Tag Archives: raised from the dead

GALATIANS CHAPTER 1

Leave a reply

We hope you find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Under “SELF-PRINT BOOKLETS” you will find help on printing the posts in booklet form.  Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of each article. We would be pleased to hear from you.

GALATIANS 1

Survey of the epistle
If in the Epistle to the Romans the gospel is defined, then in the Epistle to the Galatians the gospel is defended. There were those who had been Jews before they were saved, who tried to put Gentile believers under the law of Moses, There were two ways in which they attempted this. Some, according to Acts 15:1, were saying that a man must be circumcised before Christ can save him. Others, according to Acts 15:5, were saying that believers needed to keep the law of Moses as a religious duty, fearing, no doubt, that if there was no restraint imposed on them, they would become licentious. The antidote to licence, however, is not legality, but Christian liberty. Grace is a stronger force than law, as is seen from Romans 6:14- “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace”. To put believers under law is to say that Christ’s work was not sufficient to fully save.

The Christian life is to be lived according to the “law of Christ”, Galatians 6:2, following His example. The power to do this is the Spirit of God, who acts in us on the principle that we have life in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:2.

Chapters 1 and 2
Historical account of Paul’s life under law and grace.
The experience of grace.
Paul resists the charge of discord with other apostles.

Chapters 3, 4 and 5
Doctrinal, giving seven ways in which grace is superior to law.
The exposition of grace.
Paul resists the charge of despising the law.

Chapter 6
 Practical, the outworking of grace in the life.
The expression of grace.
Paul resists the charge of destroying morality.

The following Scriptures tell us the true nature and purpose of the law of Moses:
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20.
“Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression”, Romans 4:15.
“Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.” Romans 5:20.
“For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14.
“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Romans 7:5.
“Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law”, Romans 7:7.
“when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died”, Romans 7:9.
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh”, Romans 8:3.
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse”, Galatians 3:10.
“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident: for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith.” Galatians 3:11.
“Knowing this, that the law is not made  for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient”, 1 Timothy 1:9.

This is not to say that the law is evil, as the following verses show:
“Is the law sin? God forbid.” Romans 7:7.
“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12.
“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man”, Romans 7:22.
“the ministration of death…was glorious”, 2 Corinthians 3:7.
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” 1 Timothy 1:8.

The following are some of the ways of putting believers under law:
1. By dividing God’s people into clergy and laity. This is a going back to Old Testament systems under the Law, which the apostle describes as the elements of the world, and as such are not suited to the citizens of heaven. Every true Christian is a priest unto God, 1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6.
2. By practising ceremonies such as christening and confirmation, which bypass the gospel.
3. By thinking that full salvation has to be earned, and is not the portion of every believer. God has accepted (graced) every believer in the person of His Beloved Son, and has given every spiritual blessing in Him, Ephesians 1:3,6.
4. By believing that the gift of the Spirit depends on spiritual progress and devotion. As Galatians 3:2 indicates, every believer has the gift of the Spirit.
5. By denying that it is possible to be sure of salvation. “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” John 10:28.
6. By suggesting that only those who are spiritual will participate in the translation of the saints at Christ’s coming. All believers wait for the hope of righteousness by faith, Galatians 5:5. The apostle is clear that whether we wake (watch) or sleep (do not watch), we should live together with Him, 1 Thessalonians 5:10.

Law and grace cannot co-exist, as the following Scriptures show:
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” Matthew 11:13.
“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1:17.
“ye are not under the law, but under grace”, Romans 6:14.
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Romans 10:4.
“and if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace”, Romans 11:6.

Structure of the chapter

(a) Verses 1-5 Paul’s message as an apostle
(b) Verses 6-9 Paul’s marvelling at the change in the Galatians
(c) Verse 10 Paul’s motivation before conversion and after
(d) Verses 11-24 Paul’s movements before conversion and after

(a) Verses 1-5
Paul’s message as an apostle

1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Paul, an apostle– there is a need to assert this, for the law-teachers who opposed Paul would emphasise the fact that the Law was of God; the apostle must show that he has authority from God too. Moses had been sent to the people, and then was the mediator of the law, so can Paul claim like authority? Men embrace relativism, and thus reject the absolute authority of God. But He had His apostles, and gave them authority to teach.
(Not of men- Paul does not use the preposition most often associated with source, “ek”, but rather “apo”. Perhaps he is referring to the “apo” that the word “apostle” begins with. He has been sent (stello) away from (apo) Jesus Christ- that fact is foundational to his position as apostle.
Neither by man- if the first statement declares that he has not been sent directly by men, then this says that he has not been sent indirectly by God either. God did not use the other apostles to appoint him, as was the case with Matthias, Acts 1:15-26.
But by Jesus Christ- He is the one by whom Paul has become an apostle. It was a risen Christ who said to Paul, “Depart:for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” Acts 22:21. This lifts Christianity far above the level of a law given on earth. Jerusalem which is above is our mother, not Jerusalem on earth, 4:26. Note that Paul’s apostleship is not of man, but it is of Jesus Christ, who is a man. Yet He is more than man, for He is has equal authority with God the Father to send an apostle. The writings of the apostles put us directly in touch with the truth.
And God the Father- in Old Testament times this aspect of character of God was not to the fore. It is the special feature of Christianity, since the latter is based on the person and work of the Son of God Himself. The Jews said Jesus Christ was contrary to God, so would not be convinced that the sending by Jesus Christ was valid. So his authority is emphasised by the fact it came from God, the same one who gave the law. But He is Father too, reminding us of the particular feature of Christianity, that it brings in the truth that God is the Father of believers because His Son has made it posiible.
Who raised him from the dead)- the grandest possible mark of approval. The law was the ministration of death and condemnation. Paul may not have been with Christ on earth, but he had the great privilege of seeing Him in heaven, so that the marks of an apostle were with him. As he wrote to the Corinthians, “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? 1 Corinthians 9:1. Those who had been with the Lord when He was here on earth, added nothing to him, 2:6.

The resurrection of Christ does the following:
1. Shows He dealt with sins effectively, Romans 4:25. He was raised because of the justification His death secured.
2. Shows He is approved of God, despite being forsaken on the cross.
3. Is the means by which His people are brought to new life in a new sphere, Romans 6:4.
4. Is the assurance to all men that He will judge the world, Acts 17:31.
5. Is the guarantee of the resurrection of believers, 1 Corinthians 15:20.

