It was the common assumption of all schools of Jewish thought that 'Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well-pleasing in righteousness all the days of his life' (Jubilees xxiii. 10 – written at the end of the second century B.C.), in other words, that he 'kept the law of the Most High' (Ecclus. xliv. 20). At the same time, the Old Testament laid stress on his 'faith.' This emphasis was congenial to the freer type of Jewish thought represented, for example, by Philo, but much less sympathetic to thinkers of the Pharisaic or rabbinic type. While they recognized the place of 'faith' in religion, as belief in the One God and fidelity to Him, they were at pains to make it clear that such fidelity could only be expressed in the keeping of the Commandments. But how could Abraham be said to keep the Law, if the Law was identified with the Code of Commandments supposed to have been delivered by Moses? The answer given was that he kept the whole Law by anticipation. The numerous statements to this effect in the Talmud show that it was orthodox rabbinic doctrine. Its earliest appearance seems to be in the Apocalypse of Baruch (lvii. 2) : 'At that time [the time of the patriarchs] the unwritten law was named among them, and the works of the commandment were then fulfilled.' This apocalypse is but little later than Paul's time, and he may well have been acquainted with the doctrine.

2
Thus he introduces his Jewish objector averring that Abraham was justified on the score of what he did. This was in substance the doctrine of Jesus ben Sirach : 'He kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with Him. . . . Therefore He assured him by an oath that the nations should be blessed in his seed.' (Ecclus. xliv. 20-21).

3-5
But, Paul urges, this goes against the letter of Scripture, which says Abraham believed God, and this was counted to him as righteousness. These words, he argues, 'counted as righteousness,' imply that he had no actual righteousness, but was credited with that which he did not in himself possess.

6-8
This sense of the words, he goes on, may be illustrated from Ps. xxxii. Here the man is pronounced blessed whose sin the Lord will not count to him. That clearly means, not the man who has no sin, but the man whose breaches of the Law are forgiven, whose sins are covered. To turn the statement round, that man is blessed who, though he does not possess righteousness, yet has righteousness counted to him. The argument is verbal, and, as such, good enough for those who with Paul accepted the precise wording of Scripture as an infallible basis. But it is also more than verbal, in so far as it connects the idea of justification with the experience of forgiveness. If a man knows what it is to be a sinner, and yet to be forgiven, he knows what it is to be justified by grace.

9-12
And now a further point. The Jewish objector might argue: whatever may be the meaning of the words, 'counted as righteousness,' Abraham did, as a matter of fact, accept the obligations of the (as yet unwritten) Law, since he 'established the covenant in his flesh' (Ecclus. xliv. 20) by being circumcised. But, says Paul, the promise to Abraham, and the faith by which he accepted it, are recorded in Gen. xv. ; his circumcision in Gen. xvii. At the moment, therefore, when his faith was counted to him as righteousness, he was as uncircumcised as any Gentile. (The Old Testament critic might put the point differently: the early-prophetic stories of Abraham know nothing of his circumcision, which is mentioned only in the late priestly document.) A palpable hit, if the letter of Scripture is to be the final court of appeal.

13
It follows, then, that the promise made to Abraham that he and his offspring should inherit the world did not reach him through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14
Indeed, it is only on such terms that the promise is worth anything at all. A promise contingent on the fulfilment of a law which no one fulfils in its entirety is a delusion. The argument is given in a fuller and clearer form in Gal. iii. 7-14 (to which I have referred on i. 17). Here it is summarized in the sentence: 'the Law produces Wrath'

15
(or, as Moffatt paraphrases, what the Law produces is the Wrath, not the promise of God ; but the paraphrase is somewhat loose) ; i.e. the Law only furthers that process of sin and retribution described in chaps. i. and ii. ; for where there is no law there is no transgression either. That is to say, (a) what the law imparts is the consciousness of sin (iii. 20) and so it gives the quality of guilty transgression to sinful acts for which in its absence a man was not held responsible ; and (b) it provokes by its prohibitions the desire for sinful things, as explained in vii. 7-25. It is one of Paul's favourite topics, but here it is a little aside from the main argument.

In verse 16 we come to the point which shows the real importance of the case of Abraham. Paul wishes to show that the Gentiles are to be reckoned among the offspring of Abraham to whom the promise was made. If it was given to Abraham on the score of what he did, i.e. as a reward for his keeping the Law, then only those who kept the Law could have any share in it, and in any case the Gentiles were excluded.

16-17
But, according to Scripture, it was promised that Abraham should be a father of many nations, which Paul, by an extension of the original meaning, takes to mean the spiritual ancestor of Gentiles as well as Jews. And so it was important to show that all turns upon faith, and the promise is a matter of favour, or grace, to make it secure for all the offspring, not only for those who are adherents of the Law, but also f or those who share the faith of Abraham. Once again we observe how for Paul the universality of the Christian religion is bound up with justification by grace through faith.

The nature of faith is now illustrated from the story of Abraham. The fundamental proposition, Abraham believed God and this was counted to him as righteousness, occurs in Gen. xv. 6. The occasion is the promise made- to him that he should have a son, and that his posterity should be as numerous as the stars.

17
He was a childless man of a hundred years (Gen. xvii. 17). Reflecting on this situation, Paul concludes that to accept such a promise meant belief in a God who makes the dead live and calls into being that which does not exist.

19-21
Conscious of his own utter impotence, Abraham relied simply and completely on the all-sufficient power of God. His faith won strength as he gave glory to God and felt convinced that He was able to do what He had promised. Thus, from a somewhat artificial treatment of Scripture, Paul has deduced a fine definition of what faith is. He then applies it, not without a trace of the same artificiality, to the faith of a Christian.

24
As Abraham believed in a God who makes the dead to live, so we believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

25
The concluding verse of the chapter is rhetorical rather than logical in form : no antithesis is intended between 'delivered for our trespasses,' and 'raised that we might be justified.' Somewhat after the manner of Hebrew parallelism, the meaning is 'He died and rose again in order that we might be delivered from the guilt of our sins.' The verse serves to bring the argument back, after the digression about Abraham, to the point reached in the previous chapter.

This discussion of the case of Abraham was, no doubt, important in Paul's apologetic against Jewish opponents within and without the Church; but for us it throws little light, except incidentally, on his main theme. It served to rebut objections which were serious to him, but have little interest and no weight for us, while the artificial method of argument from Scripture makes the whole exposition seem remote and unenlightening. Perhaps the chief positive truth which emerges is that when Paul speaks of faith he is referring to something which did not begin with Christianity, but is an original and permanent element of all genuinely religious life, even though in some forms of religion, as in the extreme legalist form of Judaism, faith is empty of meaning.