10 Of Faith construed as a Governing Noun

OF FAITH CONSTRUED AS A GOVERNING WORD.

CHAPTER X. 

Pistia, (faith) is sometimes construed as the governing word. We read, for instance, of the “Faith of God " inMark 11:22, andRomans 3:3. Respecting this latter example, if the almost, perhaps quite, universal consent of expositors is to decide, nothing remains but to bow and to accept fidelity or faithfulness as the meaning of the word faith in this expression. When so very general a consent obtains in the interpretation of any part of the Word of God, it requires some strength of conscientious conviction to entertain, and some courage to express, a different judgment. We, however, do differ from the common judgment and are convinced that our view is the true one, and, therefore, that it has the importance of the truth on this particular subject. At the risk, therefore, of being charged with affectation or presumption, we will briefly show our opinion.

We are convinced that the word faith in this term here stands for that divine scheme of favour according to which the seed of Abraham were put in possession of the promised land. That scheme was God’s. With him it originated. He put it into action. Against all opposition he carried it into effect. It receives the designation of " faith " because the good designed to be brought to pass by it was promised, given, and received as a pure favour. Faith, therefore, was a most appropriate designation. Had there been some " work of God "John 6:29to do to give effect to the scheme, it would have been otherwise designated, and we maybe sure that failure would have been the result. But it is designated the “faith of God," and was, therefore, to receive effect from the power of Him whose goodness originated it. This scheme presented no good to be possessed as a reward for the discharge of some duty, but one that was to be had by the pure favour of God. Hence it was not made without effect by all the opposition that was offered against it.

We may add, moreover, for what it is worth, that, so far as our limited reading extends, the Greek word represented by make without effect," is never found having a moral virtue for its object nor for its subject. If the nullification of a law, a rule, a promise, or, as in the passage we are now considering, a scheme is to be spoken of, then this is the word to be employed ; or, perhaps, (kenoun), which would represent the same effect under another idea. Had it been intended to represent the failure of a, moral virtue, such as fidelity, then, we speak with submission, (ekleipein), or (ekpiptein), would have been the word employed.

But, if the digression may be forgiven, because we reject the common interpretation of the term ’" faith of God," we are not to be understood as asserting that the word faith nowhere means fidelity. So far from this, it is perfectly clear to us that this word takes this meaning, not only inTitus 2:10, where it is so translated, and in some other places where it is so commonly understood, but also inGalatians 5:22, where it does not generally receive this sense. Here we have the fruit of the Spirit set in opposition to the works of the flesh, and faith, in the sense of fidelity, belongs to the former. But, seeing that this, as also every other subject in the category, is simply a moral virtue, it may be very pertinently asked, how can it be the fruit of the Spirit? Moreover, as moral virtues, all these may be, and are, found in those who could not, and do not, make any pretension to the Holy Ghost living in them; or that this moral Excellency in them is to be "specially predicated of that divine Person; or that their virtuousness should designated a “walking in the Spirit." The observation is true, and often pertinently made, that there may be a high moral sense, inducing a corresponding virtuous action in a very eminent degree, where there is no profession of spiritual religion; but that whoever truly names the name of Christ will certainly be virtuous. This, however, does not relieve us of our difficulty here. What will? Motive seems to be the true solution. Why a man is virtuous must be the rule to settle whether or not his virtue is the fruit of the Spirit. Joseph was a chaste man because he dreaded and abhorred to sin against God. Nehemiah avoided extortion and unjust usury, because of the fear of God. Paul delighted in the law of God. His virtue is the fruit of the Spirit who is virtuous from the fear of the Lord. His virtue is the fruit of the Spirit who, from believing with his heart in the Lord Jesus Christ unto righteousness, dreads and abhors to sin against God, and delights in the law of God after the inner man.