1:2
And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

And all the brethren which are with me- he was not alone in his beliefs, for grace has surrounded him with believers who share life in the family of God with him. His attackers had tried to isolate him, but had not succeeded. When the law was given, Levi “knew not every man his brother”, and they slew three thousand of their brethren. Grace assembles brethren together in harmony.
Unto the churches of Galatia- note the absence of any description of them, such as “faithful in Christ Jesus” Ephesians 1:1; “all the saints”, Philippians 1:1; “the saints and faithful brethren in Christ”, Colossians 1:1. He is worried about them, 4:20, and so cannot be free in his greetings to them.

Peter wrote to Galatia, amongst other places, 1 Peter 1:1, exhorting them not to paganize, whereas Paul is writing to them so that they do not Judaize. Note that the churches are separate entities, but can be written to together, for they would be in fellowship with one another, having Christ as their common Lord, for the apostle wrote to the Corinthian assembly, but also to “all that in every place call upon the name of jesus Christ our Lord”, 1 Corinthians 1:2.

1:3
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Grace be to you, and peace- the characteristic salutations of Gentile and Jew respectively. A Gentile would greet another Gentile with “Charis”, meaning grace. The Jew would greet a fellow Jew with “Shalom”, meaning peace. In Christ the division between Jew and Gentile has gone, Ephesians 2:12 onwards. Despite his restrained greeting, he still has their best interests at heart. Grace has been called “the fount of all mercies”, and peace, “the crown of all blessings”.

From God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ- again the equality between the Father and the Son is maintained, this time in connection with the bestowal of spiritual blessings on the saints. Only as they respond to the teaching of this epistle will they come into the good of grace, (as opposed to law), and peace, (as opposed to being unsure of salvation, which would be the result of putting themselves under law).

1:4
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Who gave himself- far from demanding that man give to God, the gospel explains that God is a gracious, giving God, and Christ gave Himself. Grace gives what we could never earn, whereas the law demands what we can never pay. The Old Testament sacrifices that the Law demanded have been fulfilled in His sacrifice. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, it was the representatives of the civil and ceremonial law who failed to help the injured man. In fact, they went on, as a class, to crucify the true Good Samaritan, Christ Himself. He came where we were and like the Samaritan in the parable, bore the total cost himself. His personal safety, His oil and wine, His energy to walk while the man rode, His two pence, and other expenses, and the effort to return to the inn after two days. All these were self-sacrificing acts.

For our sins- His giving of Himself was in death, that He might deal effectively with the question of sins. This supposes His perfection, and our imperfection. It was not possible for the sacrifices under the law to take away sins by themselves. Sins were only forgiven under the law because God took account of what His Son would do at Calvary. See Romans 3:25.

That he might deliver us from this present evil world- the gospel links us with eternity, whereas the law was to do with the elements of the world, Galatians 4:3, and the rudiments of the world, Colossians 2:20. At conversion, the sinner is separated from the world, and is linked with Christ in heaven, Ephesians 2:6. The logical outcome of that is for Christ to come from heaven to take His people to heaven, their proper sphere.

According to the will of God and our Father- Paul is at pains to show that the death of Christ, being in harmony with the will of God, is not at all inferior to the will of God in the law. Moreover, grace introduces us to God as our Father, as the law could not do, as later chapters in the epistle will show.

1:5
To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen- through Christ the glory of God will be magnified for ever, whereas the glory of the law was temporary, as 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 explains.

Note the principles of the gospel that are brought out by the apostle in his introduction:
1.  The Person of Jesus Christ, implying His manhood and Messiahship.
2.  God the Father, who is revealed in His Son, as the gospel discloses.
3.  Christ’s giving of Himself for our sins, implying His sinlessness, and our sinfulness.
4.  His resurrection from the dead.
5.  His sending of apostles in harmony with the will of the Father.
6. The permanent, eternal glory that has come to God through the person and work of Christ.

(b) Verses 6-9
Paul’s marvelling at the change in the Galatians

1:6
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ- it was not that he would not have marvelled if they had removed more slowly. He marvels at two things, that they are removed, and that they are removed so soon. It is a cause of wonder to the apostle why anyone should want to remove from the grace of Christ. Note that to embrace law in any form, however mild, is to remove from grace, see 5:4.

We may take grace here to be a comprehensive term for all the gospel tells us about Christ. This includes the following:

1. His movement in grace, His voluntary stoop from heaven to earth. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor”, 2 Corinthians 8:9.

2. His moral perfection as seen in His virtuous character. “We beheld his glory…full of grace and truth”, John 1:14.

3. His matchless and vicarious sacrifice at Calvary. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death…that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man”, Hebrews 2:9.

Unto another gospel- the word Paul used here means another of a different sort, a different gospel, diametrically opposed to the one Paul preached. Law and grace are opposites, as Romans 11:6 indicates. Satan is ever ready to suggest ideas, but he is a liar, and the father of it, John 8:44. Men preach a “national gospel“, suggesting that a person who is introduced into the “established church” is saved. They preach a “nativity gospel“, saying that by His birth Christ linked humanity with God. This is blasphemous. Then there is the “need gospel“, which suggests that the gospel is designed to make us materially prosperous. All these are irresponsible gospels, telling people what they want to hear, as opposed to what they need to hear. What some were preaching in Galatia, however, was a law-gospel, for they said one of two things: either, that a Gentile needed to commit to the law by being circumcised before he could be saved, or, that a saved person is obliged to keep the law of Moses.

1:7
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Which is not another- the “gospel” of the law-men was not a genuine gospel at all, for it brought into bondage and doubt. Paul will not allow that a different gospel consisting of a mixture of grace and law, is a viable alternative to the grace of Christ. The law is not made for righteous people, but for sinners, 1 Timothy 1:9. How could there be better news that what is anounced in the gospel of God’s grace?

But there be some that trouble you- the mixing of law and grace always means trouble. All it achieves is to sow doubts, fears and uncertainty. This is why those who put themselves under law have no assurance of salvation, because they never know whether they come up to the required standard. Coupled with this lack of assurance is the loss of the sense of eternal security that true believers have as Christ’s sheep, who shall never perish, John 10:28.

