Was Abraham wicked in Genesis 15:6? (Another look at Rom 4:5)

Continuing on the same Romans 4:5 "justifies the ungodly" theme, since this verse is seen as a Protestant stronghold for Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, I want to present multiple reasons why the Protestant reading is untenable. Just as a reminder, the Protestant side insists that "justifies the ungodly" means that Abraham was a wicked ungodly unregenerate vile man at the time of Genesis 15:6, and thus had no good works of any kind to justify himself, and thus the only way God was able to justify Abraham is by imputing the Righteousness of Christ to Abraham. But if Romans 4:5 is not actually saying Abraham was wicked (such that he had no righteousness within or righteous behavior), then the Reformed reading of Genesis 15:6 fails, and thus so does Romans 4:3-5, their chief proof text for Justification by Faith Alone and Imputation. 

To prove that I'm not making this Protestant 'interpretation' up, consider the words of some respected Protestant scholars:

• Dr R. Scott Clark (12/2018 on his blog):
  

  There have been times when the church has given the impression to her members and to others that only the perfect are welcome. She did that in the Middle Ages when many of their theologians concluded that we are right with God (justified) only to the degree we are holy (sanctified). In the Protestant Reformation the story was clarified to a great degree. Martin Luther (1483–1546) helped us see that Scripture teaches that all believers are at the same time sinful and declared righteous (simul iustus et peccator) by God, that, as Paul says, Christ justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5).”
  

• Dr Sam Waldron (Spring 2021 in a Reformed academic journal):
  

  The word “ungodly” implies that Abraham himself was not justified because he was the paradigm of obedience. Instead, he was the ungodly person justified by faith. . . . It is a significant mistake for Hays, who follows Sanders and others, to bring the concept of the merits of the patriarchs to the discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. He says, “Abraham’s faithfulness was reckoned by God to the benefit not only of Israel (as in the rabbinic exegetical tradition) but also of the Gentiles.” To speak of “the vicarious effects of Abraham’s faithfulness” is to obscure or miss the whole point. Abraham is the ungodly man - not the faithful man - in Romans 4. He is not a Christ-figure with a treasury of merit, but a sinner with no merit in need of justification. His faith is not admirable faithfulness, but empty-handed reliance on the promise of God. . . . The tension between Abraham the obedient (James 2:21–23) and Abraham the ungodly (Rom 4:3–5) must be considered. . . . But what of the assertion that Paul in Romans 4:5 refers to Abraham as ungodly in Genesis 15:6? The plain record of Abraham’s grievous failures after his calling are relevant to the question at hand. These grievous manifestations of remaining sin are a reminder of what Abraham had been, what he was by nature, and that his standing before God was not grounded on the very imperfect obedience which grew out of his faith in God’s promises. Thus, for the purposes of being justified by God, Abraham was (from the standpoint of the stringent requirements of God’s law) ungodly not only before his call, but afterwards.

• Dr John Fesko (Essay on Imputation):
  

  Abraham’s righteousness was not native to him; in fact, Paul says he was “ungodly.” So how did God consider him righteous? Because Abraham laid hold of Christ’s righteousness by faith. God therefore imputed Christ’s righteousness to Abraham. . . . This scriptural teaching stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that God justifies sinners on the basis of inherent, rather than imputed, righteousness. In other words, a person must actually be holy in order to receive the verdict of righteous before the divine bar. Yet, such an opinion conflicts with Paul’s testimony that God justifies the “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5).
  

• Dr DA Carson (The Vindication of Imputation pdf):
  

  More importantly, it does not bear in mind Paul’s own powerful conclusion: it is the wicked person to whom the Lord imputes righteousness. In the context, that label is applied to Abraham no less than to anyone else. In Paul’s understanding, then, God’s imputation of Abraham’s faith to Abraham as righteousness cannot be grounded in the assumption that that faith is itself intrinsically righteous. If God is counting faith to Abraham as righteousness, he is counting him righteous — not because Abraham is righteous in some inherent way (How can he be? He is asebes / ungodly), but simply because Abraham trusts God and his gracious promise.

