Abrham Part1

Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" (A 'new' insight on Romans 4 and Romans 2)

The other day I was thinking about Genesis 15:6 and felt I had gained a new insight. Even though I've
held to elements of this before, I think this 'new' insight will help tie things together. I'm not saying I'm
the first to do this, only that this was a sort of 'aha' moment for me.

The first time the term "righteousness" appears in the Bible is in Genesis 15:6. The big question is: what
is righteousness? We all have a general intuitive idea, and I wrote a post on this (HERE), but I think in
this case Paul was getting at something important that we end up overlooking.

While many think of righteousness/unrighteousness in a generic sense, that's not how we should
approach the Bible. It is crucial to realize that Paul's opponents saw righteousness as synonymous with
living in conformity with the Mosaic Law, which was God's Law (the Torah). But Paul noticed something
fascinating: Abraham was counted as righteous before God's law formal standard (the Mosaic Law) even
existed. But how can Abraham be considered righteous without there being a law from which to
measure his righteousness? Paul is apparently teasing out the fact that some law/covenant must have
existed prior to the Mosaic Law, and that by God counting Abraham's faith/faithfulness as righteousness
means God counted Abraham as living in conformity to this 'mysterious' pre-Mosaic law/covenant.

If that's the case, then reducing our view of Romans 4 to the popular apologetics claims like "Genesis
15:6 wasn't the first time Abraham believed" (cf Gal 3:6-9; Heb 11:8; Gen 12:1-4; Rom 4:17-22) kind of
miss the bigger point, even if they are true claims. What our emphasis should be on is that Paul is not
concerned about God crediting Abraham's faith as some generic righteous deed, but more specifically
Abraham was righteous per some real covenant than preexisted Moses' Covenant. This means that
Genesis 15:6 is saying God either was right there establishing a new unnamed covenant, or God was
affirming Abraham was already living a righteous lifestyle under this unnamed covenant.

This conclusion would fit perfectly with Paul calling Abraham "ungodly" (Rom 4:5), since this term would
be referring to sinful/uncircumcised living per the Mosaic Standards. Similarly, Paul brings up David as a
secondary example of "ungodly" because he gravely sinned under the Mosaic Standards, which puts one
out of the Mosaic Covenant, 'nullifying' their circumcision (Rom 2:25). So in Romans 4:6-8, Paul is saying
David prayed Psalm 32 (and Psalm 51) and received forgiveness under some other covenant, since the
Mosaic Covenant did not forgive murder (Num 35:33). Furthermore, David says nothing about 'faith' or
'works' in Psalm 32, meaning we shouldn't have some generic view of 'faith' or 'works' in mind. I wrote
about this in an older post (HERE and HERE).
Finally, some passages to consider in support of this 'thesis':

If we look at Rom 3:6, righteousness is placed in parallel with faithfulness, where Paul contrasts God's
fidelity to the Covenant promises to the Jewish nation's unfaithfulness to the Covenant. From this we
can reasonably assume faithfulness for Abraham was fidelity to that pre-Mosaic covenant, and less likely
about a one time act of faith (or even his first act of faith).

Paul frequently mentions Abraham was living under conditions prior to the Mosaic Law, and that the
promises to Abraham pre-exist the Mosaic Law, e.g., Rom 4:13-15; Rom 5:12-14; Gal 3:17-18. The
Romans 4 text here is especially noteworthy, since it's right in the context under consideration.

This thesis fits with Genesis 26:4-5, "And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my
laws." This older covenant probably even contained the original liturgical rites, as we see Abraham
building Altars and such (see HERE, Gen 12:8; 13:3-4; 21:32-33).

Romans 2 seems to be the missing interpretive key for Rom 4, which most people forget:

25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision
becomes uncircumcision. [David sinned and became a Gentile, Rom 4:7-8]

26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be
imputed as circumcision? [Abraham prior to his circumcision, his faithfulness was reckoned as (carrying
the same value as) circumcision, Rom 4:9-12]

27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written
code and circumcision but break the law. [Gentile Christians versus unbelieving Jews]

28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a
Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is
not from man but from God. [Abraham, David, Christians, not the Mosaic Law]

Final random thought: Perhaps the Mosaic Covenant built on to this older covenant, in an inverted grace
builds on nature sense. Or maybe this was a 'covenant with the Gentiles' so that God could pull this card
out if the Jews got too arrogant?

