is not a passion for God, it's not just dedication before God, but damnation. It's easy for us to think of something, easy for you to listen, perhaps, and it's easy for me to try it.

But it's another thing for us to stretch our heart and see if that is really the spontaneous response and reaction of ours when we are confronted with this vague and religious question of our relationship to God.

The Second Mark of the Blessed Man: Forgiven Sin

Now, second, the second criterion of the blessed man, his sins have been questioned. You see the emphasis that the Apostle Paul places on that in this particular instance because he appeals to David to what we find in the 32nd Psalm, even as David also describes the blessedness of the man, unto whom God, with infinite righteousness, without worth saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not make him sin. And remember this, my friends, that the blessed man is not simply the man. He's not simply the man in whose consciousness looms above the stress of his own iniquities, of his own wickedness, of his own guilt, of his worthiness of damnation.

But the blessed man is also the vision the man is simply in his consciousness has come the epitome of the forgiving grace of God. He is at least the person who is not constrained to have a sense of his own sinfulness.

But he has reached, yes, before God, then reached before God the full remission of his transgressions. And oh, my friends, if we have a sense of our own unworthiness, of our own sinfulness, of our own ungodliness, and of our own self-desire, there is nothing that is more indispensable to our peace of mind, to our peace of consciousness, than some sense of the forgiving grace of God.

How marvelous is it that God can forgive us that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, that He will bless us with a thick cloud of blessings and to grind out sins that they may be cast forever into the sea of hate, forgetfulness.

And that is the blessed man. That is the man of whom the promise is made. That's the man, that is the man whom David was, the man who came to the city first of all, and to which we breathe the atmosphere of divine forgiveness, block out my transgressions, wash me truly from my iniquities, and cleanse me from my sins.

Examining Whether We Truly Rest in Forgiveness

Now, that's the language of the blessed man. And I ask you just, very frankly, to interrogate yourself. I don't suppose it's humanly possible, at least under all normal circumstances, for a person to remember all his sins at any one particular time.

I don't suppose it's humanly possible. It might be, I don't know what will be at the judgment seat of Christ, what may happen under very abnormal circumstances, but under normal circumstances, it's just not humanly possible for us to think of all our sins at any one particular time.

But I tell you, the blessed of the Lord, there comes to your mind again and again particular situations, particular instances, particular, particular exigencies, connection with your own life, and you have an overwhelming sense of the iniquity.

You just didn't think that it would ever come up, it would ever loom upon your consciousness at all. And perhaps sometime, when you least expect it, that some particular situation in which you were placed, perhaps perhaps you should go, seriousness, preparedness, that it can go.

Use of God's might, use of God's sometimes, of course, frequently, research, into the liberty.