20-The faith of Abraham and its lesson for us
The faith of Abraham and its lesson for us In the last section of chap. 3 it was laid down that ‘boasting’ is impossible. At this point we seem to hear a voice that asks, What? had even Abraham no ground for glorying? This opens up the theme of the Patriarch’s position, and the whole of chap. 4 is taken up with its consideration. In v. 1 a little group of manuscripts omits the verb εὑρηκέναι. This is plainly advantageous. For the question that naturally arises is not What did Abraham get? but, How about Abraham? The personal pronoun ἡμῶν has been thought an argument for a preponderance of Jews in the Church at Rome. But clearly that conclusion is by no means inevitable. It may be the writer is using the phrase of an imagined objector, or he may be for the moment unusually conscious of his own Abrahamic descent. In a general way we must remember that with St Paul ‘we’ is used for four separate things. Sometimes it means ‘my brother Jews and I’; sometimes ‘my brother Christians and I’; sometimes ‘my fellow workers and I’; and sometimes simply ‘I.’ We have to be prepared for its use in any of these ways at any moment.
4:1. “What then shall we say of Abraham, our natural progenitor? [Cannot he glory?] Why, if Abraham ‘found favour’ by things done, he is in a position to boast. But he is not as towards God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”1 [Note: Genesis 15:6 (LXX).]
Here we have the familiar citation already employed in ‘Galatians’ (3:6). There it came in somewhat suddenly, and was not discussed with the fulness we shall find in the course of this chapter. At the end of v. 1 I insert the words that seem to be needed by the context. For it is very plainly a question whether he ἔχει καύχημα, or no. The ascription of an actual ‘δικαίωσις’ to the Patriarch is not in the earlier letter. There the δικαιοσύνη (of which the quotation speaks) is not so directly identified with the theological status as it is here. The Patriarchal ‘belief’ in question is, as this chapter tells us, the belief in the promise of a son. The same ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην is used, in Psalm 106, of Phinehas, who “stood up and executed judgment.” From that passage we should deduce, that the phrase, taken by itself, need by no means necessarily carry all the meaning assumed by St Paul. But, even should it be argued that too much is built upon the ‘text’ in Genesis; yet the undoubted fact remains, that implicit trust in God is the keynote of the Patriarch’s story, as told in the primitive record.
We next pass on to consider what we may call the topic of ‘merit’ in relation to Abraham.
4:4. “For one that works, his wage is not reckoned of favour, but of obligation. But for one who does not ‘work’; only believes on Him whose way it is to set right the ungodly-it is his faith [and nothing else] that is ‘counted for righteousness’; even as the Psalmist pronounces the felicitation of the man whom God accounteth ‘right,’ apart from merit,
Blessed are they, whose iniquities have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered with a veil.1 [Note: Psalms 32:1-2.] Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord shall not count (against him).” In this section there is compression, which tends to some obscurity, in a language as diffuse as our own. The whole train of thought is as follows: When a man works, he is given his wage, as a debt and not as a favour; When there is no work, there is no wage; And this was Abraham’s case:
He did not ‘work’ (in a theological sense-that is, he did not aim at achieving God’s favour by ‘doing’); he only ‘believed’:
It was this belief that won for him his ‘righteousness’-his status, as a man who is ‘right with God.’
We are never told, in so many words, that Abraham had no ‘merit,’ and therefore no ground for ‘boasting’ as towards God. That we are left to infer. Instead, we are asked to note that he attained to a ‘blissful’ standing (and, of course, we must remember that the word μακάριος connotes an altogether exceptional happiness; ‘it is gods we count μακάριοι and the most godlike among men,’ says Aristotle)-in fact that blissful state whereof the Psalm makes mention. Moreover, as in the quotation of 3:20 ἐξ ἔργων νόμου was introduced; so here the ‘blessed one,’ of whom the Psalmist tells, is identified with the person “in whose favour the Lord reckons ‘rightness’ ”-in itself a remarkable phrase, no doubt framed on the analogy of the Psalmist’s λογίζεσθαι ἁμαρτίαν, though δικαιοσύνη describes a condition or state, while ἁμαρτίαν probably does not.
There are one or two points of language to be noted in the five verses.