Abrham Part2a

Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" - Part 2 (This is yuge.)

I am pleased to present a post that I am very proud of and think you will greatly enjoy. It's about 5 pages
long but I think reads fast and is worth it. I don't know how it all came together, but perhaps it was
inspiration from above, even the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I will never read Romans 4 the
same way again, and hopefully you won't either.

It was almost a year ago when I began to start rethinking what exactly Paul was arguing in Romans 4
(and Galatians 3), and I wrote a post about it (HERE). The simplistic, surface-level "faith not works" is just
not a convincing reading when you consider the actual words of Paul and other key details. One thing to
realize is that when Paul first made his claim, it had to be a convincing claim to both Jews and Christians
who heard it. Otherwise, Paul would have discredited himself if his argument wasn't based on good logic
and good exegesis (e.g. see Paul's actual argument in Romans 9 HERE).

Paul could not simply say "I'm an apostle, so I'm right," since the Jews would have just laughed at him.
With that in mind, simply quoting Genesis 15:6 doesn't prove anything. The Jew would respond "so
what?" Believing and having that faith reckoned as righteousness doesn't in itself tell us anything about
conversion (especially since Abraham wasn't converting here), it tells us nothing about the Gospel,
nothing about forgiveness, etc. So Paul's argument had to be something more substantial than just
quoting Genesis 15:6. And I think I've figured out what makes Paul's argument so solid, and it appears a
few verses after verse 6:

5 And God brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to
number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he
counted it to him as righteousness. 7 And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of
the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” 8 But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall
possess it?”

9 He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old,
a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” 10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half
over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. 11 And when birds of prey came down on the
carcasses, Abram drove them away. 12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And
behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain
that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will
be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and
afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in
peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. 16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation,
for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” 17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark,
behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from
the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.”
Notice that right after Abraham believed, the narrative immediately begins speaking of a (mysterious)
Sacrificial Liturgical Rite for the ratification of a Covenant. I really would love to study this passage in
more depth, as it seems very important in Salvation History. Sadly, it seems that we routinely skip over
everything past verse 6 just as we routinely skip over the verses past Romans 4:8.

The establishment of a Covenant with God is no small matter in Salvation History, and from what I can
see the only time prior to this that a Covenant was established was in Genesis 9 with Noah where God
promises not to flood the world ever again. So when God establishes a Covenant in Genesis 15,
especially relating to Abraham's descendants, this has got to be significant, especially for the Jew-
Gentile tension. Some might object and say that the Covenant being established in Genesis 15:7-21 is
distinct from God's promise in Genesis 15:1-6, but this seems unlikely for a few reasons.

It seems that the whole narrative of Genesis 15 is focused on the Covenant ratification Sacrifice. Of
course, this sounds a lot like believing being tied to the Sacrifice of Jesus, so that shouldn't be
downplayed either. Though it seems that the focus shifts to the Promise Land rather than Offspring, it
seems that the two ideas go together and are inseparable. Land requires people and people require
land. In fact, the very words of God here speak of Abraham's descendants being in Egypt for 400 years
(and at least half that time in slavery). So Offspring isn't enough, they need to live in freedom on their
own land.

Also, as I noted in Part 1 of Revisiting, the language of "righteousness" used in 15:6 strongly suggests
some covenant by which to measure that righteousness, so this strongly suggests 15:6 ties with the rest
of the chapter as well. It is highly unlikely that 15:6 stands on its own and has no relation to the rest of
the chapter.

What this means is that Genesis 15 is very significant for Paul to focus on, but it had nothing to do with
Abraham's conversion from lost sinner to spiritually alive believer. That conversion experience for
Abraham took place as early as Genesis 12 and isn't the point of Romans 4 or Genesis 15. Or if it is the
point, then I suppose Abraham's story is similar to that of Cornelius in Acts 10, where Cornelius was a
believer and obeying God long before coming fully into the Covenant later in life (I posted about this
HERE).