And would pervert the gospel of Christ- the word “would” means to desire. So zealous are they for the law of their fathers, that they feel it to be their solemn duty to resist the gospel. So obsessed are the law-men with their mission, that they long to twist the gospel, distorting it beyond recognition. Paul was like this once, as he will soon tell us.

1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

But though we- so sure is Paul that what he and his fellow brethren had preached to the Galatians was unalterable, that he is prepared to be accursed himself if he changes his message. This shows he is not criticizing the law-men out of personal spite, for he is prepared to accept the same penalty as they if he preaches contrary to the gospel he preached before. Paul pronounced a woe upon himself if he did not preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians 9:16, and here he pronounces a woe upon any who preached another gospel.

Or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you- angels are messengers, and were in attendance when the law was given, but even if one came and said that God was reverting to the law in some way in order to bless men, the Galatians are not to listen. He does not say an angel from God, because Satan is able to transform himself into an angel of light, 2 Corinthians 11:14, so if they listen to an angel they might be listening to Satan.

Let him be accursed- to be accursed is to be anathema, or set apart for God to deal with.

1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again- this matter is of great importance, and the woe upon those who preach alternative gospels needs to be repeated for emphasis.

If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed- having dismissed himself, his brethren, and angels, if they come preaching contrary to the accepted standard of the gospel, he speaks now of all men, with the law-teachers particularly in mind. If an apostle or an angel are to be accursed, how much more a mere self-appointed messenger. In verse 8 it was the gospel preached, whereas here it is the gospel the Galatians had received, reminding them that they had been committed to the true gospel at one time.

(c) Verse 10
Paul’s motivation before conversion and after

1:10
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

For do I now persuade men, or God- before his conversion, (hence the “now” of contrast), he had sought to persuade Christians to return to the Law, and by so doing, hoped to persuade God of his zeal. Now he did not seek to persuade them like that, and was conscious of the approval of God without promoting Judaism.

Or do I seek to please men? By condemning those who preached a false gospel, the apostle was in danger of angering his opponents, yet this gave him no cause for concern, for he sought the favour of God, not men.

For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ- he had once sought to please his fellow religionists by persecuting Christians, but now things were different, (hence the “yet”). And the fact that they were different showed the change the gospel had brought into his life and outlook. This verse forms the bridge between verses 1-9 which have to do with the message of the gospel, and verses 11-24 which relate to the messenger of the gospel.

(d) Verses 11-24
Paul’s movements before conversion and after

1:11
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

But I certify you, brethren- in verses 1-10 the apostle writes as an apostle, now he writes as a convert, and gives his personal history. He allows that they are brethren in the family of God, just as those he associates with in verse 2, but they need to be informed of the true state of affairs regarding the gospel, lest the false brethren lead them astray.

That the gospel which was preached of me- that is, the gospel which was preached to the Galatians by the apostle. He is taking them back to their initial experience when they were persuaded of the truth of the gospel. Compare 5:8, “This persuasion cometh not of Him that calleth you.”

Is not after man- it is not that which the mind of man could devise. The gospel is just as much of God as the Law is. This is why Paul did not need to confer with “flesh and blood” after he was saved, verse 16.

1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For I neither received it of man- his parents could not tell him it, even though they were Hebrews, and had brought him up to be a Hebrew, in every sense of the word, Philippians 3:5. His ancestors could only tell him of Judaism, the religion of the fathers.

Neither was I taught it- he did not learn the gospel from the rabbis in the synagogue school, even though he sat at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the foremost rabbis, Acts 22:3. All this highlights the fact that the gospel is not a modified form of Judaism, although Christendom acts as if it is.

But by revelation of Jesus Christ- instead of receiving Judaism “of man”, he received the gospel directly “of Jesus Christ”. The following are scriptures that tell us of this:

1. Ananias was “a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews that dwelt there”, Acts 22:12, and he was sent to Paul to tell him, “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth. For thou shalt be his  witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard”, Acts 22:14,15.

2. The apostle revealed later on that the Lord had said to him on the Damascus road, “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and those things in the which I will appear unto thee”, Acts 26:16.

3.  “For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you”, 1 Corinthians 11:23.

4. “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received”, 1 Corinthians 15:3.

5. “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord”, 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

6. “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery”, Ephesians 3:3.

None of the false brethren, seeking to teach Judaism, could claim these revelations.

1:13
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jew’s religion- note it is not something he had felt he needed to tell them himself, for it was time past, and he had turned his back on it, Philippians 3:13, so they have to hear it from others. He had counted what he had been brought up in as dung, so called it the Jew’s religion, not his own.  The apostle Paul “gave his testimony” several times, but only when necessary to make a point, or  to defend his position. The parade of past sins is not seemly.

How that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it- note the expressions in this passage which convey the energy with which he involved himself in what he then felt to be right: “Beyond measure”, “Profited…above”, “More exceedingly zealous”. All this serves to highlight the change that came about when he was called by the gospel. He has not believed in Christ because he was not familiar enough with the religion of his fathers, nor because he was half-hearted about it.

1:14
And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

And profited in the Jew’s religion above many my equals in mine own nation- as a Jew, Israel was his own nation, but now he calls Judaism the Jew’s religion, for he has separated from it. As a student, Saul of Tarsus was progressing beyond most of his fellow-pupils in the school of Gamaliel. This is what is meant by “profited”.

Being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers- this is the reason for his strong advance in Judaism, for he was marked by great zeal, alas without knowledge, like the rest of his nation, Romans 10:2. He did not believe the gospel because he was confused and undecided about Judaism.

1:15
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace,

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb- so the removal of Paul from under the law was part of God’s good pleasure, just as much as it had been His good pleasure to put Israel under the law. God’s timing is always perfect. The God who separated him from the traditions of his fathers, was the God who separated him from his mother’s womb. So all the time he was learning Judaism, God was preparing him for evangelism. God allowed him to espouse Judaism, so that he might better expose it. He was circumcised to commit to the law, and had his Bar Mitzvah to become a son of the law. Then he sat at the feet of Gamaliel to learn the law. He was well-placed to assess the law-system, and count it but dung, Philippians 3:7,8 once he realised the superiority of Christ and grace.

And called me by His grace- the means used to call Paul was the grace of God as expressed in Christ at Calvary. He was not called by the use of the truth of the law. Note the reference to his mother, and fathers, or ancestors, for the law was the national religion of Israel, and the terms of God’s covenant with them.

