Since my radical reevaluation of Genesis 15 last year, which I have in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series (Here), I have recently come across a fabulous commentary by St Augustine on this situation which I feel further vindicates my position. I truly believe this will change the way most informed folks read and comment upon Genesis 15 and Romans 4. Let's jump right into it, with this passage from St Augustine's masterpiece, City of God (Book 16; Section 26):
After these things in Gen 16, Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham might think that in Ishmael was fulfilled what God had promised him in Gen 15, after Abraham originally wished to adopt his home-born servant Eliezer (Gen 15:2), to which God said "This servant shall not be your heir; but he that shall come forth from your own loins, he shall be your heir." (Gen 15:4) Therefore, lest Abraham should think that what was promised in Genesis 15:4 was fulfilled in Ishmael the handmaid's son in Genesis 16, God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17 to promise the birth of Isaac, and said "I am God; be well-pleasing in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will make my covenant between me and you, and will fill you exceedingly."
Here in Genesis 17 there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman [Rom 4:19]. For although God effects even the natural course of procreation, yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised of Sarah. For what else does circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is, after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are changed [Gen 17:5; Rom 4:17]: all these details proclaim newness, and the new covenant is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the old?
Wow, if only this passage of St Augustine was more well-known, it might have changed the course of Catholic & Protestant dialog a long time ago and completely changed the way we read Romans 4. This
passage confirms a lot of what my own 'regenerated' understanding of Romans 4
seems to be about as I've explained in my Revisiting series. As a summary: I do not see Romans 4 as about Abraham converting in
Genesis 15, nor about him getting justified a second time after Genesis
12. I do not necessarily even see circumcision as portrayed as a "work" (more on this in an upcoming post).
Rather, I think the only feasible reading of Rom 4:2 "if Abraham was justified
by works" can refer to is bringing about the Promised Heir of Gen 15:4 by natural human
means, namely Abraham sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, right after the
Covenant was established in Genesis 15. It makes little to no sense
contextually or logically for "works" of Abraham in Rom 4 to be sins, good
deeds, or even circumcision itself, much less the ceremonial works of
Moses. If you do a simple substitution of any of those meanings of "works", the
train of thought for Paul makes no sense. It is possible that Paul is
saying Abraham's "work" of sleeping with Hagar was a "type" for the
merely natural "works of the Mosaic Law" which lacked grace. Abraham
truly Believed God's promise in Genesis 12 that his offspring would be
great and bless the whole world, but his natural, earthly, human "Reason" was unable to see how
this was to actually be. Perhaps it was Eliezer, Abraham's distant
relative would be the heir. So God showed up go clarify in Genesis 15
that it was not Eliezer, but rather someone "from his own loins"
(15:4b). Perhaps then it was Ishmael, Abraham's actual biological child.
So God showed up again to clarify in Genesis 17 that it wasn't Ishmael,
but rather a miraculous birth, made possible by regenerative
circumcision. In all this, we see types/shadows/images of the
insufficiency of the Old Covenant and the need to make way for the New
Covenant. Paul is far more concerned with Divine Revelation unfolding,
seeing Genesis with the Glasses of Faith, that he is with some silly,
shallow Protestant debate on faith "versus" deeds.
Next, notice the talk of Augustine on how circumcision signifies/effects a spiritual Regeneration in Abram, wherein the old man who is unable to beget children is suddenly renewed in his name (Abram is now Abraham in Gen 17:5), and his vitality. And the same things go for Sarah, who is possibly even more of the miracle here, though gets less attention. The manner of living prior to Genesis 17, that is pre-circumcision, signified the earthly/natural way of living, even the Mosaic Law manner of living. This had to give way to a renewed, regenerated manner of living, signified by the Gospel, where the mind's thoughts are more elevated beyond this world and grace is truly on display. God had to show that the promised son Isaac was truly a miracle, truly beyond natural capabilities. No matter how great Abraham was in gathering wealth, no matter how great Abraham was on the battle field, no matter how great Abraham's sexual vitality was, etc, these earthly traits, this genetic superiority, was only capable of a boast before men, letting them get impressed by all these things they could see (Rom 4:2). But God looks at the invisible traits of a man, his heart, his spiritual life, which mankind doesn't really notice nor care about. If anything, Abraham's real conversion came at Genesis 17 when he got circumcised, though he was certainly walking by faith for decades prior (Rom 4:12).
