Faults Of Our Fathers: The Spread Of Sin In The Patriarchal Narratives And Its Implications

By Robert R. Gonzales, Jr.

[Robert R. Gonzales, Jr., is the Academic Dean and Professor of Biblical Studies of Reformed Baptist Seminary, Taylors, S.C., as well as Adjunct Professor of Old Testament for the Midwest Center for Theological Studies, Owensboro, Ky.]

I. Introduction

In 1973 Dr. Karl Menninger, a psychiatrist, published a book entitled Whatever Became of Sin?[1] One of the primary aims of Menninger’s book is to highlight the way in which modern society has tended to marginalize and domesticate the pervasive reality of sin in the world.[2] In my recently published monograph, Where Sin Abounds, I note a similar trend among Bible scholars in their treatment of the patriarchal narratives in the book of Genesis.[3] Some interpreters attempt to minimize the sins of the patriarchs. Others go farther and attempt to whitewash their vices. There are, I believe, at least two factors that account for this trend.

II. The Sin Versus Grace Dichotomy

Anyone who is familiar with the secondary literature on Genesis is aware of the almost universal practice of dividing Genesis into at least two major sections. The first eleven chapters are commonly called “primeval history,” whereas chapters 12 through 50 are usually referred to as “patriarchal history” or “the patriarchal narratives.”[4]

Interpreters invoke various reasons to justify this division.[5] The reason advanced that is most important for our purposes is that of a shift in thematic emphasis. Most interpreters of Genesis argue cogently that in primeval history the narrator (whom we would identify as Moses) focuses primarily on the origin and spread of human sin as well as God’s consequent curse and judgment. However, when they come to the patriarchal narratives the spread of sin theme seems to disappear from their radar. Here, they insist, the narrator shifts his emphasis from human sin and divine judgment to the themes of redemption and divine blessing.

For example, Gerhard von Rad, the renowned German OT scholar, contrasts “the Jahwist’s great hamartiology [i.e., doctrine of sin] in Gen. III–IX” where, says von Rad, “sin broke in like an avalanche” with patriarchal or, as von Rad terms it, “sacred” history where “the promise of the possession of the land of Canaan and the promise of an innumerable posterity” become the central motifs.[6] Following von Rad, the Scottish commentator John Gibson depicts the “main thrust of the [first] eleven chapters” as “negative” because “they have portrayed sin spreading like a virus and infecting mortally not only humanity but the very physical creation.” But, says Gibson, it is “the call of Abraham which will set the Gospel story in motion.”[7] Similarly, Victor Hamilton views the patriarchal history (12–50) as the solution to the sin problem introduced in the primeval history (1–11). More precisely, Hamilton outlines the entire Genesis narrative as follows:

1. Generation (Gen 1–2)
2. Degeneration (Gen 3–11)
3. Regeneration (Gen 12–50).[8]

I could multiply the examples of this tendency to contrast the thematic emphasis of primeval history with that of patriarchal history.[9] But it is my conviction that this alleged thematic shift partially accounts for the failure to give the spread of sin motif its proper due in the patriarchal narratives.

III. The Plaster-Saint Syndrome

Another factor that sometimes blinds interpreters to the spread of sin theme in the patriarchal narratives is an inordinate emphasis on or exaggeration of the piety of the patriarchs and matriarchs. Of course, it must be conceded that the patriarchal narratives and the rest of Scripture bear witness to the exemplary faith and obedience of these men and women.[10] Nevertheless, both Jewish and Christian exegetes have sometimes stressed patriarchal piety to the point of minimizing or marginalizing the patriarchs’ faults.

For instance, The Book of Jubilees, a second-century b.c. Jewish work, alludes to Abraham’s manifold trials and temptations depicted in the Genesis narratives and asserts, “In everything wherein [God] had tried him, he was found faithful.”[11] Another Hellenistic apocryphal work called “The Prayer of Manasseh” reads, “Therefore, you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner” (Odes 12:8 nrsv).[12] The Babylonian Talmud takes that strand of rabbinical thought a step further and asserts, “Evil inclination had no dominion [over] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”[13] The Genesis Rabbah, a fourth-century a.d. conflation of the Genesis stories, portrays Abraham’s personal merit as the ground of God’s blessing on him and his descendants. According to one of the rabbis who contributed to this work, “In the age to come Abraham will sit at the gate of Gehenna, and he will not permit a circumcised Israelite to go down there.”[14]