Furthermore, Paul's focus in Romans 4 is to argue that something important took place prior to
Abraham being circumcised (Rom 4:10-11). So the point isn't works in general, since we know Abraham
wasn't circumcised until Genesis 17, which was at least 15 years after Genesis 15. Why would Paul point
to circumcision 15 years after the Covenant was established if Paul was concerned with everyday works
Abraham was doing, including the Sacrificial Ritual which Abraham performed that same day? The fact
Paul doesn't mention Abraham's Sacrifice that same day suggests that it wasn't a "work" in Paul's mind. I
would venture to say that "Abraham believed in God and it was credited as righteousness" is a Hebrew
idiomatic way of saying Abraham affirmed God's promise by offering the Covenant ratification Sacrificial
Rite.

With this in mind, we should take note that the next time the term "Covenant" appears in Scripture is in
Genesis 17, the same chapter where Abraham gets circumcised. Realizing this, we can definitely think
"covenant" is the real issue in mind in Romans 4. The background of Genesis 17 is that of Genesis 16,
when Abraham's wife Sarah tells Abraham to take her maid Hagar as his concubine, in order to produce
a son that would fulfill the promise of Genesis 15:4. Up to this point, it seems Abraham was dedicated to
his wife and refused to engage in concubinage nor polygamy, but he followed Sarah's request, and
Hagar gave them a son, Ishmael, as their heir.

[Update: 9/14/19 - I had originally suggested the Hagar/Ishmael situation was semi-sinful, or at least due
to doubting on Abraham's part, but today after hearing a priest discuss this passage, we must be very
careful not to accuse Abraham of either sexual immorality or especially of doubting God in any way.
Thus, I have edited out any scandalous/inaccurate comments I've made in this article. The truth is,
concubinage was part of that culture and God did tolerate it for a time, so Abraham did not actually
sexually sin here. And we cannot safely say Abraham doubted here, especially since Romans 4:18-22 and
other texts, even the Genesis narrative, do not suggest at all the Abraham ever doubted. He was
certainly uncertain about how things would be fulfilled, e.g., legitimately thinking maybe Hagar was the
means, but he did not doubt that God would fulfill His promise. Thus, I have edited out any
scandalous/inaccurate comments I've made in this article.]

Genesis 17 begins by saying that when Ishmael was about 13 years old, God appears again to Abraham,
to again reaffirm the promises God keeps giving all these decades. God appears again to talk about
Covenant, this time in reference to circumcision. This is obviously a major part of Salvation History, and
one which we too often pay little attention to. But now that we know what to keep an eye out for, let's
take a look at some of Genesis 17:

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God
Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and
may multiply you greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is
with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called
Abram ["exalted father"], but your name shall be Abraham ["father of a multitude"], for I have made you
the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into
nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and
your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and
to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your
sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you
throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and
your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the
flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight
days old among you shall be circumcised.

15 And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah
["princess"] shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless
her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” 17 Then Abraham fell on his
face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall
Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live
before you!” 19 God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name
Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As
for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him
greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my
covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

There is some very noteworthy information presented here in Genesis 17 that will help us understand
Paul's point a bit better in Romans 4. For example, again here we see covenant mentioned, along with
the promise to give the land. It does not seem like a second covenant is given here, but rather the same
one as Genesis 15, but maybe with some additions onto it. Given this, it is understandable how there
could be confusion over the centuries as to just how circumcision played into the Gospel when it came
to Gentiles converting to Christianity. Perhaps this was progressive revelation, or perhaps it was in
response to the Ishmael situation mentioned just prior.

Why did God give this command to circumcise? Some have suggested that since this circumcision event
is presented right after the Ishmael event, that the two are related. In that view, they say Abraham was
not being properly faithful to the Covenant of Genesis 15, and was trying to fulfill the covenant by
human "ingenuity" (i.e. sexual relations with another woman, Hagar). And so God needed to appear
here to get things back on track. They say that since Abraham sinned sexually, it was necessary for God
to require a sexual punishment, i.e., circumcision. This kind of makes sense, given that Genesis 17 has to
make it clear Abraham is still going to be the father of many nations, and that it will not be through
Ishmael but rather some truly miraculous means, i.e., barren Sarah conceiving at age 90. But as per the
Update above, I am now convinced this sexual sin and doubting motif is not safe to assume as correct,
so I relegate it to a secondary and inferior view. Rather, it seems more safe to say that God appears in
Genesis 17 to correct mistaken ideas of how the covenant would play out (i.e. not through Ishmael, as
Abraham was then expecting), but not to punish Abraham for some alleged sin/doubt. The texts
nowhere suggest Ishmael was a sin/doubt, and in fact it speaks highly of Ishmael and the blessings that
would come to him, as well as God appearing twice to Hagar in her sadness to comfort her.