If this view be a correct one, it is as an axe at the root of all that very extensively patronized divinity which teaches the notion that morality is identical with religion. Let the moralist know, amidst the honors he claims and receives, and the advantages which he and the circle in which he moves may enjoy on account of his morality, that after all the moral and social virtues have been experienced and practiced by him, he must be born again before he can see and enter into the kingdom of God. Of the construction we are considering, "Faith of Jesus Christ,"Romans 3:22; "The faith of Christ,"Php 3:9; and "The faith of the Son of God,"Galatians 2:20, are instances which afford another important example. Nothing can be more evident than that pistis, (faith,) in some period of its history, has acquired an appropriated or, what Alford on2 Timothy 4:7, calls, an "objective technical sense." But the surprising thing about this fact is, that in some instances where no other sense is possible, expositors seem to admit it tardily, and in others, where its claims are paramount and decisive, they ignore or deny them. We have an astounding example of this perversity now before us. Ninety-nine of every hundred teachers will expound "the faith of Christ," in all three of the above instances, as meaning the belief of believers. Every expositor of these passages with whose writings I am acquainted, interprets the word in this very jejune sense. But the "objective technical sense," as it is called, does not more certainly belong to the word in2 Timothy 4:7, than in these three passages, and it is not possible to give any tolerable interpretation of it in either instance in any other sense. The "Faith of Jesus Christ," in the first instance, "of Christ," in the second, and "of the Son of God," in the third, is the same as that of which-Jesus Christ himself spoke as “My faith,"Revelation 2:13, which the church at Pergamos had not denied ; and as that of which many different things are predicated in many other of its occurrences elsewhere. But it should be observed that when this word takes this “objective technical sense," it is found in different situations and is employed to represent different ideas. The leading meaning seems very clearly to be that of a great scheme of pure favor, of which Christ is the Beginner and the Perfecter, and which, for this reason, is called’" the faith of Christ." Sometimes " the faith" is a principle out of which things arise, at others a law through which they are done. Then the doctrine which teaches the truth concerning the faith takes this name; and this is to be earnestly contended for, and its proportion or analogy is to be studiously regarded. Again, from what this scheme is, it comes to have its uses. Paul, as we have seen, spoke of it as that in which he lived, and thus gave it the meaning of a sphere. Speaking of the whole armor of God, he assigns to the faith the place and use of a shield. At another time it takes the meaning of a party distinction to which some are said to belong, and at another something else, for it is not at all pretended that this list is exhaustive of the meanings of the word when used in this sense. It is merely intended to point out to those who may wish to know the mind of God in his Word, that when this objective sense of faith may have been ascertained with certainty in any instance, that its exact meaning must then be a subject of solicitude. This must be found from connection. For instance, in the first of the three examples now before us, we learn that the righteousness of God is manifested now through the faith of Jesus Christ, and that it is unto all, and upon all, them that believe. Connection here points unmistakeably to that great scheme which takes its name from Jesus Christ, as he is its Beginner and Perfecter, and is here distinguished as the medium through which the righteousness of God is manifested; just as when the righteousness of God is said to be revealed,Romans 1:17, out of faith, the idea of principle or ground is pointed out. The same idea obtains in the second example. Paul desired to be found having that righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, and which is upon the faith. That is, through the great scheme of Christ’s faith, not his belief, as the medium, and upon the faith as the principle or ground; for as the righteousness of God is revealed from the principle of faith, and manifested through the faith of Jesus Christ, so its possession is based on the same principle as its revelation, and it is received through the same medium as it is manifested. In the third example, “the faith of the Son of God" can only be regarded as the same great scheme presented to us as the sphere of the apostle’s life. “I live," he says, "in the faith of the Son of God." This does not mean that his life consisted in believing on the Son of God; but that the great scheme so designated comprehended all the aims, the actions, the joys, and the hopes of his life. In the term, " the faith of God’s elect,"Titus 1:1, however the preposition may be understood with which it is construed, and which is rendered according to," we have another example of the word, faith," taking the meaning of scheme of favor. Other meanings are given. Some take "faith" here to be the creed of God’s elect in Old Testament times, and that the apostle’s ministry agreed herein with what was taught by Moses and the prophets. Others, that it means the doctrine of faith which the apostle was appointed to preach, and that we are to understand by the words that “it was the duty of an apostle to propagate the faith." Others, "that the faith, (that is, the belief,) of the elect is aimed at." That is, it was the aim of the apostle that unbelievers should be led to believe, and that the belief of believers should be strengthened by his ministry. Now, if it may be said that no one of these notions is palpably erroneous, it may also be very confidently asserted that the mind that can receive content in any one of them is, in this instance at least, very easily satisfied.

Taken in the sense of a scheme of favor, difficulty vanishes, and a feeling of contentment is enjoyed. So understood, we are taught that such a divine scheme exists, and that it embraces the persons and interests of a people that are thus distinguished from all others.

Elect is a term of definiteness. It is inclusive in purpose, and, therefore, exclusive by consequence in effect. Everybody, then, is not comprehended. The elect are the predestinated, and these become the called, and these become the justified, and these become the glorified. The elect are the people of Christ, on whose behalf he received the name Jesus, because he came to save them from their sirs. They are the sheep for whom he laid down down his life. They are the persons for whom he prays, as distinguished from the world that he does not pray for. The elect are those that hear God’s words, because they are of God, in distinction from those that hear them not, because they are not of God; and because they are the sheep of Christ, they believe in him; and they are thus distinguished from others that do not believe because they are not of his sheep. In every branch of this scheme the persons and interests of God’s elect are comprehended; in no one branch of it are the persons and interests of the non-elect included. As “the faith of God," so called for the reasons we have assigned, embraced the persons and interests of the seed of Abraham only, so " the faith of God’s elect " takes within it only the "remnant according to the election of grace." The interpretation of the text is exceedingly easy. For the furtherance of this great scheme, Christ, upon his ascension, gave ministerial gifts to men; “he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Paul was made a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the furtherance (kata) of the faith of God’s elect, and the knowledge of the truth that is according to godliness.

It may be observed, in addition to what has been said above of the faith of God’s elect that the same idea belongs to this word in the expression "common faith," in verseJude 1:4. If that scheme includes God’s elect only, it should be noted that these are some “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." In the “common faith," then, there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. National distinctions are annihilated. “The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Paul, a Jew by nature, regarded Titus, by nature a Gentile, as his own son, and a joint partaker with him of all spiritual. privileges “I according to" (kata, in, or along the line of) " the common faith." According to the common belief is, beyond all questions, inadmissible here.