The early church fathers also had a tendency to overemphasize the piety of the patriarchs and to marginalize their sin. This they often accomplished by means of an allegorizing hermeneutic. Didymus the Blind, a fourth-century Alexandrian theologian (c. 313–398), said the following concerning Abram’s detour to Egypt where he passed off his wife, Sarai, as his sister:

On the literal level Abraham made an intelligent compromise with the lustfulness of the Egyptians. [But] as for the spiritual meaning, those who pass from virtue to vice are said to descend to Egypt. . . . It does not say “he descended” but “he entered.” His descent is an entrance, because every zealous man condescends to those who fall without falling with them . . . to deliver them from their fall. Just as one becomes Jewish for the sake of the Jews without being a Jew, and ungodly for the sake of the ungodly without being ungodly, so one comes into Egypt without living as an Egyptian.[15]

Although the Reformers tended to reject the allegorical method of their predecessors, they did not completely free themselves from the tendency to justify the unbelief and misbehavior of the covenant family.[16] Commenting on Abraham’s wife-sister ruse, Martin Luther discloses the interpretive presupposition that guides his reading of this passage and others in the patriarchal narratives. He writes, “Because Scripture often presents Abraham to us as a believing father and a perfect model of faith, I prefer to decide in favor of the opinion that here, too, his great faith is revealed rather than either that he sinned or that his faith succumbed in the trial.” As a result, Luther depicts Abraham in this incident as a man “full of faith.”[17] Later, when assessing Rebekah’s and Jacob’s deception of Isaac, Luther is forced to admit that they both broke the Second Table of the Law.[18] However, he justifies their “disobedience” to the Second Table as conformity to the First Table of the Law, concluding that Rebekah and Jacob “acted in a godly and saintly manner.”[19] John Calvin describes Rebekah’s deception as an act of “extraordinary faith.”[20] Calvin acknowledges that Jacob sinned but, to the reader’s surprise, alleges that Jacob’s sin was not the fact that he went along with his mother’s deceitful plot but that he hesitated at the outset, which, according to Calvin, evidenced a lack of faith![21]

More recently, Štefan Porúbc̆an’s thorough study entitled Sin in the Old Testament provides an acute example of this tendency to minimize patriarchal sin and overemphasize patriarchal piety.[22] He includes a summary of the historical development of sin in each major redemptive epoch. After treating man’s fall into sin (pp. 404–32) and the spread of sin through antediluvian society (pp. 432–38), Porúbc̆an turns his attention to the patriarchal history (pp. 438–44). He begins this section with a statement that conditions his entire perspective on the patriarchal narratives: “Here we are not dealing with a sinner, but with a particularly righteous man, a friend of God [emphasis added].” In the paragraphs that follow, he fails to mention a single patriarchal sin (!) and concludes by according Abraham’s personal merit equal weight with divine grace as a basis for God’s covenant promise.[23] Though not to the same extreme, Victor Hamilton also overplays Abraham’s piety when he writes, “Will there be more Adams and more tower builders? Or is there a way out of this dilemma [i.e., human sin in primeval history]? The obedient model of Abraham contrasts to all the sorry models who have gone before him.”[24] As these examples demonstrate, an overemphasis on the virtues of the patriarchs has sometimes hindered interpreters from giving proper weight to their vices.

IV. Removing The Rose-Colored Glasses

There are, however, at least four good reasons why the interpreter of Genesis should see the “spread of sin” motif as a major theme not only of primeval history but also of patriarchal history.