Also note that all this time we have improperly been calling this man "Abraham," when in reality he did
not receive this name until he was 99 years old! His whole life his actual name was "Abram," meaning
"exalted father" (despite having no children). Now, God changes his name to "Abraham," meaning
"father of many nations," despite the fact Abraham only had one son at this point. As we know with
Simon being called Peter, that a name change in the Bible is often very significant, and that's just as true
here.

Now turning to Romans 4, we start to see a lot more of this Genesis 17 language appear:

13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come
through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to
be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law
there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace
and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who
shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of
many nations” [Gen 17:4-5], in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead
[cf Gen 17:17, Sarah's womb] and calls into existence the things that do not exist [cf Gen 17, Isaac's birth
foretold; father of many nations foretold]. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become
the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” [Gen 15:5] 19 He did not
weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a
hundred years old [Gen 17:17]), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. 20 No unbelief
made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,
21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted
to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone,
24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our
Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

It is fascinating to note that Paul calls upon Genesis 17 heavily throughout Romans 4, almost as much as
he calls upon Genesis 15. This, to me, further strengthens the connection between "covenant" in
Genesis 15 and 17. The fact that Paul explicitly mentions "the law" here, which is clearly the Mosaic Law
(I wrote about this recently HERE), indicates that Paul is really talking about the Israelites/Jews versus
the Gentiles. The point isn't some generic law, some generic works, some generic circumcision, but
rather these terms are all tied to the Jewish identity.
One main problem with translating the Bible is how easily teachings can get lost in translation. For
example, throughout Paul's Epistles we hear the term "Gentiles". But in reality, there is no such thing as
a "Gentile". Rather, the term "Gentile" is the Latin term for "Nations," and in Greek and Hebrew it is also
"Nations". This is tragic, because in English we read "Gentiles" and miss obvious play on words that Paul
is doing. In Romans 4, Paul points out that Abraham means "father of many nations" and that Paul says
this is how God fulfills his promise that Abraham would be the father of the "Nations" (Gentiles). In
other words, Abraham's name literally means "father of the Gentiles," so Paul is saying this naturally
suggests the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. Rather, circumcision came later on, and this was
only to mark out Abraham's special lineage through Isaac. Abraham could not have been "father of
many nations" if only the Israelites were meant, for they were one nation, twelve tribes, and at their
peak a few million people. And after the Babylonian Captivity, the Israelite "nation" was a fraction of
what it once was by the time Jesus arrived. So Paul seems to be saying that if we truly believe God made
Abraham a father of many nations, more numerous than the stars, and that this would be in some sense
'eternal' (lasting a long time), then this can only be fulfilled with the influx of Gentiles into the Church.
And indeed, there have been nearly 2 billion Christians throughout history.

With all the above in mind, I am trying to re-read the first half of Romans 4 using Genesis 16-17 as the
primary lens. I have recently began to question whether "justification," at least when used in places like
Romans 4, really means "Salvation" as we have come to use the term. I am doubting that, and rather I
think Paul is using "justify" a lot more narrowly here. In this case, how could Abraham have been
"justified by works"? As I have noted in another post, "works" are strongly tied to biological lineage in
Paul's mind (see HERE). If Genesis 16-17 is the real interpretive key to Romans 4, then perhaps Paul is
speaking of Abraham being "justified by works" in reference to the Ishmael situation. That is, thinking
the Covenant would be fulfilled by having a son through Hagar. In this way, Abraham was trying to be
"justified by works". In doing so, Abraham could boast before men now that he had an heir (Ishmael),
but not before God, because God had greater plans for Abraham than what human praise is based upon.
This leads to Romans 4:4, "and when a man works, his wages are given as due." So when Abraham took
Hagar, the wages were the natural consequence of normal human relations. This is not bad in and of
itself, it's just that it's the merely natural way things happen, whereas God sometimes works on a super-
natural level. As Paul says elsewhere: "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave
woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the
son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these
women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar" (Gal
4:22-24). It is not that Paul is saying Ishmael was a bad thing, but rather that Ishmael was to play a lesser
role than the more miraculous son Isaac would play. Here there are allusions to Jesus being superior to
Moses. I have written before how God "justifies the ungodly" (Rom 4:5) is best understood as God
justifies the Gentiles (see HERE), and I think that still fits, but appreciated more when the covenant of
Gen 15 is kept in mind.
I think the reason Paul brings up Genesis 15 in Romans 4 in connection with Genesis 16-17 is because
the question of circumcision is not immediately obvious. Was it given as a punishment? I no longer think
so. But it seems to be given as a corrective, so that Abraham and ourselves would not get confused as to
how God was actually going to fulfill his Promise. I think Paul's point is that circumcision was a
temporary later addition to the Genesis 15 Covenant so as to help us identify the chosen race of people,
and would end when the Messiah arrived. Circumcision was not the essence of the Covenant of Genesis
15, which was actually about blessing the whole world through Abraham's seed, and if that seed is Jesus,
then Jesus blesses the whole world be they Jew or Gentile.

