Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Justification in Abraham s Life: James and Paul at Odds
In Young's, (Gen. 15:6) reads: "And he believed \emn\ in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness."
In the original Hebrew, however, this more correctly says
"And he[Abram] believed the Lord, and [he, i.e., Abram ] reckoned
it [i.e., the promise of blessing in Gen. 15:5] to Him as justice."
It had nothing to do with God reckoning anything to Abraham based on faith. It was always about how Abraham viewed God's blessing in (Gen. 15:5).
As the evangelical scholar Victor Hamilton points out, the Young's capitalization effort misleads you if you followed normal Hebrew syntax and ignored Paul's spin of the passage. This is because the He with a capital h is an interpolation of what is assumed to be present. He is actually missing. When the he is missing, under normal rules of Hebrew, the he that must be interpolated is borrowed from the subject of the preceding clause, namely Abram. Because this starts as "he [i.e., Abram] believed the Lord," it must finish "he Abram counted it as righteousness to Him." It was wrong for the YLT to capitalize the he in the second part so it read "He God counted it to hi m as righteousness." Rather, it should have been " he Abram counted it to Him as righteousness/justice."
In Professor Victor P Hamilton's New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans 1990), we read in Vol. I at 425:
The second part of this verse records Yahweh's response to Abram's
exercise of faith: 'he credited it to him as righteousness.' But
even here there is a degree of ambiguity. Who credited whom? Of
course, one may say that the NT settles the issue, for Paul
expressly identifies the subject as God and the indirect object as
Abram (Rom. 4:3). 13 If we follow normal Hebrew syntax, in which
the subject of the first clause is presumed to continue into the
next clause if the subject is unexpressed, then the verse's
meaning is changed... Does he, therefore, continue as the logical
subject of the second clause? The Hebrew of the verse certainly
permits this interpretation, especially when one recalls that
sedaqa means both 'righteousness' (a theological meaning] and
'justice' (a juridical meaning]. The whole verse could then be
translated: "Abram put his faith in Yahweh, and he [[Abram]]
considered it [the promise of seed(s)] justice."
- This is implied by Paul from the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures circa 250 B.C. (Rom. 4:3) and (Gal. 3:6) both have "it was counted unto him for righteousness." This is the Septuagint translation. Thus, Paul is reading into the ambiguity spawned by the Septuagint translation which has it as the subject of counted.
Thus, in the Hebrew original version of this verse, it had nothing to do with justification of Abraham by God based on faith. It was Abraham counting the promise of God in (Gen. 15:5) as justice by God. Professor Hamilton was being honest despite how a true translation would upset Hamilton's own Protestant theology. 14
Furthermore, even if lie was the subject of counted, as the YLT renders it, then the it which is the object of counted would likely mean faith. The faith would be what is deemed righteousness, not Abraham. Abraham's faith would be deemed a righteous deed. This matches the Jewish view that faith can be described as a work. 15 Thus, it is plausible to consider that every time you trust or believe in God despite reason to doubt Him, you perform a work that pleases God.
The fact that faith (not Abraham) would be the best alternative of what is imputed to be righteousness is clearly seen by comparing (Gen. 15:6) with (Ps. 106:30-31). Phinehas' action of killing the wicked was "counted to him as righteousness." In Hebrew, those words in Psalm 106:30-31 are identical to Genesis 15:6. In context, Psalm 106 means the act of killing wicked people was reckoned an act of righteousness. It did not imply any kind of salvific justification of Phinehas. Thus, one should not read any salvific justification of Abraham into the identical expression in Genesis 15:6. At best, it could be Abraham's faith was a righteous deed. It would be reckoned as righteousness. Therefore, even if we viewed the he who is reckoning to be God, the better view would be that faith, not Abraham, was deemed righteous.
- Victor P. Hamilton's background is formidable. He is Professor of Bible and Theology at Asbury College. He has a B.A. from Houghton College 1963, a B.D. from Asbury Theological Seminary 1966; a Th.M. Asbury Theological Seminary 1967, an M.A., Brandeis University 1969; and a Ph.D. Brandeis University 1971. Hamilton's commentary is based on his complete translation of Genesis itself.