1:16
To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

To reveal his Son in me- not “reveal his Son to me”, but that, being saved, the Son of God might be made known through Paul, whether in his character, as Christ was formed in him, 4:19, or his preaching, as he presented Christ crucified to the people, 3:1.

That I might preach him among the heathen- it was as one who represented Christ in word and character that Paul went to the Gentiles. There must be no discrepancy between the message preached, and the character of the man who preaches it. See Psalm 51:10-13. There were no evangelists under the law; none went to the Gentiles with a message of hope, for the law was the ministry of condemnation. When Jonah went to Nineveh he went with a message of doom, and was disappointed when it did not come to pass, because the Ninevites repented.

Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood- the gospel is not after man as to its content, nor is an evangelist dependant on man for his commission. He does not say, “I conferred not with my fellow-believers”, although that is what is in view, but rather he does not consult with any on earth, for even apostles are liable to error, as the next chapter shows. See Matthew 16:17.

1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me- such was his confidence that God had spoken fully to him, he felt no need to consult with the other apostles at this point.

But I went into Arabia, and returned again into Damascus- he goes to Arabia, the place where the law was given, 4:25. What more fitting place to learn the contrast between law and grace. Is this where “The law came, sin revived, and I died”, Romans 7:9? This would remind us of Elijah going to “the” cave, (perhaps the very cave Moses dwelt in on Sinai), and learning that the things which accompanied the law, (the wind, the earthquake and the fire, 1 Kings 19:8-18. See also Hebrews 12:18-21), could not express God fully, for God was not in them. It was the still small voice of God that would bring the blessing of the conflict on Mount Carmel to the people, just as the gospel of grace and peace brings us the blessing of Calvary.
Interestingly, Elijah returned from this experience on the way to the wilderness of Damascus. Sadly, he seems not to have had a change of heart about things, as Saul of Tarsus did on the road to Damascus, for he is directed to anoint Elisha as his successor. Like so many since, he does not seem to grasp the superiority of law to grace. By informing us that he returned to Damascus, the apostle is showing the limits of his contacts with the believers, for he already knew those at that place. But he does not return there to appoint a successor.

1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days- the three years is after his conversion, not after his return from Arabia. The apostle is very precise as to the number of days he was in Jerusalem, showing that these events are clear in his mind. His stay with Peter would show they were in harmony, especially since Paul later had to rebuke him. The change was on the part of Peter, not Paul. The word used her for “see” is historeo; they would give one another their personal history and experiences, so each one was fully up-to-date with the other. It is important that Paul and “the first of the apostles”, should be seen to get on well.
This visit is recorded in Acts 9:23-30. Paul preached in Damascus until the Jews sought to slay him. At this point the disciples let him down by the city wall and he escaped and went to Jerusalem. He preached there until the Jews again sought his life, and he went back to his home city of Tarsus.
Later in the epistle he will ask the Galatians, “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Galatians 5:11. That those who were zealous for the law persecuted him is a sign that he no longer believes what they do.

1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother- Paul would have a certain fellow-feeling with this man, who had refused to believe when Christ was on earth, and now believed after He was raised from the dead. Note the distinction between James, the Lord’s brother, and the James of chapter 2. The verse reads as if James the Lord’s brother was an apostle, but the sense is that he saw none of the other apostles, and the only person of note he did see was James.  James the Lord’s brother did indeed know the Lord, and see Him in resurrection, but he had not “companied with us”, to use Peter’s words when the replacement for Judas was being arranged, Acts 1:21.

1:20
Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not- these personal details are important, establishing as they do the separation of Paul from any form of appointment by men, with all that it would imply. The law-teachers might insinuate otherwise, but Paul was of a clear conscience before God, and he calls on God to witness that he spoke the truth.

1:21
Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia- Syria is south of Antioch, whereas Cilicia is his home territory, for he was brought up in Tarsus. Before he goes to the ends of the earth, he must be active near at home in the surrounding areas.  This is a good principle for new preachers to follow.

1:22
And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ- these are the churches that were most likely to be influenced by Judaism. As churches they were in Christ, which secures their well-being, and they did not need the law to guarantee their blessing.

1:23
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

But they had heard only- the only message about Paul was his conversion and preaching; they had not heard other messages which suggested he had gone back to law, or that he sought to undermine the law. They had not seen him, but they had heard about him.

“That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith he once destroyed”– note Paul preached the faith, setting out the doctrines regarding Christ, that men might have a clear view of Him, and then believe. The apostles “ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ”, Acts 5:42; they taught who He was, then exhorted men to believe on Him. This is still God’s way. The preaching of the gospel is not the stringing together of stories and illustrations, nor is it a constant browbeating of the hearers to “get saved”, or the repeating of over-worked phrases and sound bites. It is the clear setting out of the truths regarding the person of Christ in all its variety and scope. In other words, the teaching of Jesus Christ. Then, on that foundation, the exhortation to the hearers to believe on Him. This is the preaching of Jesus Christ. The evangelist has no right to exhort men to believe unintelligently on a man they know nothing about. As the blind man said, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on Him? John 9:36. The apostle made clear in the beginning of his classic treatise of the gospel that the gospel of God is concerning His Son, Romans 1:1,3. It is not sinner-centred but Christ-centred.

1:24
And they glorified God in me.

And they glorified God in me- the grace of God working in a person’s life will glorify God. As a result of the labours and writings of the apostle, multitudes have been transformed from being selfish sinners, to being those who glorify God in their lives down here. And what is begun on earth, shall be continued eternally in heaven.

ROMANS 4

Leave a reply

We hope you find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the e-mail address martin_margaret3@yahoo.co.uk We would be pleased to hear from you.

The apostle now proceeds to illustrate the principles he has just now been stating at the end of chapter three.

Structure of the chapter

6(d)

4:1-5

The boasting of the natural man excluded

6(e)

4:6-8

The blessedness of the forgiven man explained

6(f)

4:9-12

The blessing for any man ensured

6(g)

4:13-22

The behaviour of the believing man examined

6(h)

4:23-25

The belief in the Risen Man expected


Special note on Abraham
It might be helpful, (since the apostle is going to use the experience of Abraham to illustrate his case), to list the events in Abraham’s life that are singled out for mention by New Testament writers.

1. The God of glory appears to Abram in Ur, Acts 7:2, and he responds in faith, Hebrews 11:8.

2. He reaches Canaan and lives there in faith, Genesis 12:5, Hebrews 11:9.

3. God promises him a son, and Abraham believes God, Genesis 15:5,6; Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6.