I will add that Galatians 4 has some good insight here as well:

////21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that
Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was
born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this
may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing
children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[e] she corresponds to the
present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is
our mother.

28 Now you,[f] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born
according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But
what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman
shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of
the free woman.////

The passage is clearly highlighting the tragedy of Abraham sleeping with Hagar and all the heartache
that resulted for everyone. The wording Paul uses is "according to the flesh" with regards to how
Ishmael was born. This hearken to Rom 4:1 with Abraham as father "according to the flesh". Those who
are his children only according to the flesh are inferior to his children born according to the Spirit.
Ishmael is a clear example of this, allegorically for Christians but very real when compared to Isaac.

Interesting detail from Galatians 3:

//////17 The law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by
God.///////
So Paul explicitly uses the term "covenant" here in reference to Abraham. This is yuge because the only
times "covenant" is mentioned is at the end of Genesis 15 and in Genesis 17. This strongly supports the
idea that 15:6 is about the rest of the chapter including the covenant Sacrifice ritual, and not merely
believing

I have updated the main post to edit out any suggestion that Abraham sinned sexually or that he
doubted and so slept with Hagar or that circumcision was a punishment. These could be true and could
be implied by the way the Hebrews wrote - but I think charging Abraham with sexual sin with Hagar or
that he doubted so he went to Hagar to try to fulfill things on his own, is simply more a projection by
certain scholars today and I don't think it's safe to go along with. So I have re-written a few paragraphs
above, and I don't think have lost the main lesson of the post about the Covenant being the heart of
Genesis 15.

After more talk and reflection, it seems that we should not downplay the troubling circumstances of the
Hagar situation. Abraham didn't seem to want Hagar but he took Hagar to appease Sarah. It isn't clear if
Sarah was being faithless here or just trying to get things done on her own timeline. But it is clear that
the Hagar situation led to lots of heartache and tears and broken family bonds. Abraham was grieved
about the consequences and Sarah felt jealous and insulted by Ishmael.

The point is, that even with this, we must still affirm that Abraham did not doubt God, otherwise Paul
could never have written Romans 4:18-22. Abraham would not have been a model of faith if he caved
into doubt one chapter after Genesis 15:6. So the Hagar situation was not a situation of doubt. And even
though it wasn't a mortal sin, there was some degree of unhealthy/venial sin about it, since Abraham
loved Sarah too much to ever take a concubine.

Here's another insight on the matter that I think is worth sharing. Using the principle of Scripture
interprets Scripture, we can see the "credited as righteousness" language refers to the institution of a
covenant, not to one's moment of conversion:

Psalms 106:30 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened. 31 And that was counted to him as
righteousness from generation to generation forever.

Numbers 25:10 And the Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas has turned back my wrath from the people of
Israel. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, 13 and it shall be to him and to his
descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood.”

Thus why Genesis 15 says: "18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram". Abraham wasn't
converting in Gen 15, rather he was simply having a covenant confirmed/ratified. The language of
"credited as righteousness" is thus a Hebrew idiom meaning Abraham's faith conformed to some
covenant requirement or ratification of the covenant.

