As you probably know, Protestants claim that since Abraham was "ungodly" he couldn't be justified before God by his sinful actions, and instead had to use his faith to receive the "imputed Righteousness of Christ" in order to appear righteous before God. While there are numerous proofs against Protestantism's perverted reading of Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3), I want to present two 'new' Biblical proofs that Protestant scholars and apologists quietly ignore. Both texts are from the book of Nehemiah, which is a fascinating new use for this book in apologetics.
The first text is:
Neh 9: 7 You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.
The
term "faithful" here is the same term used in Genesis 15:6 - and in
fact is the only time the term is used of Abraham in Genesis. The
Hebrew term often means "faithful" and not merely believing. The
connection to Abraham's "heart" being good further suggests that
Abraham was not "ungodly" in the Protestant claim of being morally depraved, but rather
being merely a Gentile (cf Rom 4:9-12). Also, the verse ends with God keeping
his Promise (cf Rom 4:13), because God is "righteous". The connection with Promise Keeping and Righteousness suggests that the Righteousness in question here is
more of a "faithfulness," rather than the Protetant error that claims Biblical "righteousness" means a lifetime of perfectly keeping the
commandments (which doesn't even make sense when speaking of the Father's righteousness).
It is worth noting that when not engaged in anti-Catholic behavior, Protestant scholars often times are able to be more honest with the Biblical evidence. In this case, here are some things conservative Protestant scholarly sources admit about this verse:
It is worth noting that when not engaged in anti-Catholic behavior, Protestant scholars often times are able to be more honest with the Biblical evidence. In this case, here are some things conservative Protestant scholarly sources admit about this verse:
- The Reformed RSV translation cross references Neh 9:8a "You found his heart
faithful" directly to (and only to) Genesis 15:6. Same cross reference for the Reformed NASB translation.
- The Cambridge Bible for Colleges commentary on Nehemiah 9:8 says:
8. his heart faithful] The word ‘faithful’ is of the same root as that rendered ‘believed’ in Genesis 15:6, ‘And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness;’ and the phrase here used is derived from that passage, since the same chapter in Genesis also contains a list of the peoples of the land (Nehemiah 9:19-21), that were to be dispossessed by the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant. For the use of this adjective applied to Abraham, cf. Galatians 3:9, ‘they which be of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.’
I'm sure there are other sources out there, but they aren't easy to find with a simple Google search, and no resources showed up for addressing how Nehemiah 9:8 ties into proper interpretation of Genesis 15:6 when it relates to Justification/Imputation. This is obviously an unacceptable exegetical failure to use the "Scripture interprets Scripture" methodology, but we can see where the facts point when we make the proper cross references.
The second text is:
The second text is:
Nehmiah 13:13 I appointed as treasurers over the storehouses Shelemiah the priest, Zadok the scribe, and Pedaiah of the Levites, for they were reckoned faithful, and their duty was to distribute to their brothers.
The same Hebrew term for "faithful" as in Gen 15:6 and Neh 9:8 is used here, as well as the same Hebrew term for "reckoned" as in Gen 15:6. Though this isn't a direct cross-reference to Genesis 15:6, the fact it uses two key terms rarely found together makes Neh 13:13 second in 'value' only to Psalm 106:30-31 when it comes to similar terminology. Plainly stated, this text is absolutely teaching that Nehemiah regarded these main trustworthy with handling the finances because they truly were faithful. Carried over to Genesis 15:6, it would highly suggest "faith reckoned as righteousness" means the faith truly had a righteous quality about it. The Protestant understanding of "reckoned" would have them reading it as "these men were reckoned faithful but in reality they weren't faithful," which obviously must be rejected as absurd in this case.
In my mind, it is unreasonable to think Protestant scholars are unaware of these two Nehemiah texts, so the fact they don't bring it up when "interpreting" Genesis 15:6 (Romans 4:3) seems like conservative Protestant scholarship is intentionally academically dishonest in order to save their jobs and credibility.
 | |
| The Fleur-de-Lis (Lily Flower) symbol is not just an NFL logo, but a traditional Catholic symbol used to signify various truths, including Mary's purity, the Trinity, and also the virtues, such as faithfulness. |
7 comments:
Very interesting finding, it does help get how the hebrews used the term. This and Phineas situation on the psalm pretty much seal the deal about what Genesis said about Abraham. Imagine how many gems on our Scripture we are not seeing!