Every candid mind will be ready to admit that an interpretation of the terms employed about Abraham’s faith inRomans 4:1-25is hedged around with a formidable difficulty. No one who has studied this subject will be surprised that different opinions exist, however justly some of these are to be wondered at. “Abraham believed God, it is said, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." The words are simplicity itself their exposition is difficulty itself. Is it impossible to evade as a fact that what these words say, however they are to be explained, is that ’it was the act of believing that was counted unto Abraham for righteousness? Some say, No; and some of these explain that God in, judging mankind, will place on one side of the account their duties, and on the other their performances, and that in judging believers he will place their believing on the side of their performances, and by mere favor will value this as equal to a complete fulfillment of all their duties, and will reward them accordingly. That is, that he will count the act of believing to amount to righteousness, and will accept believers as righteous on account, or for the sake of, their belief. One of these has had the courage to affirm that it is not “said anywhere that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers."

It would be a wholly mistaken kindness to bandy compliments. with a hero of this stamp. However high a theological distinction any man may have acquired who speaks thus, we will not be awed from denouncing in the strongest terms, teaching so strangely erroneous and so highly mischievous, as that a man is to be counted as having performed all duties by believing, and for the sake of this that he will be reckoned righteous. This is just that perversion of the gospel of Christ which demands that the perverter, though he be an angel from heaven, should be accursed. When any man, however exalted, shall affirm that it is not anywhere said that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, he must be told in plain terms, not that he errs in opinion, but that he denies a matter of fact, and that it would be a waste of words to contradict so palpable a contradiction of the testimony of God.

Others, those who hold that believing in Christ unto salvation is a duty, and that a man’s justification and salvation wait on this act as its appropriate reward, find here one of their strongest arguments. Fortified by their view of Abraham’s faith, they proclaim with an emboldened confidence that unbelief, understood as not believing in Christ unto salvation, is the chief vice, and that condemnation is its proper penalty; and that to believe in Christ unto salvation is the prime virtue and the first duty of all men, and that justification and salvation will be its certain consequence and due economical reward. How foreign all this is from the Gospel of Christ needs not to be dwelt on here.

Others, these too holding that it is the act of Abraham’s believing that is said to be reckoned to him unto righteousness, explain more soberly and on sounder principles. Alford says onRomans 4:2-3, after repudiating the theory of a meriting faith, " It will therefore follow, that it was not the act of believing which was reckoned to him as a righteous act, or on account of which perfect righteousness was laid to his charge; but that the fact of his trusting God to perform has promise introduced him into the blessing promised." Although this exposition is vitiated with no erroneous doctrine, it fails to satisfy. Introduced into righteousness, the blessing promised, is a very lame interpretation of reckoned unto righteousness. No, the "It" did not introduce him into righteousness according to the testimony, but was counted to him unto righteousness, which is a very different thing, and this is the difficulty.

Haldane, with whom we may reckon Dr. Carson, lays great stress on the preposition. Not "for," but unto righteousness, he says. I fail to perceive the force of these remarks; for however the preposition may be rendered, it is unquestionable that Abraham was reckoned to be righteous. Again, he says, "the expression ’ unto righteousness’ is elliptical, and signifies unto the receiving of righteousness." This is almost like Alford. Let us, however, fill up the expression as directed, and see then how it reads. Abraham believed God, and it it as counted to him unto the receiving of righteousness. How does this help out of the difficulty? Filled up as the ellipsis now is according to direction, if this saying is not still elliptical, the sense is singularly subtle, or wonderfully profound, and very far to seek. Again and again this writer very properly tells us that believing and righteousness are not identical. He says that we receive righteousness by believing. This is not disputed, but it requires to be explained differently from the common method. But he here says that Abraham believed God, and that his believing was counted to him unto the receiving of righteousness; that is, that the act by which he received righteousness was counted to him unto, or, in order to, the receiving of righteousness. Surely this never can be a making the truth plain on tables. Unless a man is exceptionally keen-witted and clear-sighted he can never catch the sense of this interpretation at a glance while running. How the act of believing should be interpreted as that by which a man receives righteousness, and at the same time that it should be reckoned unto, or, in order to the receiving of righteousness to him that believes, may fairly be ranked among things not easily comprehensible by persons of ordinary intelligence, and things not easy to be surely believed. No solution of the acknowledged difficulty of this subject presents so powerful a claim to acceptance as that according to which the word “faith " and the pronoun "it" are to be regarded as representing the object believed. Abraham saw Christ’s day, and was glad. His sight of Christ, therefore, was an appreciative one. He saw Christ in prospect as the New Testament believer sees him in retrospect. He apprehended the mystery of substitution as this was taught and illustrated by sacrifice. He saw as in a glass the Antitype in the type. He learned that he was to be justified by the righteousness of another through imputation. Having learned "the law of righteousness," he submitted, and became obedient to the faith. He believed in Christ with his heart in order to his justification, and the meritorious acquirement of the Object of his faith was reckoned, or imputed to him unto righteousness. The difficulty of the passage is strongly felt and frankly admitted. I give my opinion.