I happened to be reading Acts 7, which is about a long Sermon by Stephen and his Martyrdom. I don't
think it's an accident that St Luke has this long sermon in here, or an accident that this is the longest
chapter in Acts. St Stephen's sermon seems to recount the whole history of the Israelites-Jews from
Abraham to Jesus. I think it is fascinating the way Stephen explains the Abraham story:

///2 The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia 3 and said to him,
‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’ 4 Then he went
out and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which
you are now living. 5 Yet God gave Abraham no inheritance in it, not even a foot's length, but promised
to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. [Gen15:1-7] And
God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who
would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years.[Gen15:13-14] 7 ‘But I will judge the nation that
they serve,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.’ 8 And he gave
him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on
the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.///

I think there is a tragic trend of not reading Acts 7 carefully and appreciating all of what St Stephen is
saying. In this case, Stephen is bringing up the history of Abraham in Genesis ch12-ch15 in Acts 7:2-7.
What is crucial about this in relation to my above main post is that Stephen expressly links ALL of
Genesis 15 as one event, not stopping at 15:6 as we have been conditioned to do. This testifies that the
Covenant Ceremony in 15:18 ties into the whole of Chapter 15.

I recently heard someone mention that Scott Hahn has pointed out that God does indeed add on
penalties in the for of additional commands when people violate a covenant. The example was that of
the Israelites originally being given just the Ten Commandments, but when they introduced the Golden
Calf and other sins, God added on additional commands to keep the on tract. Hahn claims that Leviticus,
then Numbers, then Deuteronomy, are actually a series of additional commands/burdens that God puts
on them each time they sin. If this is true, then it is very plausible that circumcision was added onto the
Abrahamic promise of Genesis 15 when Abraham slept with Hagar (even if it wasn't a mortal sin, even
an innocent error).

An additional insight to share that I think further confirms the thesis above. In Romans 9 we read:

//For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham
because they are his offspring, but “Through ISAAC shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it
is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted
as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall
have a son.” ... in order that God's purpose of election might continue, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS but
because of him who calls //

I've written about Romans 9 before, and have a few new posts coming up soon on Romans 9. For now,
realize that here in Romans 9, Paul is talking about the Abraham-Ishmael situation, where Ishmael came
about by improper sexual means and thus was not meant to be the Heir. This is precisely what I
concluded Romans 4 was about as well. The language is more explicit in Romans 9 though, linking this to
"children of the flesh" born by "natural means and will of the flesh" (Jn1:13), which fits precisely with
the 'illegitimate heir Ishmael' theme.

Abrham Part2b

Is Adoption the real lesson of Rom 4 & Gal 3?

Protestant often emphasize that Justification is a "legal" event, envisioning a defendant standing before
a Judge in a courtroom. But they seem to miss the much more obvious and explicit Adoption themes
within key Justification texts such as Romans 4 and Galatians 3. In this post, we will take a look at what
these two chapters actually have to say about Adoption.

Romans Ch4: 1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was
still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being
circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of
the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our
father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that
he would be heir of the world did not come through the law. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who
are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that
the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring, not only to the adherent of the law
but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I
have made you the father of many nations” 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become
the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”

Galatians Ch3: 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” 7 Know
then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham
and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to
your offspring,” who is Christ. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise;
but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 29
And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
From the above survey we see the language Paul uses in reference to Abraham is almost entirely
Adoption related terminology: father (7), offspring (5), sons (2), heirs (2), inheritance. If you read those
chapters, you will see that "legal" language such as "judge" and "condemn" and such is almost entirely
absent. And though the term "law" frequently appears, Paul is certainly talking about the Mosaic Law
(see HERE), not some Divine Courtroom. And more importantly, Paul is saying the Law is not the path to
salvation. Other common terms that are used in these chapters like "works" and "believe" are not legal
terms, especially given that faith/believing/forgiveness has nothing to do with a courtroom.