1. The Thematic Unity Of Genesis

The distinction between primeval and patriarchal history is not as sharp as sometimes alleged. Recent studies have demonstrated the integrity of the book as a whole and suggest that the central themes of chs. 12–50 actually are grounded in chs. 1–11.[25] In his recently published theological commentary on Genesis, James McKeown notes the common practice of contrasting the thematic emphasis of primeval history with patriarchal history and writes,

While this is a convenient way of dividing the material, it can mislead the reader by giving the impression that the first 11 chapters are merely introductory and unrelated to chapters 12–50. But this would be a gross underestimation of the value and function of these early chapters, since they establish principles and themes that provide a foundation and, indeed, an interpretative key for the events of chapters 12–50 [emphasis added].[26]

Unfortunately, McKeown lists “descendents,” “blessing,” and “land” as major themes in Genesis but fails to list human sin as a major theme of the narrative aside from a discussion of the fall.[27] But if Genesis is unified thematically, we would expect not only to find the themes of descendants, blessing, and land introduced in primeval history but also to find the themes of human sin and divine judgment further developed in patriarchal history. And a careful comparison of literary patterns in the primeval and patriarchal narratives demonstrates that such an expectation is not without warrant.

Let’s look at one example. Building on the insights of several Bible scholars,[28] we can discern the following literary pattern in some of the major primeval narratives that depict the spread of human sin:

Thematic Pattern of Sin—Inquest—Speech—Mitigation—Judgment

	Sin	Inquest	Speech	Mitigation	Judgment
The Fall	3:6	3:8–13	3:14–19	3:21	3:22–24
Cain & Abel	4:8	4:9–10	4:11–12	4:15	4:16
The Flood	6:2, 4–5, 10	6:5–6, 11	6:3, 7, 13–21	6:8, 18–21	7:6–24
Babel	11:4	11:5–6	11:7	10:1–32; 11:[9]10–12:3	11:8–9

Interestingly, this pattern reoccurs in the patriarchal history where Moses depicts the sin and judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah:

	Sin	Inquest	Speech	Mitigation	Judgment
Sodom & Gomorrah	13:13; 19:4–9	18:21–22; 19:1–3	18:17–23; 19:13	18:23–32; 19:12, 15–22	19:24–29

This resemblance of literary structure suggests that Moses is continuing to develop his “great hamartiology” beyond the parameters of primeval history.

2. The Sin-Revealing Function Of The Torah

Students of the Bible sometimes overlook the fact that Genesis functions both as a witness to pre-Torah revelation and also as a part of Torah revelation. Hence, the events recorded in Genesis occurred before the law (Rom 5:13–14; Gal 4:17–18), yet they also constitute the revelation of the law, which has as one of its primary functions the revelation of human sin. The apostle Paul underscores this function when he notes in Rom 3:20 that “through the law comes knowledge of sin.”[29] The context (3:9–19, 21) suggests that Paul is referring not to the Decalogue or five Books of Moses in particular but to the OT Scriptures as a whole as they function to reveal God’s moral demands for humanity. However, later in the epistle the apostle narrows his focus to the first book of the Hebrew canon, namely, Genesis. In Rom 5:12–14, Paul uses the redemptive-historical narrative recorded in Genesis, which he describes with the phrase “from Adam to Moses,” in order to expound sin’s primeval origin, its universal scope, and its ultimate consequence (Rom 5:12–21). Following Paul’s reasoning, we should expect the motif of sin to play a major role throughout the entire narrative of Genesis.

3. The New Testament Portrait Of The Patriarchs

The NT writers portray the patriarchs not only as saints, as we conceded above, but also as sinners saved by grace. In particular, Paul describes Abraham in Rom 4 as an “ungodly” (ἀσεβῆ) man whom God justified. Since this description carries negative moral overtones[30] and cannot be limited to Abraham’s pre-conversion state,[31] it is likely Paul saw the patriarch’s vices as well as virtues when he read the Genesis text.[32]

4. Sin Does Abound In The Patriarchal Narratives

A careful exegetical and theological analysis of the patriarchal narratives reveals an equal if not greater emphasis on the pervasiveness of human sin than that found in the primeval narrative. This is where I give the bulk of my attention in my book—to a detailed analysis of the various narratives that make up the patriarchal history. Since I do not have adequate space here to present a comprehensive exposition of my study, I will present a summary of my findings and highlight three practical implications that follow.