• Dr Charles Hodge (Essay on Justification):
  

  As this righteousness is not our own, as we are sinners, ungodly, without works, it must be the righteousness of another, even of Him who is our righteousness.

• Dr Joel Beeke (The relation of Faith to Justification):
  

  In the final analysis, if we base our justification on our faith, our works, or anything else of our own, the very foundations of justification must crumble. Inevitably the agonizing, perplexing, and hopeless questions of having "enough" would surface; Is my faith strong enough? Are the fruits of grace in my life fruitful enough? Are my experiences deep enough, clear enough, persistent enough? Every detected inadequacy in my faith is going to shake the very foundations of my spiritual life. My best believing is always defective. I am always too ungodly even in my faith.
  

These quotes are representative of mainstream conservative Protestant scholarship. These Protestant scholars are well aware of challenges to their interpretation of Romans 4:5, but the Protestant side is so stuck and has bet everything on Romans 4:5 in order to uphold Imputation that they cannot afford to budge. I can confidently say that the highest academic levels of conservative Protestant scholarship has no other hope than their desperate reading of Romans 4:5.

Here are some reasons I have gathered as to why “ungodly” in the case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 refers merely to Gentile (i.e. uncircumcised) status and does not likely refer to something more severe or “morally corrupt” in Romans 4:5. These reasons are not mutually exclusive, but can overlap:

1. The context is explicitly focused on Abraham being a Gentile, uncircumcised, in Rom 4:9-12.

2. The construction of Romans 4 is such that “justifies the ungodly” (4:5) is certainly parallel to “credits righteousness apart from works” (4:6) and “justified apart from works of the law” (3:28). This strongly suggest that “ungodly” is another way of saying “apart from works (of the law),” which is more suggestive of Gentile status of lacking the law rather than breaker of the law. I wrote an article on this HERE.

3. Genesis 15 is not painting Abraham as a sinful man, but rather frustrated at not having his heir despite his track record of good behavior. Genesis 14 shows Abraham as heroic, pleasing God's High-Priest Melchizedek, and giving Alms/Tithe (14:20b). Genesis 15:1 starts with God appearing favorably to Abraham, telling Abraham "your wage will be great" (LXX). I wrote an article on this HERE.

4. The Hebrew verb tense for “believed” in Genesis 15:6 is referring to a track record of faithfulness, not a one time act of faith, which would be inconsistent for there to be a history of faithfulness alongside being wicked this whole time. Even Paul speaks of Abraham as "faithful" in the context of Justification in Galatians 3:9, which Protestant sources ignore, and which I wrote about HERE.

5. Romans 4:18-22 is Paul’s own exegesis of Genesis 15:6, which doesn’t suggest wickedness at all nor a corrupt heart, but rather the opposite, a faithful heart (cf Neh 9:8). I wrote about this many times, most recently HERE.

6. Paul quotes Gen 15:6 in Galatians 3:6, which is a major chapter on Justification and parallel to Romans 4, except that here in Galatians 3, Paul gives no suggestion of Abraham being ungodly, which is strange if Abraham’s wickedness is an essential component of Paul’s lesson. Instead, in Galatians 3:5-9 rather than Paul saying the opposite, i.e., that Abraham actually was being indwelt by the Holy Spirit and performed miracles, and mirrors Romans 2:26-29. Protestant scholarship routinely ignores the references here to Abraham when discussing Justification and Romans 4. 

7. God had no problem saying Abraham “kept all his laws,” so we have no business trying over emphasize his weaknesses, nor can we imply Paul had to hide from Gen 26:4-5. Protestants routinely hide from Genesis 26:4-5, as if it wasn't in the Bible.

8. Galatians 2:15-16 speaks of justification by faith apart from works of the law and contrasts Jews to “Gentile sinners,” which would support the 4:5 connection.

9. Reformed scholar James Buchanan in his famous book The Doctrine of Justification quotes Early Church Father, St Ambrose, as saying: 'Without the works of the Law,' says Ambrose, 'to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness," as also it was to Abraham. -Ambrose, Ep. ad Rom. iv. 5

10. If Paul wanted to show a wicked person could be justified, he could have found much better examples of God accepting the worst of the worst behaved. It makes little sense for someone who is already largely well behaved to be the poster child for God justifying them.