Yes, terms like Justify and Righteousness are used as "legal" terms to some extent in the Old Testament,
but consider that:

"justify/justified" appears 3 times in Rom 4, and 3 times in Gal 3

"righteous/righteousness" appears 8 times in Rom 4, and 3 times in Gal 3

As you can see, the Justify/Righteous terminology is used slightly less than the Adoption terminology
recorded above. This means that, even if you wanted to emphasize a "legal" reading of these chapters,
in fairness you would have to equally emphasize an Adoption reading of these chapters. Yet for some
reason it seems that the Protestants whom I've read and spoken with do not want Rom 4 and Gal 3 have
any direct relation to Adoption. More importantly, we see that the "righteousness" language is
interwoven within the Adoption themes, such that we would actually assume that they are speaking of
the same thing. Since context must always be the main guide of how we define terms, we have no
reasonable basis to think "justify/righteous" within these texts has any primary forensic/courtroom
meaning.

This brings up one final point: we should look back at what Paul was seeing within Genesis 15 itself:

Gen 15: 1 The word of the Lord came to Abram: “Fear not, Abram, your reward shall be very great.” 2
But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is
Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my
household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your
heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward
heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your
offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

This is quite astonishing, for this situation has nothing to do with a Courtroom. Instead, we see the
entire dialog Abraham has here is based around having a son, an heir. To which God replies Abraham
will have children as numerous as the stars. This is undoubtedly Adoption themed. Since there is nothing
here that would suggest Legal/Courtroom theme, we really do not have any basis to read this into the
famous verse 6. Instead, we really must be reading Romans 4 and Galatians 3 as an inheritance dispute,
with Paul settling the question: who are Abraham's true children? The goal is to become a child of
Abraham, not about finding a crafty way to escape your condemned status before a Divine Judge.

Knowing this information, I think we can generate a sort of credibility test for anyone who dares to
speak on Genesis 15, Romans 4, or Galatians 3. We can say that if that person doesn't bring Adoption
into the discussion, and even make it the main theme, then they really don't know what they are talking
about. What reason at all is there for an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness when Abraham was
already in good standing with God? What is the need for Imputation of Christ's Righteousness when the
very promise was for God to give Jesus to the patriarch Abraham as a literal son? Look how
embarrassing and surface-level is the Protestant treatment of the Sacred Scriptures.

End note: The Greek term for "wage" in Romans 4:4 is also found in Genesis 15:1 (Greek) when God says
He will be giving Abraham a "reward" (wage). So we cannot fall for the terrible Protestant argument that
Paul's lesson in 4:4 is that rewards/wages are a "bad" thing or don't apply to believers.

Abrham Part3

Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" - Part 3 (The Blessed Man of Rom 4:6-8)

As I've been continuing on the quest of reading the Bible beyond the surface level, particularly Romans
4, I am excited to present another inspiration that I had. In a recent post (HERE), I emphasized how the
Adoption theme (i.e. children, heirs, fatherhood) was undoubtedly the main theme of Genesis 15 and
Romans 4. That was an expansion of "Part 2" (HERE) of this unexpected "series" on Abraham. To add yet
another dimension to all this, I began to wonder if Paul's mentioning of King David in Romans 4 also had
an Adoption theme to it, which seemed highly likely. As I thought about it, I came to realize that "we"
have gotten used to reading Paul's mention of Psalm 32 as an isolated Psalm, focused only on
forgiveness, completely divorced from the historical narrative that the Bible gives us of David's
repentance. So I opened up the Bible where it talked about David's sin, and I was pleasantly surprised.

Let's take a look at that text:

2 Samuel 12:1-24 And the Lord sent Nathan to David: “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to
do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his
wife. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house. Behold, I will raise up evil against
you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor,
and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.” David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the
Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless,
because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.”
15 And the Lord afflicted the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and he became sick. David therefore
sought God on behalf of the child. And David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. On the
seventh day the child died. Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and
changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then his servants said to
him, “What is this thing that you have done?” He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept,
for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he
is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

24 Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her, and she bore a son,
and he called his name Solomon. And the Lord loved him 25 and sent a message by Nathan the prophet.
So he called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord.

In 2 Samuel 11, we hear the infamous story of David committing adultery with Bathsheba, then David
had her husband murdered, and she gave birth to an illegitimate child. David quickly married Bathsheba,
but the child was still born of adultery. When the prophet Nathan confronts David, the infant child is at
least a few months old. This means that the entire pregnancy up until now, David was living in
unrepentant sin for at least a whole year. Hence the need for God to send Nathan. Probably a good
lesson on how we can delude ourselves, begin a new lifestyle under this sin, and be blind and numb to
living in mortal sin. It is also fascinating to see just how brutal the punishment that David was to receive,
which included not only the loss of an innocent baby's life, but a terrifying prophecy that "the sword will
never depart from your house" (meaning his lineage would be full of violent family rivalry) and that
David's wives would be given over to lesser men who would get to have sex with them. All this even
though Nathan says David was "forgiven".