Χάρις, to begin with, is not technical. God is called ὁ δικαιῶν τὸν ἀσεβῆ. This (I apprehend) must be taken as a description of the Divine Nature; hence the present participle. ‘The godless’ one would have expected to be plural rather than singular. Λογίζεται, as a passive, strikes the reader of the classics as startling. However it is good ‘Biblical.’ in v. 6 we gather that ‘δικαιοσύνη’ is negative rather than positive: it represents the removal of ‘sin,’ not the presence of active goodness. As I have urged already, it is the condition of the man accepted by God.
‘David’ has spoken of a man who is μακάριος for just this reason. Such a man (St Paul argues) was Abraham. He was δίκαιος, he had δικαιοσύνη, in that particular sense.
We pass on to a further question. Granted he was so ‘blessed,’ in what condition did he attain to it? The question is put because it effectually disposes of the Judaistic contention that circumcision is indispensable. That is to say, the answer does.
4:9. “This felicitation then does it fall on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised? We say (you know) his faith ‘was reckoned’ to Abraham ‘for righteousness.’ …” In this verse the word μακαρισμός may conceivably have shifted its sense. It is only found three times in St Paul, and the data are insufficient. Better therefore keep to the sense we are sure of.
4:10-12. “Under what conditions, then, was it reckoned? When Abraham was circumcised, or when be was uncircumcised? Not when he was circumcised, but while he was uncircumcised. Indeed he took circumcision as an outward symbol; as a seal of the ‘faith-righteousness’ which was in his uncircumcision; to the end that he might be a Father of all that believe in uncircumcision, so that they too might be counted ‘righteous’; as well as a Father of the ‘circumcised’-in the case of such as should be, not merely circumcised, but also walking in the steps of that uncircumcised ‘faith’ our Father Abraham had.” In his rendering of v. 11 Martin Luther is disappointing. One would have hoped he would be bold and speak of ‘Glaubensgerechtigheit’ in one colossal term, which would adequately reproduce τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως. Unhappily he fails us. Διʼ ἀκροβυστίας, in the same verse, is a formula of circumstance. The readings of v. 12 are sadly muddled in the MSS. But plainly we cannot read (to oblige any MS. or group of MSS.) such a jumble of words as this; τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσι. The second τοῖς must be eliminated, though the editors are apt to retain it. For my part, I assume that what the writer meant to say was τοῖς οὐ μόνον ἐκ περιτομῆς οὖσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ στοιχοῦσιν κ.τ.λ. That is, Abraham was to be a Father of converted Jews (circumcised, converted Jews) but only on condition of their having ‘faith,’ as he had. The general sequence of the thought in the two verses is uncertain. But presumably it runs like this; When Abraham was ‘accepted,’ was he circumcised, or uncircumcised?
Why, surely, uncircumcised.
Circumcision was only a ‘seal,’ a ‘token’ assumed long after.
Because then he was uncircumcised, when he attained to ‘righteousness,’
He is fit to be the ‘father’ of all uncircumcised ‘believers’;
(For, why should they not attain to ‘righteousness’ just as he did?) And, as for those others-the Jews, the actually ‘circumcised’-
He can be their ‘father’ too, provided-always provided-they have something more than circumcision to go upon (for that is only σημεῖον); to wit, the ‘faith’ he had in his days of uncircumcision. For the rest, the term σημεῖον, as applied to ‘circumcision,’ is found in the Old Testament. There it is ἐν σημείῳ διαθήκης. Σφραγίς (afterwards adopted by Christians for Holy Baptism) was a later descriptive term.1 [Note: Genesis 17:11]
Next we take a wider sweep. The happy position of Abraham must be wholly separated from all conditions of Law, or of outward ordinances. So we move forward with this statement;
4:13. “For ‘Law’ did not bring the Promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be ‘heir of the world’; it came by faith-righteousness.” This rendering is not convincing. For in a general way, and especially in Abraham’s story, promises precede faith, instead of following after. However, we cannot be sure to which promise the Apostle refers; the ‘palmary’ promise was, clearly, the promise of the “Blessing.” In Gen. 15 there are three; the Land, the Nation, the Blessing. But that was before the day of the promise which evoked the particular form of faith that was counted for righteousness. That comes in chap. 15, where the Lord tells Abraham his seed shall be as the stars of heaven. There are further promises in Genesis 18:18 and Genesis 22:17. But it seems to be a departure from Pauline principles to describe any ‘promise’ at all as won by faith. It is therefore I am half tempted to regard both the διά’s here as being ‘circumstantial.’ That would alter the rendering wholly. Then, one would have to express it like this;
“For Law was not the accompaniment of the promise to Abraham … its accompaniment was faith-righteousness.”