V. A Summary Of The Spread Of Sin In The Patriarchal Narratives

Since the patriarchal history emerges out of the context of the Babel enterprise, it is not surprising to find many allusions in the patriarchal narratives to the prevalence of sin in pagan cultures. Harem-building and political tyranny, both notable in the primeval history (Gen 4, 6), reoccur in the patriarchal history (Gen 12, 14, 20, 26).[33] Yahweh’s reference to the collective sins of Canaan’s inhabitants increasing in magnitude to the point at which divine forbearance reaches its limit (i.e., “the iniquities of the Amorites is not yet full,” Gen 15:16) resembles his earlier warning concerning the deluge-provoking sin of antediluvian history (Gen 6:3).[34] Sodom’s wickedness is comparable to the pre- and postdiluvian evil in the primeval history. Indeed, as we have noted, the primeval pattern of sin, inquest, speech, mitigation, and judgment surfaces again in the Sodom and Gomorrah account.[35]

However, the patriarchal narratives do not merely provide allusions or instances of sin among pagans. They also highlight the spread of sin in the successive generations of the patriarchal community.

1. The First Generation

Abraham’s initial response to Yahweh’s call is not as commendable as many have assumed (11:27–12:3; Acts 7:1–3).[36] When Abraham does finally arrive in Canaan, God tests his faith with a famine (12:10). Abraham disobeys by relocating to Egypt. There, he forces Sarah to pose as his sister, placing her in danger in order to protect his own life. His ruse not only employs deception (a Serpent-like tactic) but also jeopardizes “the offspring of the woman.”[37] Sadly, Abraham repeats this ruse over twenty years later (Gen 20).[38] Sarah also falls into sin when she tries to obtain the promised offspring through a surrogate mother, her Egyptian slave Hagar (Gen 16). In this case, she plays the role of a “second Eve,” tempting her husband to take what God had forbidden. Notable are the verbal parallels between Sarah “taking” and “giving” that which is forbidden to her husband as Eve did to Adam, as well as Abraham “listening to the voice of Sarai” as Adam harkened to the voice of his wife (Gen 3).[39] Noting these textual links, one German scholar refers to Gen 16 as another Sündenfall (i.e., fall story).[40] Later, when God assures Abraham and Sarah that they would conceive and bear the child of promise, they each laugh with a degree of incredulity that exposes their weak faith.[41] Hence, these paragons of faith have repeated moments of weakness though their faith triumphs in the end.

If the narrator portrays Abraham and Sarah as less than plaster saints, he depicts Lot as barely a saint. In parallel to Eve’s lustful glance at the forbidden fruit (3:6), Lot casts his eyes in the direction of the Jordan valley, which the narrator remarkably compares to “the Garden of Yahweh.” Lot’s decision to move east of the Promised Land parallels the eastward movement of Cain and the Babelites (Gen 4, 11).[42] Lot continues to decline morally until he becomes hardly distinguishable from his degenerate neighbors. Only Abraham’s prayers and divine grace spare Lot from Sodom’s terrible fate.[43]

Similarities and contrasts between Noah and Lot also serve to advance the theme of sin’s spread in the patriarchal narratives. On the one hand, God rescues both Noah and Lot, along with their families, from a cataclysmic judgment (6:7, 13, 17; 7:4, 21–23; 19:13, 17, 24–29). Both Noah and Lot become drunk with wine sometime after their deliverance (9:21; 19:33, 35). In both cases, the “nakedness” of Noah and Lot is exploited by their offspring (9:22; 19:33, 35).[44] The result, in both cases, is a line of cursed descendants (9:24–25; 19:37–38). On the other hand, there are dissimilarities. While both Noah and Lot may be characterized as “righteous” (Gen 6:8–9; 12:5; 19:1–3, 14; cf. 2 Pet 2:7–8), Noah’s moral character shines brighter than Lot’s.[45] In fact, the reader is almost tempted to think the angels should have left Lot to perish along with the Sodomites. Second, Noah complies with the divine directives related to the coming judgment and God’s appointed method of escape (6:22; 7:5, 13–16). But Lot’s response is half-hearted and inconsistent (19:16, 18–22). Third, Moses implicates Noah once for an immoderate use of wine (9:21), whereas he depicts Lot as becoming intoxicated twice (19:33, 35). Fourth, one of Noah’s son’s disrespectfully gazes upon his father’s nakedness and mockingly discloses his father’s shame to his brothers (9:22). But Lot’s two daughters do not merely gaze on their father’s nakedness; they engage in incestuous intercourse with him (19:33, 35)![46]

Here is my point: the picture is not getting brighter as we transition into the patriarchal narratives. In some respects, it is getting darker. Sin is getting the upper hand even of those who are part of the covenant family.

