06 Of The Beginner and The Perfecter of Faith

OF THE BEGINNER AND THE PERFECTER OF THE FAITH ; THE PROPORTION OF THE FAITH ; THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE FAITH ; AND THE MYSTERY, SHIELD, AND SPIRIT OF THE FAITH.

CHAPTER VI. 

IF I may be permitted to urge the importance of the subject as a justification of the lengthened remarks made on the first example of the word faith construed after a noun, perhaps I may excuse myself for the brevity of what may be said on others which it may be felt necessary to notice, from the length of what has been said already.

We have an example of the construction under consideration inHebrews 12:2, where "faith " is construed after two words which represent, in part, the acquired character of our Lord Jesus. Jesus is here said to be the "Author and the Finisher of the faith"; but as to what is meant there is a considerable divergence of opinion, save that all seem to be of one mind that faith must be understood in a subjective sense.

Respecting the words here rendered Author and Finisher, there ought to be no doubt that the ideas of beginning and perfecting are represented by them, ’With submission, I would rather say Beginner and Perfecter, than Author and Finisher; for, with respect to Finisher, while telein, equally with teleioun, will mean to finish, the latter, the root of the word in question, will signify the perfect quality of the finishing attained. But of what is Jesus here said to be the Beginner and Perfecter? Our version having added the word "our," supplies one answer. On authority so high it is no wonder that this view should have many firm adherents. All, perhaps, of the older English expositors explain according to this opinion. Owen may be taken as a sample. He says that Christ is the Author and the Finisher of our faith by reason “of procurement and real efficiency;" that” he by his death and obedience procured this grace for us." He adds further, “So he is the Author or Beginner of our faith in the efficacious working of it in our hearts by his Spirit; and the Finisher of it in all its effects in liberty, peace and joy, and all the fruits of it in obedience." But however true and pleasing these thoughts about Jesus may be in themselves, it is felt that, when employed to express the mind of the apostle speaking of him as the “Beginner and Perfecter of the faith," they are utterly unsatisfactory.

Another view may be given in the words of Bengel. He says, " By this appellation Jesus is distinguished from all those who are enumerated in chap. xi. He himself is the only matchless example, the only rule and standard of our faith. He is called the Prince and Finisher of faith, because he himself showed faith in the Father from the beginning to the end." For, ourselves, we cannot receive this exposition. Christ an example of trust is the sum of this interpretation; the true one will present him as an object of trust also. Unquestionably he’ is an example of trust and of all else that is excellent, and it is equally without doubt that this feature of his character is found in this connection ; but there is also something exhibited to incite confidence as well as to provoke emulation. And this is needful. Sinful and weak believers, in the struggles and conflicts of their life, require for their encouragement something more than the example of One who was without sin, and who knew no moral weakness. They have more. In their infirmity of purpose and of power against all fighting’s without and fears within, they are encouraged to run the race, looking trustfully to Jesus, who giveth power to the faint, and increaseth strength in them that have no might. While compassed about with a whole cloud of witnesses, who have in their day run the same race, won the prize, and have left to all that come after them the benefit of their example, believers have in Christ, the Beginner and Perfecter of the great scheme of favour,’ designated" the faith," an object of trust throughout their whole course, to assure them of their perseverance and final success.

Bengel’s opinion is shared by other men of name, and among these is Alford; but he goes further. It is true that the remarks by which he conveys his more extended views on perfecting the faith are somewhat perplexed; but we may gather with certainty what, in his judgment, faith itself in this text does not, if we cannot what it does, mean. For, speaking of the faith, he says, " That faith of which we have been speaking through chap.Hebrews 11:1-40and thus, rather the faith than our faith, which latter is so liable to the mistake so often made in English, viz,, to be taken as if it were equivalent to faith in us, so that Jesus should be said to be the Author and Finisher of each individual Christian’s faith which he has within him." I am very grateful that Dean Alford should lend the weight of his name to correct the very prevalent mistake of which he speaks, and am equally sorry to be unable to receive the rest of his teaching on this text. No doubt the beginning and the perfecting of the individual faith of believers is a great, is a Divine work; but it is devoutly, to be wished that men, especially teachers of religion, will leave off supposing that these great names of Jesus Christ receive a satisfactory interpretation when the beginning and completing of that operation are considered as the sum of their significance. What, then, is the meaning?

