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.
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.
7 comments:
we are told that only those who have the faith of Abraham are justified.
what is that faith?
1)believing in Gods promises and acting faithfully in accordance with that belief?
2)believing in Christs death on the Cross and His righteousness being imputed to you.
well, number 1 seems to be the only possibility, because Abraham only vaguely knew of the Messiah.
and for the justified Christian, the "faith of Abraham" would be believing the promise of the Gospel and acting on that promise. Repent, be baptized, and do good works until the end of life.
If this isn't right, what am I missing?
thanks
Duane
If I'm reading you right, I think I agree with you.
I think my above main post ties in nicely with my other recent post Revisiting Abraham's Reckoned as Righteousness (HERE). In the comments there, I posted the following:
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.
Note also that St. Stephen makes it explicit that Abraham knew he would not receive the benefit of the covenant, and that it would only be realized in the earthly domain outside of his lifespan. This intensifies the significance of God's asking him to sacrifice Isaac- he already knows he will not live to see the covenant reach fruition, but now he is being asked, for God's sake, to surrender what seems like even *that* aspect of the promise.
So notice: Abraham leaves his life behind and sojourns for a promise not for himself but for his descendants. He then lays down even the connection to his descendants at God's command.
In other words "what greater love hath a man than this, to lay down his life...". Abraham keeps the covenant in love, which is the essence of covenant fidelity. "One is a Jew inwardly". First, his demonstrates love of others by abandoning his life for a promise that will be given not to him but his children. Then he shows he is willing to abandon the only means of that promise coming to fruition by sacrificing his son, showing love for God above all else. He thus fulfills the terms of the Covenant in the deuteronomic articulation of it, which is precisely the Catholic understanding of covenant fidelity- saving faith = covenant obedience in love. This entails fidelity to the laws of God but not mere external compliance therewith.
That's a good insight. The lesson of Abraham was that he really was always looking to the future, not to this life, because in this life the temporal blessings never really came. So despite living on "good behavior" all those years, God never showed him the full blessings he was to receive, whereas the Mosaic Law was geared more towards providing 'immediate' temporal blessings, though I would emphasize that this was largely based on corporate obedience/disobedience more than individual.
"The lesson of Abraham was that he really was always looking to the future, not to this life, because in this life the temporal blessings never really came."
Yes, which is why Paul can affirm both that we are heirs to the promise through the faith of Abraham, *and* that we have a better covenant based upon better promises. It is better because it concerns not just this life but the world to come, which is closer in spirit to the original Abrahamic covenant than is the promises of temporal blessing attached to the Mosaic convenant. In other words, the Abrahamic covenant actually precedes the Mosaic covenant not just in time but in the order of covenant fidelity as well, and its final fulfillment is not the Mosaic covenant but the new covenant with its eternal promises.
Update: I was re-reading this post and remembered I had come across a quote (I think from Aquinas, though I wish I remembered who said it) to the effect of: When God told Abraham to 'look to the stars in heaven' in reference to Abraham's children, this was also a prophecy/allusion to the fact Abraham would have numerous children-saints in heaven, or at least a non-earthly sort of children.
Post a Comment