David being "forgiven" in this situation is noteworthy, because his repentance during his prayer and
fasting is where it is understood he wrote his two main Prayers of repentance, i.e., Psalm 32 and Psalm
51. Paul mentions both of these Psalms in Romans (3:4 and 4:6-8), both of which have significant
apologetics value against Protestants (e.g. HERE and HERE). Most important though is that the sin which
David committed could not be forgiven under the Mosaic Law (HERE), and instead such grave sins
required the death penalty. Nathan said David was forgiven and not going to have to die. This prompts
the question: how was David forgiven if the Mosaic Covenant did not provide forgiveness or atonement?
The only explanation is that some other covenant, outside of the Mosaic Covenant, granted that
forgiveness. This is what I think is Paul's point in Romans 4 when Paul is discussing the issue of God
justifying the Gentile, i.e., the uncircumcised ("ungodly," see HERE), since Abraham had faith prior to
circumcision, and per Paul's words in Romans 2:25, David's sin forfeited his circumcised status (HERE).
This leads us to the main highlight of this post.
This tragically sinful time in David's life actually resulted in an extraordinary blessing. Rather than David
sliding downhill, God instead gives David a new son, a gracious son, the glorious Solomon. The name
"Solomon" means "Peace," which some people think refers to a "Peace Offering" showing that David
was again at Peace with God. This repentance resulting in reconciliation would have allusions to Romans
4:25 and the "Let us have Peace with God" within Paul's same thought process in Romans 5:1 (HERE).
We unfortunately tend to associate the name "Jedidiah" (Jedi?) with redneck folks, but the actual name
is beautiful, and we are told here that this was Solomon's actual name, given directly by God, meaning
"Loved by God". Now we can see some very yuge ramifications with this context. Now we can see
exactly why David explained himself as "Blessed is that man". Not merely because David was forgiven,
but because David was blessed with a son despite not deserving that son. We see here a clear example
of the astonishing Christian teaching of "where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more" (Rom 5:20),
for in God's Providence, He only allows evil if a greater good can result (e.g. allowing His Son to be
killed). And with the "son" appearing within the David story, we now have a more complete theme with
that of Abraham and Genesis 15 and Romans 4. David's special son is directly part of the Messianic
lineage promised to Abraham through Isaac.

And with this, we can see some parallels Paul could be drawing between David and Abraham's lives. In
both cases, both men were well accomplished, and their good "works" testified to this. But these men
also had unfortunate "works" they became involved in (particularly sleeping with women who weren't
their wife, Hagar), resulting in an illegitimate heir (Ishmael), and thus their "wage" was a sort of negative
consequence (the heartache of losing a son and family unrest). Yet, despite this, God still gave them
mighty blessings, particularly in regards to a special male heir to replace their loss (a resurrection
theme), who would succeed them and thus blessing the whole world though them, as their lineage
continued up to Jesus. Both Isaac and Solomon are "Types" of Christ. We also see a liturgical theme in
both, since both men are seen offering sacrifices here and worshiping.

Not only does this reading of Romans 4 come across as a lot more fulfilling, it makes everything fit a lot
better, showing where David fits into this. We know that in Romans 4:6-8, Paul says David's Psalm 32 is
an example of "reckoning righteousness apart from works," yet the Psalm says nothing about faith,
righteousness, or works. This can only mean Paul was getting at something beyond the surface level, and
I think the Adoption theme is precisely what Paul had in mind. Typology = //2 Sam 12 19 But when
David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. 20
Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he
went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked,
they set food before him, and he ate.//

David was in sin and had been fasting, and when the purging period was over, he got up, washed,
anointed, changed, worshiped, ate. This to me sounds like the traditional Christian practice of
conversion, namely fasting as you desire to leave your old life behind, then baptism, anointing with oil
(Confirmation), and putting on clean robe (Baptismal Garment), then gathering for the Mass to receive
the Eucharist. This fits with the theme of Abraham needing Circumcision to become renewed, so too
David needed the Sacraments.