2. The Second Generation

The sins of the parents are often repeated in their children. Advanced in age, Abraham and Sarah laugh with incredulity at the prospect of the promised offspring. Their son Ishmael also laughs at the son of promise. But Ishmael’s laughter betrays mocking unbelief and a rejection of Isaac’s role in the divine plan (Gen 21). Furthermore, it resembles Cain’s resentment of Abel, the brother favored by God (Gen 4).[47] Isaac’s early life looks promising. But before long, he utilizes the same wife-sister ruse his father had earlier employed (Gen 26). Isaac’s (and Abraham’s) lack of godly fear and inordinate fear of man serve as poor examples before a pagan world.[48] Later, Isaac stealthily attempts to confer the blessing on an unworthy firstborn son, and Rebekah deceitfully schemes to overrule her husband’s error in favor of the second-born (Gen 27). In this incident, Isaac’s weakness for savory food leads to his fall much like Adam and Eve’s attraction to the forbidden fruit led to their fall. Moreover, Rebekah adopts a Serpent-like tactic to advance the promise. So neither the first nor second generation of the patriarchal family escapes the gravity of sin.[49]

3. The Third Generation

Esau and Jacob are the major characters in the third generation of the patriarchal family. Esau provides a tragic example of religious defection. The narrator’s depiction of him as a hunter provides a textual link with Nimrod. Like Nimrod, Esau turns out to be a worldly opportunist with no concern for Yahweh’s kingdom. His polygamy repeats the marital distortions of the primeval Lamech (Gen 4) and the “sons of God” (Gen 6), and his angry plot to murder Jacob echoes Cain’s enmity toward the divinely favored Abel (Gen 4).[50] Though Jacob manifests an early interest in the promise, his motives and tactics for advancing the promise cannot be commended. First, he snatches at the birthright with Serpent-like cunning.[51] Then he becomes willingly complicit in his mother’s conspiracy and snatches at the blessing with Serpent-like deception. Such tactics earn him the epithet “Heel-Grabber,” which reminds the reader of the Serpent’s modus operandi in attacking the woman’s offspring (Gen 3:15). By exploiting Esau, Jacob places his own life at risk and is forced to move eastward into exile, which in turn places the promise at risk.[52] In exile Jacob enters into a bigamous relationship with two sisters through the trickery of their father. The marital tension is then aggravated when the two rival sisters (following the example of Sarah) entice Jacob into marrying their maidservants in order to obtain more offspring. The result is greater tensions within the family fueled by undue favoritism on Jacob’s part. This intra-familial strife sets the stage for the fourth generation.[53]

4. The Fourth Generation

The sons of Israel constitute the fourth generation. Simeon and Levi treacherously deceive and slaughter the Shechemites (Gen 34). The violence of primeval history is not just repeated; in this case the roles are reversed. Instead of the wicked (Cain) slaying the righteous (Abel), “the righteous” (Jacob’s sons) wantonly murder “the wicked” (the Shechemites). In this act, Simeon and Levi reveal their true identity as “the seed” of the Serpent, who was a liar and murderer from the beginning.[54]

Following the tragedy at Shechem, which would be better labeled “The Rape of Shechem” instead of “The Rape of Dinah,” Reuben commits an incestuous act with his father’s concubine. Reuben’s act was not merely a case of unbridled lust and immorality. As a preemptive assertion of his birthright, he attempts to usurp his father’s role as leader of the clan, just as Absalom attempts to usurp David’s throne by sleeping with his wives (2 Sam 16:20–22). Reuben’s contempt for his father parallels Ham’s contempt for Noah, and Jacob’s consequent curse on Reuben echoes Noah’s curse on Ham’s descendants.[55]

The next stage of the narrative draws attention to the mounting animosity of Jacob’s sons toward their younger brother Joseph, whom God favors. Once again, there is a Cain-like murder plot. But instead of killing Joseph, the brothers, at Judah’s prompting, sell him into Egyptian slavery (a kind of virtual murder). And they conceal their crime from Jacob with the same kind of cunning trickery Jacob had used to deceive his father, Isaac.[56]

