The following is the second in a series of blog posts on this topic that are meant to be read together. Links to the other articles may be found at the bottom of this page. The series as a whole is also meant to accompany a collection of related articles currently being posted on the website Reformation21. Links to those articles can likewise be found at the bottom of this page.
Not only did God enter into a covenant with Abraham—which he was under no obligation to do—but He credited Abraham with righteousness even though he had not performed the necessary works. Instead of taking Abraham’s sins into account, He treated him as righteous. Was God simply playing a cosmic game of pretend? No, He was agreeing to die for Abraham and make him righteous.
This is a clear enough principle, though it still astounds. What is less clear is why God came back to Abraham some years later in an account mentioned in Genesis chapter 17 and placed a new requirement on him and his descendants which was accompanied by a severe curse for disobedience.
“God said further to Abraham, ‘Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.’”
Genesis 17:9-14
Here a completely different principle is established. Whereas before he was not penalized for his sin, now anyone who fails to perform the work “shall be cut off from his people.” I am continually struck by the difference between Genesis chapter 15, which establishes the Abrahamic Covenant, and Genesis chapter 17, which seems to reestablish it according to different criteria. There is no mention of circumcision in chapter 15 nor any threat of being cut off for covenant breaking. God alone moved through the pieces, agreeing to be cut down like the animals if the covenant was broken.
For this reason, the Abrahamic Covenant is likely the most difficult to understand of any of the biblical covenants. It seems almost to be two things: conditional and unconditional, gracious and demanding. This tension continues throughout the Holy Scriptures. The Mosaic Covenant that was established with Abraham’s descendants seems to be a clear continuation of the principle in Genesis chapter 17: covenant blessings are promised in exchange for covenant obedience.
“Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you,” declared Moses. “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:1-2) The Mosaic Covenant included a series of such commands which the people had to follow if they were to receive the land—indeed, if they were to live at all. We see often the threat that those who fail to keep the Law will be cut off.
• “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.” (Exodus 12:15)
• “Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.” (Exodus 31:14)
• “For whoever eats the fat of the animal from which an offering by fire is offered to the Lord, even the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 7:25)
• “For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.” (Leviticus 18:29)
• “But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.” (Numbers 15:30-31)
And perhaps no passage sums up the call of the Mosaic Covenant better than this one…
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 2by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”
Deuteronomy 30:19-20
If this be not enough to convince you of the difficult, works-based nature of that covenant, consider the fact that it contained a list of curses under which a person would fall if they failed to keep the full Law. (Deuteronomy chapter 27) How does this square with Genesis chapter 15, when God moved through the animal pieces alone, agreeing to take upon Himself the curse for covenant breaking? It seems to be a distant memory.
However, the reality is that despite Israel’s continual covenant breaking, God gave them new chance after new chance. Even as He pledged to cut off those who disobeyed, He also pledged to remain faithful to His chosen nation. Moses also said to the people of Israel, “For the Lord your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them.” (Deuteronomy 4:31) And in a powerful picture of love, God declared through the prophet, “Can a woman forget her nursing child / And have no compassion on the son of her womb? / Even these may forget, but I will not forget you.” (Isaiah 49:15)
There may be no greater example of this tension than the words of scripture regarding the circumcision of the heart. Returning to the Book of Deuteronomy, we read, “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.” (4:16) A circumcised heart is therefore one that does not rebel against God but obeys Him. The Israelites were told to ensure that their hearts were in this condition, but later on they were told, “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:6) So were the Israelites meant to circumcise their own hearts, or was God pledging to do it for them?
Through Jeremiah God said, “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord / And remove the foreskins of your heart, / Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, / Or else My wrath will go forth like fire / And burn with none to quench it, / Because of the evil of your deeds.” (Jeremiah 4:4) Again, it seems that the burden for covenant obedience and circumcision of the heart falls upon the Israelites. But it was also through Jeremiah that God declared,
“‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.’”
Jeremiah 31:33-34
To be continued…
All scripture passages are taken from the 1995 New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.
Other articles in this blog series in order of publication:
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Covenant with Abraham”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Prophecy of Substitution”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Circumcision of the Heart”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: Two Progenies in Abraham”
Related articles hosted on Reformation21 in order of publication:
“Infusion and Imputation: An Introduction”
“Justification: The Roman Catholic View”
“Justification: The Reformed Protestant View”
Hi Amy,
I found your blog after reading your recent article on Reformation21. I”m commenting here since I think my comment is somewhat related to this post as well as your article. I thought you did a good job of describing the Catholic position. On the issue of what Paul means by “the Law,” you offer a potential Catholic response that he means the Mosaic law rather than God’s universal law. I don’t think the Catholic Church has a required definition for interpreting that term in Paul’s letters, but an alternate Catholic response on that point would be Augustine’s distinction between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith. For Augustine, the Old Testament’s Law of Works included the precepts of the moral universal law. The precepts of the moral universal law are also included in the Law of Faith – Christians are bound to follow the moral law just as the Israelites were bound. The difference is that Christians have received the love of God in their hearts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and are empowered to actually follow the moral law, whereas prior to Christ no-one was able to follow the moral law. Augustine discusses this at length in The Spirit and the Letter. For example, in Chapter 6 Augustine writes ““For that teaching which brings to us the command to live in chastity and righteousness is the letter that kills, unless accompanied with the spirit that gives life.” https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm. For Augustine, the command to live in chastity is still a law that is binding on Christians.
This kind of ties into this post because it’s somewhat parallel to the situation for Abraham in that God enters into a covenant w/ Abraham when He has no obligation to do so, and credits Abraham with righteousness, but then imposes commands and obligations which Abraham is thereafter responsible for keeping.
Also related to this subject, I recommend this lecture and/or interview with Matthew J. Thomas on early Christian interpretations of “works of the Law.” https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress.com/2020/02/13/matthew-j-thomas-works-of-the-law/ He points to some similarities between the early Christians and the New Perspective, especially NT Wright.
Mr. Robinson,
Thank you so much for taking the time to read my articles and for offering that helpful feedback. This is a good topic for further study. Out of curiosity, may I ask what your personal theological background is?
Sure thing. I’m Catholic. I have Presbyterian friends who’ve piqued my interest in these topics.
As someone who also has Presbyterian friends, I commiserate with you.
(Humor intended)