4. Abraham listens to Sarah’s suggestion, and fathers a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, Genesis 16:2,15.

5. Thirteen silent years pass, Genesis 16:16; 17:1.

6. God promises Abraham that he will be the father of many nations, Genesis 17:4. His name is changed from Abram, meaning “exalted father” to Abraham, “father of a multitude”, in remembrance of this promise, Genesis 17:5, Romans 4:17.

7. Abraham and Sarah are both strengthened in faith, and despite their old age Isaac is born, Romans 4:19-21, Hebrews 11:11.

8. Abraham offers Isaac on Moriah, as an act of faith, Hebrews 11:17; obedience, Genesis 22:18; and righteousness, James 2:21-24.

Special note on circumcision
Considered literally and physically, circumcision was an operation performed on male children. God required this to be done on the eighth day of their lives in normal circumstances, for He, as Creator, had so made us that it is on that day we are least likely to bleed to death.

This operation is said to have some medical advantages, but the main point about circumcision is its spiritual significance. Because it was a procedure where the flesh was cut round, (hence the “circum”), and then cut off, (hence the “cision”), it became a sign of being cut off from others and separated off or sanctified to God. We may think of it in the following ways, as the doctrine develops in the Scriptures:

1. Circumcision and Abraham
After he had believed God and been reckoned righteous as a result, Abraham was commanded by God to be circumcised, even though he was an old man. He obeyed God, and circumcision became for him a seal or confirmation of the faith he already had, Romans 4:11.

2. Circumcision and Ishmael
At the same time, God required Abraham to circumcise his son Ishmael, so that he had a mark on his body signifying that God’s covenant was with Abraham, Genesis 17:26.

3. Circumcision and Isaac
When Isaac was born Abraham circumcised him on the eighth day, and he was thereby marked out as Abraham’s true seed, Genesis 21:4.

4. Circumcision and Moses
The rite of circumcision seems to have lapsed after Israel went into Egypt, for when Moses was returning from the desert of Midian it was found that his two sons were not circumcised. The account is in Exodus 4:18-20; 24-26.

When the law was given at Sinai, circumcision was required, as Leviticus 12:3 informs us. This is why the Lord Jesus, when referring to circumcision, said “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers:) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?” John 7:22,23. His point was that if a boy was born on a Friday, they would have no problem in circumcising him on the sabbath day, for that was eight days after he was born. Why then should they complain if He healed a man on the sabbath?

When a Hebrew parent circumcised a male child, there was a physical aspect, and a moral one. The physical aspect was that he now bore the mark of an Israelite on him. He was now of The Circumcision, the nation of Israel. But the moral side was that he was now committed to keeping the law of Moses. So important were these two aspects, that God sanctioned the work of circumcising on the day of rest, if the child had been born eight days before. After all, He who controls the timing of everything, even the birth of children, did not ordain that no Hebrew son should be born on a Friday.

Now no one was angry at a Hebrew parent who did this. Nor did they seek to kill him. Rather, they would applaud that he had kept the law. All this being the case, and they felt free to “break” the sabbath in this God-appointed way, then surely the Lord Jesus should not be persecuted for making a man entirely whole, and not merely ceremonially whole, on the sabbath.

For the healing of the impotent man did make him entirely whole. He was healed as to the body, so that he was able to rise at Christ’s bidding. He was healed as to the soul, for the misery of the last thirty-eight years was for ever gone, symbolised by his taking up his bed, for he would not need it again. And he was healed as to the spirit, for as he walked at Christ’s command, he went straight into the temple to praise God. Thereafter the moral implications of Christ’s words to him would be uppermost in his mind, “sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee”.

The Jews should ask themselves, which was better, to be miserable and powerless at the Pool of Bethesda, or to be in the temple with renewed body and spiritual joy? The law required that Israel “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Exodus 20:8. But that holiness was not merely a negative idea, keeping the day as a special one, different to the rest of the week. It had its very important positive side, to set the day apart for spiritual purposes. And this Christ had done. He had enabled a man to sanctify the sabbath day in a way he could not have done all the while he was impotent.

So we could summarise the argument as follows: if the people who were angry with Christ to the extent of wishing to kill Him, were free to do a lesser thing on the sabbath in order to obey God’s law, surely He could do the greater thing. They did the lesser thing at God’s commandment, He acted likewise at the command of God His Father.

As a result of this connection between the law of Moses and circumcision, it became a sign of being under the law, so that the nation of Israel were the Circumcised, and the Gentiles all around were the Uncircumcised, even if the latter were in fact physically circumcised out of national custom. We have already seen these distinctions in Romans 2:24-29.

5. Circumcision and Joshua
We learn from Joshua 5:2-9 that those who had died under the judgment of God during the wilderness journey had not circumcised their male children. This was not surprising, since those who fell in the wilderness were not believers, Hebrews 3:17,18. The crossing of the Jordan represents a new beginning for Israel, so God commanded that the children be circumcised so that the “reproach of Egypt”, should be “rolled away” from them, Joshua 5:9. This introduces a third aspect of circumcision, for just as a portion of flesh was rolled away from the child, so association with Egypt was rolled away also, since this had not been done in the wilderness. Those who refused the land were also those who longed to return to Egypt. It is no surprise then that an operation that signified separation from Egypt did not appeal to them, and they allowed it to lapse. Centuries before, their ancestors had sold Joseph into Egypt, and eventually the rest of Jacob’s family followed. So they left Canaan and went to live in Egypt. Now whilst this was a fulfilment of prophecy, Genesis 15:13, nonetheless it was failure, and so it seems that this was called the reproach of Egypt, meaning the reproach and shame that came to them for going into Egypt. When they crossed the Jordan with Joshua, this was reversed, and their circumcision signified it.

6. Circumcision and Christ personally
When He was eight days old, Joseph and Mary had Christ circumcised, Luke 2:21, for He had come into the nation of Israel under the law. As the apostle Paul puts it, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”, Galatians 4:4. He was thereby committed to keeping God’s law, which He did perfectly. Unlike other Jews, however, He was not under the law to force Him to obey God. Rather, He obeyed God and thereby kept the law.