The Misleading Septuagint Greek Translation of 247 B.C.
In 247 B.C., the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, and is known as the Septuagint. Jewish scholars acknowledge "the Septuagint was translated by very bad translators " and "very often the Septuagint translators did not even know what they were reading and created nonsensical sentences by translating word for word." (Nehemiah Gordon, Hebrew Yeshua vs. Greek Jesus (Jerusalem: 2006) at 3334.)
Paul swallowed these errors in the Septuagint time and time again. Most important, Paul was misled by the highly ambiguous translation of (Gen. 15:6) in the Septuagint Greek translation of 247 B.C. Paul quotes it twice. ((Rom. 4:3); (Gal.3:6))
First, the Septuagint was missing it altogether as the direct object of counted in the verse. The Septuagint error made the verse now ambiguous. What was being counted as righteousness? Abraham, the faith or the promise of (Gen. 15:5)? The Septuagint aggravates the error by a second major mistake in translation of the verse.
15.To Jews, Abraham's faith was just another work. (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburg, T. and T. Clark LTD, 1975) Vol. 1 at 229.) However, one cannot be sure this is true Biblically from the single ambiguity in (Gen. 15:6). Some try to prove faith can be a work from what Jesus says in John 6:29: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (KJV) The translation, however, is misleading by addition of punctuation and the wrong verb tense. Robertson's Word Pictures points out, citing Westcott, the verse uses a present active subjunctive for pisteuo, meaning "that you may keep on believing" (trusting). Thus, literally Jesus says "This is the work of God that you may keep on believing on Him whom He sent." In this usage, Jesus means by this Himself (including His ministry) is the work of God presented so that you may believe. The Greek is ho theos, "work of God," not "work required by God." When the subjunctive tense may believe is properly revealed, it rules out the typical interpretation. For the subjunctive makes it impossible to believe God's work is that you merely only may believe. Rather, in context, it means Jesus is inviting them to accept Himself as "this is the work of God" which God presents so "they may keep on believing/trusting." Thus, we cannot rely upon John 6:29 to prove faith can be a work.
The Septuagint next erred by revising the verb involved. The Septuagint tense in Greek for counted (elogisthe) is in the third person singular aorist passive indicative. This means was counted. While the third person means the subject could be he, she or it, in context, the most likely subject is it. This is because the passive fonn of the verb count - was counted -reads awkwardly if any subject other than it is used. Thus, it makes little sense to say he was counted to himself. Thus, the KJV correctly reflects the Greek Septuagint, which Paul relied upon. However, if the KJV is correct, the translation flaw by the Septuagint is self-evident. The he as the subject of counted in the original Hebrew has been erased, and now it is the subject. This leaves who is doing the counting as ambiguous in the Septuagint. "It was counted to him...." Perhaps it is God or Abraham doing the counting. However, in the original Hebrew, as Hamilton notes, nonnal Hebrew syntax says it was Abraham doing the reckoning, not God.
Thus, in 247 B.C., the Septuagint launched a highly ambiguous version of (Gen. 15:6), omitting the it as the object of counted, and changing the subject of counted from he to it. Paul got sucked into these ambiguities, like a vortex.
Post-Septuagint Commentaries within Judaism
Because of the Septuagint flaws, commentators within Judaism post-dating the Septuagint understood God was imputing a righteousness to Abraham. However, these same commentators believed it was based on Abraham's faithful obedience, not merely faith. This faithfulness preceded (Gen. 15:6). Abraham did not suddenly believe in Genesis 15:6 and become justified for the first time.
Paul, by contrast, in Romans chapters 3-4 regarded Abraham as still a sinner who experienced his first justification by the mere believing recorded in (Gen. 15:6).