Wholly unsanctioned as the opinion may be, and, perhaps, is, by any great name, no other interpretation satisfies my mind than that which makes the words, "The Beginner and the Perfecter of the faith," to represent the official engagements, the responsibilities, and work of Jesus, in connection with that great scheme which has been planned for the salvation of his people, and which here, as frequently elsewhere, is called " the faith." This view I hold to be strongly, corroborated by the terms used in relation to the accomplishment of salvation in chap.Hebrews 2:10. There we are taught that Jesus, as it respects his official character, was made perfect through sufferings ; and we know that the perfecting of his character and the perfecting of his work were contemporaneous, and were, effected by the same means. But what in particular corroborates our judgment of his being the Beginner and the Perfecter of the faith, in the view we take of it, is that the word rendered "Author," in chap,Hebrews 12:2, is the same" as that which ’is rendered "Captain" " in chap.Hebrews 2:10; and the verb rendered " make perfect," in the latter place is the root of the substantive rendered "Finisher" in the former. As we read these Scriptures; therefore, we find the Beginner of salvation perfected through sufferings in chap.Hebrews 2:10; and the Beginner and the Perfecter of the faith in chap.Hebrews 12:2, presented as an object of trust to believers, for their confidence and comfort throughout the whole of their suffering and sorrowing course. If they suffered, their afflictions had been foretold; these were, in the nature of things, a moral certainty, and had been accomplished in their brethren already; nevertheless they had for their consolation, the end of their faith, that of which Christ is the Beginner and Perfecter, which is the salvation of their souls. And “A hope so much divine, May trials well endure." The point which they were to "consider" respecting Jesus in verseHebrews 12:3, was not so much an example of excellence in suffering to emulate, as one of fact, the recurrence of which might, in their own case, be looked for with the moral certainty of its coming to pass. For as an infant cannot equal a giant in feats of strength, so it would not sound like the voice of wisdom if some one were heard encouraging a babe to emulate a man in prowess and power. So, therefore, those who " cannot do the things that they would " in the spiritual conflict, because of the lusting of the, flesh against the spirit, can hardly be encouraged with any wisdom to equal the example of Him overcoming all opposition, who was " Holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners ;" and who could say of himself, " The prince of this world cometh, but he hath nothing in me." But if Jesus is pointed out to those that are resisting almost to blood striving against sin, as the Beginner and the Perfecter of that grand scheme called faith, which has their salvation for its purpose; and if multitudes, as a cloud of witnesses, are introduced, who have, within the sphere of faith, looked to him trustfully and come off victorious, the heartening will be as forceful for its propriety as it will be pertinent to the occasion.

Let us now pass to a brief consideration of another example of this construction, namely, the proportion or analogy of the faith. When the apostle spoke of "the proportion of (the) faith" inRomans 12:6, he undoubtedly intended the word faith" to represent the idea of doctrine. He that prophesies must prophesy according to the proportion of that doctrine; and this is so designated, among other reasons, to distinguish it from that of the law; from that of all other religions; from that of all the different schools of philosophy then existing; and, perhaps, from " that most curious amalgam of Hellenic and Oriental speculation with Jewish superstition, which was afterward called the Gnostic heresy." As "faith" serves to represent the principle on which the salvation of sinners originated proceeds, and will be finished so this word fitly designates the true teaching on this great subject. Therefore, while it maybe possible to imagine a false doctrine, or to give a false interpretation of a Scripture text, which is in harmony with the principle of faith, it will be impossible to imagine a true doctrine of salvation, or to give a true exposition of any Scripture which is not. Any teaching, then, on the subject of salvation, in any one of its many branches, that is not in accord with this principle, can form no part of the doctrine of faith. Any interpretation, moreover, of those Scriptures that relate to salvation which is not in agreement herewith must certainly be erroneous. If it is correct to- says the principle of faith that it represents a good promised, given, and received wholly as a pure favour, the any teaching about salvation-not in analogy with this must be false and so far as it exerts an influence, dishonoring to God, and misleading to men: All teachers of religion, therefore, ought to give the most earnest heed, for many reasons, to the doctrines they teach, and especially that all their teaching about salvation may be according to the proportion of the faith.