7. Circumcision and Christ doctrinally
The apostle Paul wrote to the Colossian believers to warn them of the evil influences in the world around them which would seek to harm them. He tells them that they are “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands”, Colossians 2:11. Not only are believers complete in Christ, verse 10, but they are separated unto Him from the sphere where error flourishes. Christ cannot link sinners with Himself, so He must cut them off from their links with Adam so as to join them to Himself. This He did at the cross, where He dealt with all that Adam represented. This is the circumcision made without hands, for it is not physical, but moral and spiritual. The cross has cut off believers from the world, including the philosophy-world that was attacking the Colossians.

When God made a covenant with Abraham, He made physical circumcision the sign of that covenant. Abraham was now special to Himself, and had the mark on his body to prove it. Such a rite is no longer relevant, so that the apostle described physical circumcision as “concision”, a cutting along and a maiming, Philippians 3:2, whereas believers are now the true circumcision, properly cut off by God from their links with Adam’s world. This means they are cut off from the sphere where heretics operate, for such men are of the world, being unbelievers, and as such have no contact with the things of God.

When he is dealing with the case of the Jew in his epistle to the Romans, the apostle shows that true circumcision is a heart matter, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.” Romans 2:28,29. This is why Stephen was justified in calling the Jews who were about to stone him, “uncircumcised in heart and ears”, Acts 7:51.

True circumcision is now “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ”, Colossians 2:11, and this happens at conversion. What is cut off is the body as the vehicle by which sins of the flesh are conceived and committed, the flesh being the sinful self, which is resident in the body. Paul calls the body “the body of sin” in Romans 6:6. He is there concerned with the sin-principle within, whereas here it is the sin-practice that is in view; nonetheless the idea is that the body is the base of operations from which sins proceed. As far as God is concerned, that body has been cut off so that it may be brought over into resurrection conditions to be used for God. That which is called “the body of sin” in Romans 6:6 can be presented to God in Romans 12:1, for God has wrought upon it to His glory.


6(d)   4:1-5
The boasting of the natural man excluded

4:1
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

What shall we say then that Abraham, our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? Abraham’s original name was Abram, meaning “exalted father.” God changed this to Abraham, meaning “father of a multitude” after He had promised to make him the father of many nations. The teaching of the chapter revolves around various aspects of the fatherhood of Abraham.
The literal order of the words is, “Abraham our father has found according to the flesh”. In other words, we should connect “according to the flesh” with “found”, and not with “father”. It is not the natural fatherhood of Abraham that is in view, because Gentile Christians do not have him as their natural father. The question on the mind of the apostle is what discovery did Abraham make as a natural man?

4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory- if, as a natural man, Abraham had been able to earn justification, then he would have had reason to glory or boast in his achievement.
But not before God- such a theoretical justification would not be valid before God, for, as the apostle goes on to show, God’s dealings with Abraham were not on that basis.

4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

For what saith the scripture? Paul had stated in 3:21 that the righteousness of God was witnessed by the law and the prophets. He had appealed to the prophet Habakkuk in 1:17, and now he appeals to the law, (meaning, in this context, the writings of Moses), by quoting Genesis 15:6. Note the present tense of “saith,” for the apostle believes in the living, up-to-date voice of the scriptures, being God’s word, which “liveth and abideth for ever”, 1 Peter 1:23.
Abraham believed God- this is a reference to Genesis 15:6, after Abraham had declared that he was an old man who was soon to die childless. In response God showed him the multitude of the stars in the sky, and promised “So shall thy seed be”. Abram accepted what God said, even though it was naturally impossible for him and Sarah his wife to have a son. This is the essence of faith, the acceptance of God’s word without reserve, even though it goes beyond natural reasoning. The apostle deliberately uses an incident in the life of Abraham which does not involve him in any activity, such as moving from Ur in faith, Hebrews 11:8, or building an altar, Genesis 12:7.
Note that the apostle refers to the expression found in Genesis 15:6, “believed in the Lord”, and quotes it as “believed God”. To believe in the Lord is to have trust and confidence in the Lord as the one who keeps His promises. This was appropriate in Abraham’s situation, since God had just given Him a promise. This is not the context in Romans 4, where the apostle is dealing with the imputation of righteousness. To believe God is to accept that what He says is true, and the logical outcome of this is to believe Him. The inspired apostle is bringing out different aspects of the truth.
And it was counted unto him for righteousness- God was prepared to count or reckon Abraham to be a righteous man on the basis of his faith. It was not that Abraham was now perfect, but rather that God was prepared to think of him as a righteous man. The basis on which God did this was the then-future work of the Lord Jesus at Calvary, as the apostle has explained in 3:25. He was counted righteous because God anticipated Calvary.

4:4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Now to him that worketh- the apostle gives an everyday illustration to show the difference between justification (being reckoned righteous) by works, and by grace. He had said in 3:24 that justification is by God’s grace, and now he shows this by using a practical example.
Is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt- during the working week the workman puts his employer under obligation, and he discharges that obligation by paying the appropriate wages (reward). God cannot be placed under obligation by any of His creatures however, so any benefit He gives must be on the basis of grace, that is, His free favour. To try to earn justification by works is pointless, since if God were to bless on that basis it would be at the expense of His own honour as the God of grace. Needless to say, God will never dishonour Himself in this or any other way.

4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

But to him that worketh not- the “but” introduces the alternative to working for righteousness. “Worketh not” involves a man renouncing all idea of being able to earn salvation by works.
But believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly- the opposite of working is resting, and this is what faith does as it relies on the promises of the God who blesses in grace. The ungodly are the impious, those who act contrary to God. We might be surprised that the apostle uses this strong word here, but he is preparing the way for the next example, that of David, in whose case it was a question of forgiveness for hideous sins. When David confessed those sins in Psalm 51 he spoke of having sinned against God, which is the essence of impiety. By using this severe word, the apostle assures us that the grace of God is not limited at all, for even daring rebels may be justified.
His faith is counted for righteousness- even an ungodly, (albeit repentant), man’s faith is valid, and finds a response from God, since the point about faith is in whom it rests. Of course, the ungodliness goes when he believes.