11. It is possible that Romans 4:5 is not talking about Abraham, as Reformed scholar Charles Hodge says in his Commentary on Romans on this verse: “Paul speaks of God as justifying the ungodly. The word is in the singular, τὸν ἀσεβῆ, the ungodly man, not with any special reference to Abraham, as though he was the ungodly person whom God justified”

12. The term “ungodly” in Greek is a negation of the term “worship, devout, religious,” and not a mere generic term for wicked behavior (Acts 17:17; Acts 18:13). While Romans 5:6 says “Christ died for the ungodly,” and could mean sinner in general, elsewhere it is clearly its own category distinct from generic sinfulness, such as in 1 Tim 1:9 and 1 Peter 4:18, where “ungodly” and “sinner” are both used, signifying a distinction, even if subtle. In this sense, it is possible to read it as Abraham would be 'not devout' per Mosaic standards, such as circumcision, kosher foods, etc. This is why the Jews accused Paul of teaching people to stop "worship" per Mosaic standards in Acts 18:13.

13. It is possible that Paul is talking about Abraham’s origins from Ur of Chaldea (Gen 15:7), where his father worshiped Idols (see Josh 24:2), thus saying that God would accept people from pagan backgrounds or pagan parents. God brought Abraham out of that sinful heritage, and had him walking in virtue in the new lands, so it’s not like God declared Abraham righteous while in the idolatrous nation.

14. The popular "controversial" Protestant scholar N.T.Wright reads Romans 4:5 as "he who believes in the God who will justify the ungodly," meaning that Abraham believed that God would some day justify the Gentiles of the world, in order to bring them into his family.

15. It is outrageous to read the text as if ungodliness remained in Abraham or any Believer, rather than being immediately blotted out. When the Greek term "ungodly" is used in the Greek OT, we see it applied to Abraham in Genesis 18:17-25, which says: "The Lord said, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him, that he may command his children to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him. 23 Then Abraham said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" Clearly, righteousness is contrasted to "wicked" (ungodly in Greek), and Abraham is clearly on the righteous side. So there is no sense in which Abraham could be "wicked" at the time of Genesis 15:6 while being counted righteous, for we see here that's simply not what the terms mean. Thus, the only sense which Abraham could be ungodly in Gen 15:6 is to be uncircumcised.

16. Similar to the above, Regeneration precedes faith, so it is impossible for Abraham to have believed if he didn’t have a regenerate heart, and a regenerate heart cannot be ungodly by definition. My recent article on this matter shows even the Westminster Assembly held that "justify the ungodly" means "declare righteous and make righteous," see HERE.

17. Forgiveness of sins precedes declaration of righteousness, so God is never declaring righteous a wicked man, but rather declaring righteous a forgiven man.

18. God doesn’t declare someone righteous unless they have received righteousness, so God is never declaring a wicked man to be righteous, and instead needs a real basis to declare them righteous. This is the whole logic behind Imputation in the first place.

19. As a matter of basic justice, the OT expressly rejects “justifying the ungodly” (using the same language) in Prov 17:15; 24:24; Isaiah 5:23. So some distinction must be made in Romans 4:5 so as not to have a blatant contradiction. 

20. I believe the main thesis behind Paul's usage of Genesis 15 is that a Covenant was being created in that chapter, and that "reckoned as righteousness" is more likely a Hebrew idiom meaning a covenant was being formed. Thus, reading the text too 'literally' misses the point. I have a 5 part series on "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" which discusses this (Here).

From these 20 points, I think that a more than sufficient case has been made against the modern mainstream conservative scholarly Protestant understanding of Romans 4:5. It is generally not good form to make one part of one verse the cornerstone from which you build your entire theology, and so the only explanation for why these Protestants do so is because they literally cannot make a case using any other verse, which says a lot about their lack of interest in submitting to God's Word.