But, on the other hand, the διά with νόμου may be the ordinary διά, expressing instrumentality. In that case the second might be due to assimilation, or attraction. It is one of those many passages which the ordinary reader ‘skims over,’ wholly failing to observe what puzzles they contain. The next three verses state what is intelligible enough;
4:14-15. “If the sons of ‘Law’ are heirs, faith is emptied of all meaning”-(or, “rendered valueless,” cf. 1 Corinthians 1:17)-“and the promise has ceased to exist.”
“For ‘Wrath’ is the product of Law. And where there is no Law, there is no transgression either.” The original meaning of οἱ ἐκ νόμου is not perspicuous. It is like the phrase in ‘Galatians,’ οἱ ἐκ πίστεως. Ἐκ might imply ‘descent,’ metaphorical descent (though that is not the reason why I use ‘sons’ in my paraphrase). But it might only express dependence. Οἱ ἐκ νόμου are the folks who look to Law for everything. In v. 15 we have before us a third statement about Law. The three obviously help to interpret one another.
Galatians 3:19 declared of Law, τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη; Romans 3:20, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας. Here we read, Law brings no blessing, but only fearful consequences-the ‘wrath’ of Eternal God. The same ideas recur in chaps. 5 and 7. So Law is plainly dismissed, as a possible source of high good, and the text continues;
4:16, 17. “This is why the thing comes of faith, that it may be a matter of ‘favour’; so that the promise may stand fast for all the ‘seed’-not only for the children of law, but also for the children of the faith of Abraham (for he is Father of all of us, as Holy Scripture says; For a father of many nations have I appointed thee)1 [Note: Genesis 17:5 (LXX).] before the God he believed, that maketh the dead alive, and speaketh of things non-existent, as though they were.”
We are not told what is ἐκ πίστεως; but there is little difficulty in filling up the gap. It is not so much the ‘promise,’ as all that great destiny, which lies before God’s People. We may call it, if we will, the κληρονομία. Ἵνα κατὰ χάριν excludes the possibility of something earned, the possibility of ‘obligation’ (ὀφείλημα), in the matter. That is why I say “favour,” not “grace.” In the next clause there would seem to be reference to some definite passage in Genesis, in which mention is made of the seed. But it is not easy to fix upon any. There are many repetitions of the promise to thee and to thy seed. We have it in 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 17:19, 24:7-not to mention 26:3, and 35:12, where the promise made to Abraham is renewed to Isaac and Jacob. In all of these places but one, the ‘promise’ is of ‘the land,’ for an everlasting possession. For the writer, this is a figure, pointing to a spiritual inheritance. The ‘seed’ here is not as in Galatians 3:16 (where it is identified with Christ), but as in Galatians 3:29, where all the faithful are regarded as in very truth Abraham’s sons. In v. 17 the ὅτι belongs to the quotation, and should be translated accordingly. Καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα is a rather perplexing phrase. The καλεῖν is possibly like the familiar use in Plato, ‘καλεῖς τι δικαιοσύνην.’ Τὰ μὴ ὄντα glances at the unborn ‘promise-child’ Isaac, of whom the Almighty speaks, as if he already were. And now St Paul unfolds the full splendour of that ‘faith,’ which was “accounted for righteousness.”
4:18-22. “Who, when hope was hopeless, hopefully believed, so that he became a Father of many nations,1 [Note: Genesis 17:5.] as the saying stands, So shall thy seed be;2 [Note: Genesis 15:5.] and without weakening in faith, contemplated his own manhood in its deadness (for he was already some hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. Confronted with God’s promise he did not doubt nor disbelieve, but was mighty in faith, giving glory to God by being convinced, that, what He has promised, He is able to perform. Wherefore, It was accounted to him for righteousness.”3 [Note: Genesis 15:6.] The ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι (in v. 18) I do not profess to understand; but the whole phrase is ‘literary,’ and the effect is as in the paraphrase. Εἰς with the infinitive is ‘consecutive,’ rather than ‘final.’ But this is an unusually vigorous instance. It virtually equals ὥστε ἐγένετο. Μὴ ἀσθενήσας in classical Greek would be οὐκ ἀσθενήσας. The use of the former negative is normal in later Greek. Indeed it must be remembered that it is οὐ, which is the intruder, and not μή (I mean in classical usage). The signification of κατενόησεν (which is not ‘notice’ but ‘contemplate’), as well as the story of Genesis, requires the extrusion of the οὐ before κατενόησεν. The whole point of the story is, that he did realise his ‘deadness.’ Whether ἤδη is read or no makes no sort of difference. The two πίστει’s (in vv. 19 and 20) are both ‘datives of respect.’ On the other hand, τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ is ‘comitative’ (lit. “with unbelief” … “he did not doubt with unbelief”). Ἐνεδυναμώθη is deponent. We need not go about to conceive of an outside influence (as in Php 4:13).
