tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post5682786119281222977..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" - Part 2 (This is yuge.)Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-64916902922712836562021-01-11T13:04:34.311-08:002021-01-11T13:04:34.311-08:00An additional insight to share that I think furthe...An additional insight to share that I think further confirms the thesis above. In Romans 9 we read: <br /><br />//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 //<br /><br />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. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-40001229047299252492020-07-16T22:06:08.544-07:002020-07-16T22:06:08.544-07:00I recently heard someone mention that Scott Hahn h...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). Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-87851495675372873242020-04-25T20:50:05.227-07:002020-04-25T20:50:05.227-07:00I happened to be reading Acts 7, which is about a ...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: <br /><br />///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 <b>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]</b> 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.///<br /><br />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.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-73543618611724039382020-01-08T09:54:39.306-08:002020-01-08T09:54:39.306-08:00Here's another insight on the matter that I th...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:<br /><br />Psalms 106:30 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened. 31 And that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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. Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-75265797174836213182019-09-14T11:49:44.010-07:002019-09-14T11:49:44.010-07:00After more talk and reflection, it seems that we s...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. <br /><br />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.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-20355948722875966112019-09-14T11:20:34.790-07:002019-09-14T11:20:34.790-07:00I have updated the main post to edit out any sugge...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.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76718042166365334912019-09-11T12:45:55.951-07:002019-09-11T12:45:55.951-07:00Nice observations. I would point you in the direct...Nice observations. I would point you in the direction of John Bergsma's talk on the phrase "works of the law" in the context of the dead sea scrolls. There is only one place outside the NT where this phrase appears, and it is a Jewish sectarian writing that deals exclusively with ceremonial and ritual works, not with morality as such. (In fact, the phrase "reckoned unto you as righteousness" appears in this work also- which suggests it was a term that had general usage and was not merely a Pauline device.) At any rate, all of this further undermines the historically idiosyncratic assumption of the reformers that "works of the law" means "good works" of any and every time. These data points suggest that "works of the law" picks out the ceremonial law, and is not any kind of reference to some generic "covenant of works" of sort that Westminster postulates. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-13585750531502759322019-09-11T09:53:48.597-07:002019-09-11T09:53:48.597-07:00Interesting detail from Galatians 3:
//////17 Th...Interesting detail from Galatians 3: <br /><br />//////17 The law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God.///////<br /><br />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. Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-27553250231601498272019-09-09T23:01:59.218-07:002019-09-09T23:01:59.218-07:00I will add that Galatians 4 has some good insight ...I will add that Galatians 4 has some good insight here as well: <br /><br />////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. <br /><br />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.////<br /><br />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. Nicknoreply@blogger.com