While purposing to avoid any argument on the principle of the analogy of faith, as this is generally understood, we cannot but think that this term, as found inRomans 12:6, has been sadly misunderstood. It is simply surprising how pertinacious some writers endeavor to exclude an objective sense from the word faith in almost every instance of its occurrence. Mr. Haldane says here, “They were to speak according to the extent of their information or measure of faith." No teaching to our mind can be more fallacious, and, to dreamy minds, there is little that we can imagine that could be more pernicious. Like some other writers, he makes the measure of faith in verseRomans 12:3, and the analogy of faith here, identical or equivalent in meaning. But is it consistent with common sense, or with anything else that is suitable to the understanding of testimony, to make measure and analogy mean the same thing whether as identical or equivalent? If the Greek word for analogy may mean proportion, does it, like measure, take this meaning as to absolute extent merely? Does it not most certainly mean a due proportion of one thing in its relation to another? Paul had spoken just before, in verseRomans 12:3, of the measure of faith which God deals to Christian men, as the rule according to which they should esteem themselves. The subjective sense of faith is, undoubtedly, to be taken there. Faith in this sense is itself the gift of God; and not only so, but he deals the measure of the favour to every one as he pleases ; and, therefore, it may be observed in passing, it would seem that any teacher of religion must do violence to the truth taught there if he blames any man for not having this precious bestowment, or any Christian for not having it in larger measure. But because a Christian man is to esteem himself in relation to his fellows with soberness, according to the measure of faith which God has of pure favour dealt to him; that he, if he prophesies, and does so according to the proportion of faith, is to be understood as so doing according to the measure of his information and belief, seems to us what one might imagine of the very madness of folly and perversity. As clearly as faith is subjective in verseRomans 12:3, it is objective in verseRomans 12:6. As clearly as the Christian man is taught by what rule within him to esteem himself among his brethren in the former verse, the Christian teacher is taught by what rule without him to prophesy in the latter. Nor is this making of the extent of the teacher’s information and belief the rule of his prophesying or teaching a slightly harmful error. According to this doctrine what, for instance, might not mystics teach with authority? Allow a hysterical mystic to prophesy, according to his bent, and to the extent of his information and belief, unchecked by a demand for agreement with the truths of the Word, and what proportions might not his prophesying assume ? To what on earth that is sober and true would it be likely to be proportionate? What transcendently mystical notions, what spiritual monstrosities might we not be called upon to regard as the proportion of faith? Perhaps the apostle had in his mindIsaiah 8:20: " To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Of the several other examples of the construction under consideration, it seems needless, for the present purpose, to mention but one more, namely, “The righteousness which is of faith." Mr. Haldane says, “The righteousness of faith is an elliptical expression, meaning the righteousness which is received by faith." Now there is no doubt that the righteousness of faith is received by believing, but it is an entire mistake to suppose that this is what is meant by that term. When anything is said to be, or to be done, from the principle of faith, or from that of works, believing and working, respectively, will always be supposed; but principle and practice are not identical even when they bear the same name, and they ought never to be confounded. " The righteousness which is of faith," does not mean that righteousness which is received by believing, but that which arises from the principle of faith, in distinction from that which springs from works, Nor is this a distinction without a difference. . The righteousness that is of law and that which is of faith are raicaly different. This truth does not seem to be generally understood. While it appears to be toleiably well known that the principle of works has no place in the righteousness revealed in the gospel, it yet seems to be very commonly supposedd that righteousness itself must be pretty much the same thing, whether it arises from the principle of law, or from that of faith. Mr. Haldane, in expressingRomans 10:6-8, While the language of the law is, Do and Live, that righteousness which it demands, and which man is unable to perform, is, according to the gospel, gratuitously communicated through faith." He makes, it will be seen, the righteousness which the law demands identical with that which, as he says, is gratuitously communicated through faith. Pretty general consent will indeed, accord to the righteousness acquired by the Lord Jesus, from the superior dignity of his person, some notion, more or less vague, of a superiority over that which belonged to Adam in his upright state; but as to their power to justify, they appear to be regarded as identical. They are, however, in fact as different from each other as to their purpose and power as they are in respect to their source and principle. The true distinction between these righteousness’s is one of great importance, and one which I ,do not remember ever to have seen or heard pointed out. Their sources or grounds, severally, are the principle of law and the principle of faith;Romans 10:5-6. The purpose and power of each are as different as the principles from which they spring. Through the righteousness which is of law a man “shall live," verseRomans 10:5; through that which is of faith a sinner " shall be saved," verseRomans 10:9. No theological blunder can be greater than that of representing the terms "shall live," and "shall be saved," as identical or equivalent. It is to the essential distinction, not only between the different sources and principles of these righteousness’s, but also between their purposes and powers, that the apostle here directs attention. The righteousness which is of law," (without the article, denoting principle) is thus described by Moses, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them." That is, in other words, that the righteousness which arises out of the principle of law will serve for the vindication of a man that has not transgressed, but that it will not, from its very nature, be of any avail to make a transgressor righteous. But "the righteousness which is of faith” (without the article, denoting principle,) speaks a different language altogether. This, personified by Paul, with, "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of [the] faith, "the article here denoting the great scheme of favour so designated,) "which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth, and shalt believe in thine heart that God bath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." No man, therefore, that has sinned can ever be justified in the sight of God through the principle of works of law, but only through this righteousness, which is of faith; and this is the distinguishing Excellency of its purpose and power, a sinner even the very chief of sinners, is made righteous, and so fully and for ever justified from all things. In sum, the righteousness which is of law, is, as to its purpose and power, available only to vindicate a man’s title to his standing, who has not fallen by transgression; but the righteousness which is of faith, is, according to the word of the faith, designed, and possesses the power to justify the ungodly, and by consequence, to raise the fallen, and to save the lost. It alone belongs to the righteousness of God, revealed in the gospel out of the principle of faith, to justify a sinner.