‘Glory’ is ‘given to God,’ when the truth is told, as In the story of Achan, or in St John 9:24; here however it is somewhat different. Abraham ‘gives God glory’ by not doubting of His power. I assume that the καί, which couples πληροφορηθείς to δοὺς δόξαν, is a καί of identity.
Thus, having dwelt upon the details of Abraham’s faith, in its most conspicuous manifestation, we turn to our own case, and see that, in effect, we also are called upon to believe in God’s quickening power. Where we must ‘give glory to God’-and in fact where we do give it-is in accepting unhesitatingly the crowning miracle (cf. 10:8). We too must not ‘weaken’ in faith; we must be ‘mighty,’ as our father was.
4:23-25. “Not for him only was it written, that it was reckoned to him for righteousness; but for our sakes too (it was written) to whom righteousness will be reckoned-because we are they who believe on Him, who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead; who was delivered up, because of1 [Note: Isai. 53:12.] our sins, and was raised.…” The object of the scriptural record is plainly to strengthen faith. The contemplation of what it achieved for Abraham long since, will plainly minister to us that “encouragement of the scriptures,” of which we are told in 15:4. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not like omitting ‘righteousness’ in vv. 23 and 24. Greek is a more elliptical language by a good deal than English is. Therefore I have inserted the word in either verse. The παρεδόθη of v. 25 is an indubitable reference to the closing words of Isaiah’s majestic chapter, καὶ διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη. If one asks, whereto was He given up-the Innocent Sufferer, the Servant of the Highest-the answer is simply to death. The prophet expressly says so. Who it was gave Him up, is another matter. But we see behind the event the Will of the Eternal. The διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα tells us why He was given up. It was in a word, because we-we men-had sinned, with sins innumerable. What are we to say about ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν? Ah! what? We know the Apostle’s teaching about sin and Christ’s resurrection. From 1 Cor. 15 we learn that, “if Christ be not raised, we are yet in our sins.” Ergo, if He is raised, we are not in our sins. We are at peace with God, we are ‘i’ the right’ with God-in one word, “we are justified.” Now our cautious English says, “Who was delivered up for our trespasses, and raised for our justification.” And the wary English reader can easily discern the meaning of the earlier clause. But what does he make of the other? If it means anything at all, it must mean Christ was raised up to achieve our justification. The writer of the ‘Hebrews,’ no doubt, pursuing the figure of the ritual of the great Day of Atonement, does make the ‘sprinkling of the blood’ (technically the προσφορά) the crucial point in our High Priest’s great act, thereby shifting the centre of gravity, from the place of the Victim’s death on Earth, to the Eternal Tabernacle. But that particular figure is not the one pursued by our Apostle. And indeed we must remember that Christ fulfils many types; and it will not do to build any ‘one and only’ theory of the manner of His propitiation All we know is what He Himself tells us; to wit, that His blood was shed “for the remission of sins”; and what St Paul says here, “He was delivered up because of our sins.” To resume what I was saying a line or two above; with St Paul our ‘justification,’ our ‘setting at one’ with God, was achieved by the Death of Christ. That is the way he contemplates it. In consequence, discarding our familiar ambiguity (“was raised for our justification”), I will make bold to suggest an alternative: “and was raised because of our justification”-the which I assume to mean that the Resurrection of Christ is the seal of our justification, already achieved by His death. He said, He died for our sins. Now we know it; because He is Risen. For choice I would wish to render;
“Who was delivered up because we had sinned, was raised because we are justified.”
S. observes that the action of διά is primarily ‘retrospective.’ Then why not make it so? ‘Our sins,’ which went before, were the origin of His death. All this degree of causation we cannot apply to our justification: for anyhow God’s Holy One could not be holden of death. Yet some degree of causation we may leave. However that is not the most decisive reason for considering the preposition even here to be retrospective. The whole trend of Pauline teaching demands we should.