This nature (i.e. earthly capabilities) versus grace (super-natural, miraculous) dichotomy that Augustine emphasizes and what Paul is teaching has been twisted by the Protestant tradition to put nature in conflict with grace, as an either-or. But the Augustinian/Pauline/Catholic understanding is that grace builds on top of nature, such that what nature is intrinsically incapable of, grace enables to be done. They compliment each other. Grace comes along to show how nature is limited, not because nature itself is bad.
Seeing the way Salvation History unfolds with these Catholic glasses on, we can see how the life of Abraham is seen from Gen12-16 and from Gen17-25, almost a pre- and post-Pentecost transition. We can see why Sarah's purity was preserved from pagan influences (Gen 12:10-20; Gen 20:1-18), so that they would be no question that Abraham was the true and only father to the promised son Isaac. We can see just how Abraham felt during each decade of receiving more and more revelation, starting in just a seed form and shadows, with his own Journey being a microcosm of Salvation History.
We have been badly conditioned by a narrow reading of Romans 4 to only focus on a few verses of Genesis 15 when thinking about Salvation history. But this needs to change. We need to see the bigger picture, as Paul certainly did and was trying to convey. We need to put on the right glasses when reading these texts if we truly want to appreciate Scripture. We need to undergo a circumcision of the mind.
 |
| God's Messenger (Jesus?) foretells Isaac's birth in Gen 18:9-15 |
5 comments:
I think two passages go very well with this post:
///Galatians 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith, 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?///
Notice the "just as" links the two verses together. The way this is worded, it suggests the real meaning of Genesis 15:6 is that Abraham received the Holy Spirit and Miracles through faith.
//Galatians 4:21-31 ... 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. 28 Now you, 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. //
This passage is tragically ignored by most people, but here we see plainly the spirit versus flesh, grace vs nature distinction, foreshadowed in Isaac vs Ishmael. I wrote about this in my Romans 9 series.
Wow, amazing quote here from our beloved St. Augustine. While i was sure you were in the right track, the lack of patristic support was weird. You showing it using THE father that even protestants respect is pretty fitting!
City of God is one of Augustine more famous works, i'am also surprised that this passage is not more well know. Your view fits pretty well with the texts, Nick, specially with Galatians.
Hey Nick, have you ever heard of how the term "works of the law" is used on a letter writed by the essenes*? It does support the catholic view more: https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/the-dead-sea-scrolls-paul-and-the-works-of-the-law
*probably
That's a good video, and it highlights a truth that I've been writing about the past couple of years: Protestants are more concerned about works of the law referring to morals rather than ceremonies because Protestants have a low view of liturgy. In reality, liturgy is the highest of our duties, because it pertains to true worship. Liturgy is more important than morals. So Protestants have the hierarchy of priorities completely backwards. But Protestants don't understand this, and that's why it lead to the heresy of "Conservative" in America, because what makes a person "Conservative" today is being right on morals as found in the Second Tablet of the Ten Commandments, while relegating Divine Worship to a Non-Essential or Private matter. When Paul was saying "not by works of the law," this was scandalous to devout Jews who grew up understanding that these ceremonial acts were how God wanted to be worshiped and to not do these things was akin to idolatry. Throughout history all pagans had laws against theft, lying, adultery, etc, so it's of no value for Paul to be focused on these morals when trying to single out the Jews with their "Works of the Mosaic Law".
Reading "works of the law" as meaning "any and all actions a person does" is a horrendously bad thesis and is being rejected more and more now that we have the internet to get people thinking about it. The only reason why Protestantism got by for so long was the intentional restriction of information on the Protestant side, such that they were able to maintain an echo-chamber in Protestant territories.
Yea, it is harder today to defend the luteran interpretation of Romans and others of the Sacred Writings. This ancient letter specially is a pretty big blow to that view, i'am suprised that i don't hear about it much on the debates.
Maybe is because catholics and protestants usually do not read each other, so the debates tend to stay more on the surface level. Thankfully, catholics like you are trying to go deeper.
Post a Comment