6(e)   4:6-8
The blessedness of the forgiven man described

4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man- to be reckoned righteous is a great blessing, but Abraham does not describe it, so the apostle brings in David to do it for him. With Abraham it was a question of God imputing righteousness when he believed. In the case of David it was God not imputing sin when he repented.
David sinned badly in the matter of Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, and 2 Samuel 11 records the sorry incident. Sadly, however, David remained silent, refusing to confess his sin, but at last he was brought to the point of acknowledging his sin, and confessing his transgressions unto the Lord. Then he began to know the blessedness of sins forgiven, and wrote Psalm 32 and Psalm 51 to describe that blessedness.
Note that although David’s sin was personal to him, he speaks of “the man”; in other words, this forgiveness is not limited to David, but is available to all who repent. Perhaps there is also an allusion to Nathan’s accusation of David using the words “Thou art the man”, 2 Samuel 12:7. The man who is convicted by the word of God and repents, is the same man who is forgiven.
Unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works- after he had repented, David wrote, “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Psalm 51:16,17. David shows deep insight into the ways of God, and realises that God looks for a broken spirit on the part of sinners, not their so-called good works. Thus David was forgiven by God apart from the work of bringing a sacrifice.

4:7
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered- in Psalm 32:1, quoted here, the word blessed is in the plural, signifying most blessed. This contains the idea of being spiritually prosperous. Instead of the misery of unconfessed sins, David now experiences the bliss of sins forgiven.
Iniquities are lawless acts, and David had been guilty of breaking the sixth commandment of the law by having Uriah slain; the seventh by taking Bathsheba whilst her husband was still alive; the eighth commandment by stealing another’s wife; the ninth commandment by deceiving Uriah into thinking he was in favour with the king; and the tenth commandment by coveting his neighbour’s wife at the outset.
Not only are iniquities or lawless acts forgiven by the One against whom they were committed, but the sins are covered, indicating that they were no longer under the eye of God. If God covers sins, they will never be uncovered. The lawlessness of David was in marked contrast to the concern of Uriah for the welfare of the ark, which contained the tables of the law, 2 Samuel 11:11.

4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin- not only was David forgiven, but by the grace of God he was still reckoned to be a righteous man. His fall, although extremely regrettable and dishonourable, had not altered his standing before God. So Abraham illustrates the principle of the imputation of righteousness, whereas David illustrates the principle of the non-imputation of sin, whether past sins, or sins in the future, (note the “will”). The fact that both Abraham and David were believers before these events took place does not alter the principle.

6(f)   4:9-12
The blessing for any man ensured

4:9
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only? Does the use of David, a circumcised Jew, as an illustration, mean that the blessedness of having one’s sins forgiven is only available to Jews?
Or upon the uncircumcision also? Can Gentiles know this forgiveness?
For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness- the apostle reverts to Abraham, his principal example in this passage, and restates the substance of verse 5, after which he had referred to David. He needs to go back to considering Abraham because of the matter of circumcision, which did not come up with David.

4:10
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? This is the critical question. At what point in his career did Abraham believe God, and was reckoned righteous?
Not in circumcision- the apostle puts this first so that his denial might be unmistakeable. Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised.
But in uncircumcision- which means that those who are not circumcised, (that is, are Gentiles), may come into blessing as Abraham did. The apostle comments on this by writing, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Galatians 3:14. The personal blessing granted to Abraham was the gift of a son. The blessing that Gentiles receive when they believe is the gift of the Spirit, who guarantees all other spiritual blessings.

4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

And he received the sign of circumcision- that is, the sign consisting of circumcision.
A seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised- the rite of circumcision was required by God as a sign that Abraham was in covenant relationship with God. But he only had this covenant relationship because he was a believer. So the circumcision became a seal or confirmation of the reality of his faith. As far as Abraham’s physical descendants were concerned, circumcision was simply a sign that they were of Abraham’s line; it said nothing about whether they had a personal relationship to God.
That he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also- Abraham was not the first man to exercise faith, but he is specially taken up by God as an example to those who believe. In this way his characteristics have been passed on, and in this sense he is their father, even though they are neither descended naturally from him, nor circumcised. Of course the apostle, by saying “all them that believe, though they be not circumcised” does not imply that all those who believe were formerly uncircumcised. He is emphasising that Abraham is even the father of those who were not circumcised before.

4:12
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

And the father of circumcision- not only is Abraham an example of faith, but he also demonstrates the principle of separation, the idea behind circumcision, a cutting off from the things of man to be involved in the things of God. The family of faith looks up to Abraham as a role-model.
To them who are not of the circumcision only- he is this example to all who believe, whether they were physically circumcised before, or not.
But who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised- believing Jews and Gentiles may find in Abraham one to follow, as he marks out the pathway of faith and separation.

6(c)   4:13-22
The behaviour of the believing man examined

The apostle has asked “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles?” and had answered his own question in 4:1-12, by the use of two Old Testament worthies, Abraham and David. Now he highlights the character of the God of Abraham and David, by further references to the life of Abraham.

4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world- in Genesis 15, the passage the apostle has referred to, God promised Abraham the land of Canaan. But now the idea is extended to include the whole earth. In the final sense the seed of Abraham is Christ, Galatians 3:16,17, and He will inherit the earth, Psalm 2:8; Psalm 72:8.

When God made a covenant with Abraham, Abraham was asleep, so did not pass between the pieces of the covenant victim. But a burning lamp did, and Isaiah looks on to the time when Israel shall be restored to God, and at that time the salvation of Jerusalem shall be “as a lamp that burneth”, Isaiah 62:1. The word used for salvation there is “yeshuah”, the equivalent of the New Testament name Jesus. We can see why the apostle Paul wrote that the covenant was “confirmed…in Christ”, for He was the one who passed through the pieces that night, whilst Abraham was asleep. Abraham’s link with Christ will ensure that he and his seed, will inherit the world, for Christ will inherit the world. Note that the promise is not said by Paul to be to inherit the land of Israel, for that is reserved only for the spiritual seed of Abraham who are descended from him physically.
Was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith- God gave promises to Abraham because, having believed God, he was now righteous by faith. As the apostle points out in Galatians 3:17, the promise to Abraham was four hundred and thirty years before the law was given.

4:14
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

For if they which are of the law be heirs- if the inheritance is on the basis of merit, then all is lost, because as soon as we seek to gain merit by works, the law confronts us as those who are transgressors unfit to inherit.

Faith is made void- if we introduce works, faith is robbed of its relevance, and is virtually cancelled, for works implies dependence on self, whereas faith implies dependence on God.

