Fully cognizant of the scope of the Abraham story, Paul
bluntly states “For if Abraham was declared righteous by the works of the law,”
or if Abraham was justified (placed under the auspices of God’s covenant) by
the act of circumcision (encapsulating covenant markers with “circumcision”),
“he has something to boast about” (4:2a). So yes, if Abraham has been
declared to be in right standing with God because of his circumcision, then he
could point to that very circumcision as the source of his right
standing. This, however, would be to get the cart before the horse so to
speak, so Paul adds “but not before God” (4:2b). He may be able to
convince the people around him that God found him righteous (in right covenant
standing), and therefore had Abraham undergo circumcision as a mark of that
prior right standing, but he certainly could not put that over on God.
So Paul, seeking to elevate faith, with faith being belief
in Jesus as Messiah, as the means by which one gains righteousness, inquires as
to what the Scripture says (4:3a) and answers his own question with “Abraham
believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3b). It is
not a matter of works versus faith, but it is a matter of order. For
Abraham, it was belief in the faithful, covenant God that was primary, and
which eventually led to the mark of the covenant that he would come to
bear. This is what Paul believes God is now doing in relation to Jesus
and the extension of the covenant to Gentiles.
The covenant marker of circumcision, that began with
Abraham, is not the means of entrance upon the covenant, but is only the mark
of trust in the God of the covenant. For Gentiles, justification comes
from belief in the God of the covenant, which entails a belief in Jesus as Lord
of all, and the mark of circumcision will be that of the heart rather than of
the flesh. In this way then, Paul has identified Abraham with the
Gentiles, placing him on par with the Gentiles, and so elevating the Gentiles
to the status of Abraham. This is a bold, rhetorical move.
Using this very obvious and undeniable example of Abraham
and his “order of salvation” (belief, assumption under covenant, then covenant
marker), Paul writes “Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to
grace but due to obligation” (4:4). We here must resist the tendency to
fall back into old habits of thought that equates “works” with “attempting to
earn righteousness and therefore a trip to heaven upon death through doing good
deeds.” Though Paul is using the analogy of actual work and actual
payment for actual work, the larger analogy, which is that of works of the law
as covenant marker and means of justification, versus belief in Jesus as
covenant marker and means of justification, holds sway. Continuing then,
Paul adds “But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who
declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness”
(4:5). This is precisely the example that both Jew and Gentile have in
Abraham.
Abraham is introduced into the story of God’s covenant
people (that begins with Adam) at the close of the eleventh chapter of Genesis.
There, we hear about Abraham’s (Abram’s) father, his brothers, his nephew, his
wife, and his sister-in-law, but we do not have any biographical information
about Abraham that would allow us to make a determination as to his nature as a
person and whether or not he could be considered to be “righteous” in a moral
sense, or “saved” in the popular sense, and thus worthy of his coming
communication with the Creator God of the universe. It is immediately
after learning about nothing more than Abraham’s immediate family that the
story of God’s covenant people proceeds to the record of God bringing Abraham
into covenant with him, and the making of promises concerning him and his
descendants (that will be reiterated, expanded upon, and eventually passed
along to son, grandson, and to succeeding generations).
God simply comes to Abraham. There is no evidence of
pre-Torah or pre-Torah-based-tradition activity on Abraham’s part that could be
construed as justification-indicating covenant markers. As far as we know,
Abraham is as ungodly as the rest of humanity. If we are hearing or
reading Genesis for the first time, and have just come across this information
about Abraham’s family that follows the story of the Tower of Babel, the
division of the nations, and the genealogy of Shem, we would not have any basis
to expect that, following the record of Abraham’s father’s death, that the God
of creation is going to speak to this character named Abraham (Abram) for the
purpose of creating an eternal covenant by which He is eventually going to
re-unite the peoples of the world (that had just been divided into distinct
language groups and scattered to the four winds). In all reality, God’s
selection of Abraham, and His speaking to Abraham in the way that is recorded
here in Genesis, should be of considerable and paradoxical surprise to a member
of Israel, especially considering that the God of Israel speaks and makes
promises to one who is not circumcised and who does not adhere to the
covenantal practices that indicate that one is in a position of right standing
and thus reasonably able to expect to experience such an encounter.
Nevertheless, this is precisely what happened, and it is precisely that by
which the Abraham tale, so crucial to the collective consciousness of Israel,
is composed.
No comments:
Post a Comment