Two principal reasons are commonly assigned why, now, a man cannot be justified by the righteousness of the law. One of these is man’s inability to render a perfect obedience; and, therefore, according to that method there can be no righteousness forthcoming wherewith to justify. This is the interpretation commonly given toRomans 3:20, andGalatians 3:16. Supposing that a perfect obedience were possible, then all, or nearly so, would be at a point that righteousness might still be by the deeds of the law. Few seem to have reached the truth that it is wholly beyond the province and the power of the principle of works of law to justify, a transgressor. Few appear to understand that the province of this principle to justify is limited to law abiding persons, and that its power, from the nature of the thing, cannot be exerted beyond a vindicating their title to what the already have. Most men miss the evident meaning of the apostle, when he says, "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." He speaks of the province and power of the principle: he is interpreted of the practice of the works of law. Nothing can be clearer than that if a man doeth the things of the law he shall live upon the principle of works; but if he transgresses, his life is forfeited; and’ in this condition, it is utterly beyond the power of the principle of works to give him life. SeeGalatians 3:21. The other reason alluded to is, that God has ordained another method than that of works of law for justification. No doubt God has ordained another method to justify, but the true reason why a man shall not be justified by works of law lies deeper than this notion. From this true reason arises the occasion for the introduction of another method of justification; but the reason itself is the nature of the thing. The only righteousness possible upon the principle of works of law is a title to the retention of a given state upon a perfect discharge of duty. If a sinner is to be justified, this must arise out of and proceed upon another principle altogether. On this point interpreters are very unsatisfactory. On the words, "The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith," Gal. iii. 8, Alford says, "God justifieth, not merely because the time foreseen was regarded as present, nor in respect of Paul then writing; but because it was God’s one way of justification. He never justified in any other." No doubt this has been, and is, God’s one way; but it should have been shown that this is his one way of justifying a sinner, not simply as a matter of selection, but from the very nature of the thing. If God is pleased to justify a sinner, it must be by a righteousness that is provided, promised, given, and received altogether of pure favour ; and the "righteousness of faith," answers to all these necessary requirements. A like un satisfaction is found in the Dean’s teaching onRomans 3:20. He says the future tense, "shall be justified," implies possibility, but he, nevertheless, affirms that “The apostle does not here say that justification by legal works would be impossible if the law could be wholly kept." Where then, if not here, does the apostle say that justification by legal works is impossible? We have an exactly like saying inGalatians 2:16; "For by the works of the .law shall no flesh be justified;" and the Dean, speaking for the apostle, says, " It is an axiom in our theology that by the works of the law shall all flesh find no justification." With submission, Paul said nothing of the kind. I will venture to affirm that nothing was further from the apostle’s mind than any particular axiom in his theology in distinction from anybody else’s. Clearly, what was present to his mind, his distinctive theology apart, was the self-evident truth of what he said from the very nature of the thing. That as all flesh had corrupted its way, by the works of the law all flesh shall find no justification, because this is impossible from the nature of the thing. That the province and power of the principle of works of law cannot, from their nature, extend to a sinner. Would, however, that this truth were an axiom in the theology of all Christian teachers!

Among other examples which may be regarded as belonging to the same class as those now passed under consideration, are the " Mystery of the faith,"1 Timothy 3:9; the " Shield of the faith,"Ephesians 6:16; and the " Spirit of the faith,"2 Corinthians 4:13. From what has already been said on the others, it seems unnecessary to dwell at length on these. But I affirm with the utmost confidence, that the mind of God in all these places of his Word can never be understood by those who read and interpret "faith" in them in a subjective sense.