To St. Paul faith is the motive power of the whole life, and in two expositions of his doctrine — Ro 4, Gal 3 — he affirms the essential identity of Abraham's faith with that of every Christian. He does not, indeed, think (like Jesus Himself in Jn 8^) of Abraham as directly foreseeing the day of Christ, but he maintains that Abraham's faith in God as then partially revealed was essentially the same as the Christian's faith in God as now fully made known in Christ. Abraham had faith when he was still in uncircumcision (Ro 4"), faith in God's power to do things apparently impossible (417-19)^ faith by which he both strengthened his own manhood and gave glory to God (4^). Abraham believed ' the gospel ' which was preached to him beforehand, the gospel which designated him as the medium of blessing to all the nations (Gal 3^). And as his faith, apart from his works, was counted to him for righteousness, he became the representative believer, in whom all other believers, without distinction, may recognize their spiritual father. It is not Abraham's blood but his spirit that is to be coveted (3-) ; those who are of faith [ol iK irlaTews) are ' sons of Abraham,' are 'blessed with the faithful Abraham' (3^-"); upon the Gentiles has come ' the blessing of Abraham ' {2,^*) ; all who are Christ's, without any kind of distinction, are 'Abraham's sons,' fulfilling, like him, the conditions of Divine acceptance, and in- heriting with him the Divine promises.
St. Paul uses the narratives of Genesis as he finds them. Before the dawn of criticism the theologian did not raise the question whether the patriarchal portraits were real or ideal. To St. Paul Abraham is a historical person who lived 430 years before Moses (Gal 3i'0, and who was not inferior to the great prophets of Israel in purity of religious insight and strength of inward piety. It is now almost universally believed that the faith ascribed to the patriarchs was itself the result of a long historical evolution. But, while the maturer conceptions of a later age are carried back to Abraham, the patriarch is not dis- solved into a creation of the religious fancy. ' The ethical and spiritual idea of God which is at the foundation of the reUgion of Israel could only enter the world through a personal organ
of divine revelation ; and nothing forbids us to see in Abraham the first of that long series of prophets through whom God has communicated to mankind a saving knowledge of Himself (Skinner, Genesis [ICC, 1910], p. xxvii).
2. In the Epistle of St. James.— St. James (2*1-23) uses the example of Abraham to establish the thesis, not that ' a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law ' (Ro 3^), but that ' by works a man is justified, and not only bj- faith' ( Ja 2^^). While the two apostles agree that Christianity is infinitely more than a creed, being nothing if not a life, they difier in their conception of faith. The meaning which St. James attaches to the word is indicated by his suggestion of believing demons and dead faith (2^^- ^o). St. Paul would have regarded both of these phrases as con- tradictions in terms, since all believers are con- verted and all faith is living. Asked if faith must not prove or justify itself by works, he would have regarded the question as superfluous, for a faith that means self-abandonment in passionate adoring love to the risen Christ inevitablj- makes the believer Christlike. St. James says in efi'ect : ' Abraham believed God, proving his faith by works, and it was counted to him for righteous- ness.' With St. Paul righteousness comes between faith and works ; with St. James works come between faith and righteousness. Had St. James been attacking either Galatians or Romans, and in particular correcting St. Paul's misuse of the example of Abraham, his polemic would have been singularly lame. Such a theory does injustice to his intelligence. But, if he was sounding a note of warning against popular perversions of evangeli- cal doctrine, St. Paul, who was often 'slanderously reported ' (Ro3^), must have been profoundly grate- ful to him. See, further, art. James, Epistle of.
It is interesting to note that Clement of Rome co-ordinates the doctrines of the two apostles. Taking the tj-pical example of Abraham, he asks, ' Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed ? ' and answers, ' Was it not because he wrought right- eousness and truth through faith ? ' (Sp. ad Cor. | 31). If the two types of doctrine could be regarded as complementary sets of truths, justice was done to both apostles. But the difference assumed a dangerous form in the hard dogmatic distinction of the Schoolmen between fides infonnis and fi.d€s fonnata crim caritate, the latter of which (along with the ' epistle of straw ' on which it seemed to be based) Luther so vehemently re- pudiated.
3. In the Epistle to the Hebrews. — The writer of Hebrews bases on the incident of Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek (He 7; cf. Gn 14) an argument for a priesthood higher than the Aaronic order (v."ff-). To the king -priest of Salem Abraham gave tithes, and from him received a blessing, thereby owning his inferiority to that majestic figure. As Abraham was the ancestor of the tribe of Levi, the Aaronic priesthood itself may be said to have been overshadowed in that hour and ever afterwards by the mysterious order of Melchizedek. This is the conception of the writer of Ps 110, who identifies God's vicegerent, seated on the throne of Zion, not with the Aaronic order, but with the roj-al priesthood of Melchizedek. When the Maccabees displaced the house of Aaron, and concentrated in their own persons the kingly and priestly functions, they found their justifica- tion in the priestly dignity of Melchizedek, and called themselves, in his style, ' priests of the Most High ' (Charles, Book of Jubilees, 1902, pp. lix and 191). Finally, when Christ had given a Messianic interpretation of Ps 110, it was natural that tlie writer of Hebrews should see the Aaronic priesthood superseded by an eternal King-Priest after the ancient consecrated order of Melchizedek.