But i would not say than protestants are intentionally hiding this because, lets face it, Nehemiah is quite ignored. If it was easy to see, you would see catholics bringing it up everytime a protestand tried to defend their reading of Abraham situation.
Hey Nick, it is very interesting to see older bloggers like you still keeping their contents online. I'm saying this because, unfortunately many websites are not functioning anymore,and their former owners aren't willing to start new ones; they a little bit tired of arguing against different christian traditions. Anyways,thank you.
Talmid, yes, it is tragic how many gems we are not seeing and how poor of a job Catholics have done studying the Bible! Yes, Nehemiah is obscure, but here's the reason I can confidently say that Protestant scholars have blatantly hidden/ignored Nehemiah 9:8 and 13:13, because they (1) base their entire existence on in-depth Scripture study, which would *require* them to provide an open and honest study of terms like "believed" and "reckoned", which they are suspiciously silent about and even intentionally present partial data, and (2) they explicitly quote Jewish sages who speak highly of Abraham as a righteous man and cite Nehemiah 9:8, Genesis 26:4-5, etc, yet these Protestant scholars don't even engage these texts and instead rush to say Abraham was "ungodly" in the sense of wicked because they bet the farm on their rigid reading of Romans 4:5a. In other words, Protestant scholars should know better and they often do know better. Remember, they were the ones who championed the idea that they trust the Bible wherever it leads them (which we know is the biggest lie of the entire Reformation).
Unknown, my approach has always been to only post when I have something unique to share, that way people are spending their time learning something new, and I try to not post too often so that I don't get burnt out or leave people with a ton of reading to do. I think it is very sad and tragic how blogging is effectively dead, because there is still a lot of good things people can share, discussions to be had, and records to be kept. But that said, it doesn't do any good if people are just re-hashing the same old arguments that aren't effective or are already shared numerous times. Still, I use Feedly to track many Catholic and Protestant blogs, and I can say it is quite sad that there's practically no blogging being done. And I know for a fact that there are many issues and ideas that can still be addressed, because I'm always coming up with new ideas or coming across new things that I had not read before. And I'm not trying to brag, but I do try to pray for God and the intercession of Mary to enlighten me to come up with ideas of what to blog about, and I would have to say the inspirations and new content does come!
That is a good point, Nivk. One do see a kinda of laziness on the average protestant theology,who tends to take for granted the truth of the five solas and mostly seems to seriously discuss his diferences with others protestants.
Also, have you ever gotten access to William Lane Craig defense of penal substitution? Dr. Craig, for instance, used to claim that in his research he found that several of the fathers were quite close to his view on the atonement.
I remembered this after seeing this response of his to the point i remember seeing you making before that on penal substitution there is not much of a connection between atonement and Our Lord ressurrection:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/on-the-connection-between-christs-atoning-death-and-resurrection
My mention of Dr. Craig is more a case of curiosity. When i saw him saying that divine simplicity is a thomistic thing, as if he never read St. Athanasius or St. Augustine, i knew that our apologist knows less patristics that he should.
I've not really looked into William Lane Craig, but the few times I have, it was very embarrassing what he had to say. One was an apologetics lecture he gave on Imputation, and it consisted of him reading line by line from an apologetics article that he didn't write, and everything he read he read it as if he had never even read the article beforehand but was sure that it was all true. Similarly, he did the same with Penal Substitution in a talk he gave, where he took any quote that spoke of Jesus' death for our sins as a proof text for Penal Substitution, having no idea of the actual matter at hand. Dr Craig might be good in certain areas, but not in these areas. I think he's dangerously over-rated, because he can end up discrediting Christianity more than he helps it.
I see. Dr. Craig does seems to not know that much the non-evangelical side of things, so i can understand why his work might not appeal to someone who tries to combat protestantism at its best.
Post a Comment