The contrary Jewish understanding of (Gen. 15:6) predating Paul is best exemplified by 1 Maccabees 2:52 (135 B.C.). This was written in Greek. 16 The following allusion to Genesis 15:6 obviously derives from the Septuagint Greek translation. Maccabees 2:52 says "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?" This has it as the subject of counted, and thus tracks the Septuagint version, not the original Hebrew. More to the point, this reading viewed the Septuagint (Gen. 15:6) as teaching it was faithful obedience that led to an imputed righteousness. As Gathercole comments, "Here it is faithfulness under temptation that leads to his being granted a state of righteousness.' It was not faith that originally caused the imputation of righteousness, as Paul claimed. This must be true from a Biblical perspective as well. Otherwise, one has no explanation for all God's earlier promises and blessings on Abraham, including the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12 et seq.
Or must we succumb to a Pauline view that God did all this prior to (Gen. 15:6) because Abraham was an unjustified sinner whom God wanted to impress to the point of faith? I think not. And I am in good company. The Christian scholars who address this hard question agree that Abraham had to be justified prior to (Gen. 15:6).
16.1 Maccabees was written in Greek, although it shows traces of use of Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) idiom. ("Books of Maccabees," Jewish Encyclopedia at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=18&letter=M (last accessed 5-30-06).)
17.SimonJ. Gathercole. Where Is Boasting: Early Jewish Soteriology and Pauls Response in (Rom. 1-5). (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002) at 51.
What the Bible Teaches About Abraham's Status At This Point
The Hebrew Bible does not depict Abraham as an unjustified sinner until the believing on the Lord mentioned in (Gen. 15:6). This fact has not escaped thoughtful Christian scholars. In fact, such a notion that Abraham was a lost soul until Genesis 15:6 (implied by Paul in Romans chs.3-4) is ludicrous. James B. Coffman, a conservative scholar in the Church of Christ tradition, pointed this out about Genesis 15:6 in his famous commentary on the 'Old Testament.' First, Coffman derides the view of this verse which Paul is under stood in Romans chapters 3-4 to assert. "One may only be astounded at the amount of nonsense written about this verse, which is hailed as the plan of salvation for the sinners of all ages, some even claiming that Abram was 'saved by faith only'...." Finally, Coffman concludes:
It is absolutely impossible properly to observe this place [i.e.,
Gen. 15:6] as the record of a new covenant. Gen. 12:lf contains
the embryo of all that is given here. Therefore, this chapter has
a recapitulation and further explanation of the... [promises] he
received in good faith, and... had already demonstrated his faith
by OBEDIENCE...
As Whiteside, a scholar of great discernment, exclaimed:
'One of the strangest things in all the field of Bible exegesis is
the contention so generally made that this language refers to the
justification of Abraham as an alien sinner. It seems to be taken
for granted that up to the time spoken of in this verse, Abraham
was an unforgiven, condemned sinner....The facts [from Scripture]
are all against such a supposition.' 18
18.Coffman cites R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary> on Paul's Letter to the Saints at Rome (Fort Worth, Texas: The Manney Company, 1945) at 89-90.
Thus, Paul's contrary thesis in chapters three and four of Romans that Abraham was justified by his faith alone (first experienced in (Gen. 15:6)) is pure nonsense. Paul wants us to see Abraham became the father of all who believe by implying he was transformed from sinner to a justified saint only by the step of believing. (See Rom. 3:9-10, all have sinned; (Rom. 4:1-5), 10-18, Abraham first justified by faith, and thus becomes father of all who believe.) However, Paul's notion totally contradicts what is clearly implied from Scripture, namely how Abraham must have been justified prior to (Gen. 15:6).
Paul also turns a mere promise to Abram in (Gen. 12:2) and 15:5 and the faith it spawned in 15:6 into a covenant that we inherit. However, this overlooks entirely the covenant God actually made with Abram was in Genesis 17:1-7, which transformed him into Abraham. The covenant was squarely conditioned on obedience. 19 Only after Abraham died did God declare Abraham had kept the covenant faithfully and then God declared He would keep His side of the covenant.
Why did Paul lend support to such nonsense that Abraham was justified by faith and that (Gen. 15:6) was the Abrahamic covenant we inherit? As mentioned before, the ambiguities in the Septuagint Genesis 15:6 sucked Paul in, and led him to err.