And the promise made of no effect- if no-one inherits, (either because they opt for law-works but cannot do them perfectly, or reject faith), the promise has not achieved its purpose.

4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Because the law worketh wrath- far from enabling man to inherit, the law exposes man’s failure, which merits Divine wrath. The reason for this is next given.
For where no law is, there is no transgression- the law shows up man’s transgressions, not his merit. Only in the absence of law is there absence of transgression, which in turn means absence of wrath. But since the Jew has the law on tables of stone, and the Gentile has the law written in his heart, then both are exposed to wrath as transgressors, being unable to keep the law.

4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace- the line of thought regarding the promise resumes from verse 13 after the explanation of verses 14 and 15. God’s promise that Abraham and his seed would inherit the world was on the basis of grace (favour shown), not works (merit demanded).
To the end the promise might be sure to all the seed- because the promise is by grace, not law, it is sure to all those who believe. The spiritual seed of Abraham is considered as being of two origins, as is next said, but to both classes the promise is certain.
Not to that only which is of the law- meaning those believers who were formerly Jews. He is not saying that the promise originates from the law, but that some of the people who make up the seed originate from a nation under the law.
But to that also which is of the faith of Abraham- meaning Christians who were formerly Gentiles. As previously explained, this faith of Abraham’s was exercised when he was not circumcised, and therefore no different to a Gentile. The apostle is not speaking of two groups of people, Jews under law and Gentiles under faith, because that would contradict his former statement that those under law do not inherit, verse 13.
Who is the father of us all- that is, of all who are believers. Whether they were Jews or Gentiles formerly is not relevant in this connection.

4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations)- the promise here mentioned was given to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, after which God commanded him to be circumcised as a token of the covenant He had made with him. Paul no doubt chooses this promise because of its connection with circumcision, and also because it implies that Abraham would have a son, or else he could not be the father of many nations. So that is the initial meaning of the promise. But Paul also sees in this promise the fact that people from many nations will call Abraham their father in the faith. Abraham’s original name of Abram, “exalted father”, was changed by God to Abraham, meaning “father of a multitude”. It is Abraham’s reaction to the promise of a son that is developed in the next verses.
Before him whom he believed- in Genesis 17:1 God commanded Abraham to walk before Him and be perfect, which suggests that he had not walked before God wholeheartedly (perfectly) after Ishmael was born. It is only as he walks before God in faith that he is an example.
Even God, who quickeneth the dead- Abraham is now acting in the light of the fact that God is able to quicken his body, and that of Sarah, so that they may have a child. See Hebrews 11:12, where he is described as “him as good as dead.” Perhaps it was because of this that Abraham, in a later incident, believed God could raise Isaac from the dead if he offered him as a sacrifice, Hebrews 11:17-19.
And calleth those things that be not, as though they were- so sure is the birth of a son to Abraham that he can be called or named by God before his conception, Genesis 17:19.

4:18
Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Who against hope- when all natural hopes of having a child were gone, and when natural reason said the situation was hopeless.
Believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations- his faith in God was exercised on the sure basis of the hope God’s promise gave him. Hope is not the object of his faith, but rather, God’s promise gave him a sure hope, and he believed on that basis.
According to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be- his faith as he believed in God’s promise of a son, can be expressed in terms of his initial faith in Genesis 15:6, so the one exercise of faith was according to the other. His intervening lapse of faith is over.

4:19
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb:

And being not weak in faith- as temporarily he seems to have been when he fathered a child by Hagar.
He considered not his own body now dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb- before this he seems to have considered these obstacles to be insurmountable, for when he was told that he would have a son, “he laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? Genesis 17:17, but now he thinks these doubts not worth taking into consideration.

4:20
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief- he did not doubt God’s word, implying he did before, when he laughed, Genesis 17:17. Compare also Sarah’s reaction, Genesis 18:12,13, then her return to wholehearted faith, Hebrews 11:11.
But was strong in faith, giving glory to God- this is the secret of his restoration, for he has captured again the sight of the God of glory who appeared to him in Ur of the Chaldees at the first, Acts 7:2.

4:21
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform- this is the proper response that should be made to the promises of God. Compare Mary’s response to the news that she, a virgin, would have a son, Luke 1:38, with Abraham and Sarah’s response in Genesis 17:17 and 18:12. Mary was fully persuaded, and Elizabeth, her kinswoman believed also, for she said, “there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord”, Luke 1:45, but Abraham and Sarah were unconvinced initially.

4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness- this seems to make his being made righteous in Genesis 15 dependant on what happened 13 years later, which cannot be the case. Rather, the apostle is indicating that the faith of Abraham became strong again, after his temporary lapse when he laughed. He has now returned to the sort of faith that he manifest in Genesis 15. The apostle’s purpose is to return to the subject of being reckoned righteous, not only to apply it to us today, but also to prepare the way for the teaching found in 5:1-11.

6(h)   4:23-25
The belief in the Risen Man expected

4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him- the account in Genesis of Abraham’s faith is not just for historical interest, or just so that we might admire his faith.

4:24
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

But for us also- the principles involved are just as relevant today.
To whom it shall be imputed- the sense of “shall be” is “shall certainly be”. The “it” refers to the rightousness of verse 22.
If we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead- the same God that brought life out of death when the “dead” bodies of Abraham and Sarah produced a living son, has brought Jesus our Lord from the sphere of death. Abraham believed the birth of Isaac would happen, and Christians believe the resurrection of Christ has happened.
Note that faith is placed in Divine persons, not just in events. We are not only expected to believe the resurrection has taken place, but to believe on the One who performed it. Notice the title “Jesus our Lord”, reinforcing the previous statement, for if He is truly our Lord, then there is personal faith like Abraham’s, and if He is truly our Lord, then we have submitted to His authority by repenting, as David did.

4:25
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification- the apostle implies two questions, and then answers them. It is as if he asks, “Why was He, Jesus our Lord, delivered by God to death?” The answer is “Because of our offences”. His second question is, “Why was He raised from the dead?” The answer, “Because of the justification which His death secures”. Thus the resurrection of Christ is God’s indication to us that the work of Calvary satisfies His every demand against our sins.
The mention of offences reminds us we were like David, having sinned. The mention of justification reminds us that the believer is justified, like Abraham. The apostle has now brought us back to the idea of justification, and so prepares for the truth of chapter 5, which begins, “Therefore, being justified by faith”.