On the use of חשׁב
6. Gen.
15:6. Unquestionably ḥšb attained
its greatest theological significance and influence in the context of Gen.
15:6: “He (Abram) believed Yahweh, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.”
The verse has been assigned to various literary strata: E, J, JER,
etc. There is more agreement concerning its function. It refers back to 15:1–5,
summarizes from a distance, interprets, and states the conclusion. It is a
“solemn statement” and “almost has the quality of a general theological tenet.”
This conclusion is in agreement with the
syntactic structure. The narrative consecutive imperfect (wayyaḥšeḇehā) still dominates, but it is introduced by a
perfect with we (weheʾemîn),
which—whether categorized as temporal (“and when …”) or frequentative (“and
repeatedly …”)—is in turn subordinate to the consecutive imperfect. The verbal
suffix appended to ḥšb transforms the
perfect clause into an object clause (“and the fact that Abram believed
Yahweh”), thus establishing the dependency of the introductory clause on the
main clause. Here we does
not function as a tense marker; it serves instead to interrupt the narrative
and establish distance; at the same time, in the manner of clauses linked by
means of we (often with
the effect of surprise), it marks the transition to a conclusion introduced by
a confirming perfect.
Gen. 15:6 makes use of three semantic
elements: the phrase heʾemîn be,
“trust in, believe in”; the term ṣeḏāqâ,
“righteousness” (i.e., being in proper order); and the phrase ḥšb with accusative suffix plus le and an accusative object,
“account something to someone as something.” Various interpretations base
themselves on the origin of these three elements and the way they are combined.
Von Rad looked for the origin of the latter
two elements (i.e., v. 6b) in “the conventional phrases of the cultus.” On the
basis of the ḥšb niphal passages, he
arrives at a “process which results in a cultic judgment” occupying an
important place in the cultus, a “declaratory act” performed by the priest in
the name of Yahweh, using “declaratory formulae” to state the cultic acceptance
of the sacrifice. Considering the term ṣeḏāqâ
and its use in the cult, he arrived at a “quite different aspect of the
Yahwistic cultus”: the “temple-gate liturgies.”
In the central statement of these liturgies
(in the form of some such declaratory formula as “He is righteous; he shall
have his life” [Ezk. 18:9]) he thought to find once again a “cultic reckoning,”
although as he admits the verb ḥšb
does not occur in these texts. In these two areas of the cult—sacrifice and
entrance liturgy—he identified the traditio-historical roots of Gen. 15:6b,
although he describes the passage itself as “polemical and revolutionary,”
breaking the cultic dependence on an act of sacrifice and transferring the
“reckoning” to the “sphere of a free and wholly personal relationship between
God and Abraham”—in other words, spiritualizing it.
Lohfink criticizes von Rad’s explanation on
three points: (1) the traditio-historical setting is not clearly defined, i.e.,
the context of Gen. 15:6a and 15:1–5 is not taken into account; (2) the passage
does not in fact represent a spiritualization of cultic acts but rather an
interpretation of the promise to Abraham on the basis of cultic experiences and
ideas; and (3) the term ṣeḏāqâ,
“righteousness,” does not occur in the context of “cultic reckoning,” at least
when sacrifice is offered (cf. Lev. 7:18; 17:4). Lohfink, following Kaiser and
others, thinks that the “oracle of salvation” was the realm of experience “that
was drawn upon to interpret the ancient Abraham tradition,” and that the
interpretative elements of Gen. 15:6 all fit within this framework: confidence
in the acceptance of the divine oracle, “perhaps in the form of a hymn of
praise”; “correctness” (ṣeḏāqâ,
Akk. kittu) in the oracular ritual;
and the crediting or reckoning, consisting (as in the case of von Rad) in a
“declaration of correctness made by the priest” (“cultic use of ḥšb”).
Both discussions are imprecise at one crucial
point: the meaning of the ḥšb phrase.
Von Rad observes that ḥšb occurs only
in the first of his cultic contexts (sacrifice), and focuses precisely on its
use there as an interpretative element, reflecting cultic acts: “The difference
between the declaratory formulae and the occurrences of the cultic term חרב is simply that the latter are found in directions to the
priests, instructing them in the kind of tests they are to apply. The former
prescribe the exact form of words on the declaration to be made to the
worshipper.” But he is unable to explain the relationship of these very late
and secondary83 instructions dealing with peripheral cultic themes
to Gen. 15:6. The entrance liturgy is the setting for ṣeḏāqâ and the oracle of salvation may well be the
setting for heʾemîn, but
neither is the setting for ḥšb. We
can only conclude that in the use of ḥšb
in Gen. 15:6 we are dealing with a situation independent of the P passages but
parallel to them and to Gen. 50:20 and Ps. 32:2 as well, where ḥšb has been employed ad hoc to
interpret a cultic and theological circumstance.
The specific contribution of this element to
the total statement made by Gen. 15:6 may be described in two ways:
a. The summary nature of the passage is
underlined. The act(s) of accepting faith is finally reckoned as a deciding
factor in the relationship with Yahweh. The expression, probably shaped by
notions associated with the law of debts (cf. 2 S. 19:20[19]), calls the
outcome of the events depicted a settlement of accounts in a theological sense,
deliberately echoing commercial language—as the context shows. The
interpretation of the promise to Abraham found in Gen. 15:1–6 uses such
expressions and ideas throughout. Note the promise of great reward (v. 1), the
question of how it is to be paid (v. 2), the negotiations about property and
inheritance (3 occurences of yrš in
vv. 3f.), and the demonstration of numbers (v. 5). All of this leads up to ḥšb. The reckoning of belief as ṣeḏāqâ documents the
conclusion of the transaction. (On the commercial style of the pericope [cf.
also Gen. 31:25ff. and esp. 18:20ff.] as an interpretative element, see the
discussion by von Rad.)
b. Since the verb in its origin exhibits a
personal and rational semantic structure in its usual subject, its use in Gen.
15:6 evokes a sense of what has been termed “inwardness, subjectivity,
spiritualization,” a transfer “to the sphere of a free and wholly personal
relationship.” The term that appears primarily in Wisdom Literature is here
used uniquely to designate an extraordinary occurrence. Together with the
(cultic?) notion of ṣeḏāqâ
it serves to define Yahweh’s momentary reaction theologically as an act of
conscious judgment. (K. Seybold, “חָשַׁב,” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren,
eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 5 [trans.
David E. Green; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986], 241-44)
On the use of צָדַק
In Gen. 15:6 Yahweh reckons ṣeḏāqâ to Abraham. A similar
passage reckons Phinehas’s intercession as righteousness (liṣḏāqâ, Ps. 106:31). In Gen. 15:6 ṣeḏāqâ is used without a preposition, showing that the
fem. suf. in wayyaḥšeḇehā
can be colored by ṣeḏāqâ.
This construction along with the consecutive verb form weheʾemîn emphasize the divine action; God
made promises to him, he believed, and God reckoned it to him as righteousness.
A new understanding of this verse has emerged
that takes Abraham as the consistent subject throughout the verse. That is,
Abraham believed the Lord and reckoned it (i.e., what the Lord had promised) to
him as (a manifestation of his) righteousness. Elements militating against this
view include especially the consecutive verb form and the divine name
immediately before the verb “and he reckoned,” where “he” can more naturally
refer to God. (Helmer Ringgren and Bo Johnson, “צָדַק,” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Heinz-Josef Fabry,
eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 12 [trans.
Douglas W. Stott; Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans, 2003], 253–254)
Further Reading