Once Judah realizes that Jacob will not be consoled over Joseph’s “death,” he separates from the covenant family and associates with the Canaanites. Judah’s calloused conscience is matched only by his spiritual blindness, which prevents him from perceiving the cause of the premature deaths of his two oldest sons. He deceives Tamar, his daughter-in-law, into believing he will give her his third-born to fulfill his levirate obligation. But Tamar turns the tables on her father-in-law. She stealthily poses as a prostitute and lures Judah into a sexual liaison in order to obtain the offspring she desires. When Judah learns of her illegitimate pregnancy, he harshly and hypocritically condemns her to death. But Judah’s eyes are finally opened when Tamar exposes him as the true culprit. His confession serves not only as an admission of sin but also as an indication that his Canaanite daughter-in-law shows more concern to perpetuate the seed of promise than a flesh-and-blood descendant of Abraham.[57]

And so we can discern a downward trajectory of piety from the first to the fourth generation of the patriarchal community. In the words of Stephen Mathewson, “Each תּוֹלֵדוֹת shows a marked deterioration. Up to Genesis 12, the deterioration ends in judgment by God. After chapter 12, there is a continual deterioration among those striving for the blessing.”[58] So God’s grace does abound in chs. 12–50. But the glorious beauty of God’s grace is displayed against the dark backdrop of the spread of human sin.

VI. Some Practical Ramifications From The Study

The results of this study lead to practical implications regarding the thematic structure of Genesis, as well as the biblical doctrines of justification and sanctification.

1. A Right Reading Of The Patriarchal Narratives Underscores The Thematic Unity Of Genesis.

William Dumbrell represents the majority opinion when he writes, “Genesis 11:1–9 culminates the spread-of-sin narratives, which began in Genesis 3.”[59] This study has definitely called that view into question. The tendency among scholars to bifurcate primeval and patriarchal history on the supposition that the spread of sin theme is replaced by such themes as election, promise, redemption, and blessing reflects a superficial reading of the Genesis narrative and leads to faulty conclusions. For example, after citing approvingly Gerhard von Rad’s distinction between pre-sacred history (Gen 1–11) and sacred history (Gen 12–50), Henri Blocher asserts, “With Abram . . . begins the decisive implementation of the plan of God.”[60] But God’s redemptive plan began the moment he uttered his first curse in Eden (Gen 3:14–15). According to Victor Hamilton, the Genesis narrative transitions “from generation (chs. 1–2), to degeneration (chs. 3–11), to regeneration (chs. 12–50).”[61] But regeneration occurs in primeval history (Gen 3:20; 4:25–26; 5:22–24; 6:8–9), and there are abundant examples of degeneration (individually and corporately) in patriarchal history.

We may borrow a statement from the apostle Paul to illustrate the common mistake most interpreters make in their characterization of Genesis’s thematic structure. Bringing his Adam-Christ comparison in Rom 5 to a close, Paul asserts, “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (5:20b kjv). Judging from the thematic disjunction most commentators see in the Genesis narrative, it would seem reasonable to conclude that their application of this Pauline statement to Genesis would take the following form: “Where sin abounded [primeval history, Gen 1–11], grace did much more abound [patriarchal history, Gen 12–50].” This study, however, demonstrates that both halves of Paul’s statement apply to the entire Genesis narrative. We find plenty of sin and plenty of grace in both halves of Genesis. The “much more” redemptive-historical triumph of grace will have to await the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we see God’s grace abounding in the patriarchal narratives (at least at a provisional level) because it stands out in stark contrast to the increase of human sin that spans from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:13–14).

2. A Right Reading Of The Patriarchal Narratives Places The Primary Accent Or Emphasis On God’s Faithfulness, Not On Human Piety.

Moses had an original audience in view when he wrote Genesis. Israel had just been redeemed from Egypt and was about to take possession of Canaan. It is likely Moses intended the Genesis narratives to do more than provide Israel with a historical record of humanity’s origins and Israel’s ancestral roots. Moses had a theological message for Israel. Unfortunately, a review of Israel’s history, as recorded in both OT and NT, reveals that many Israelites made the same mistake many modern interpreters have made. They concluded that the story of sin ended where Israel’s history began.

For some of these ancient Israelites, the result was more tragic. They assumed, wrongly, that the patriarchal narratives were mainly about good people (in contrast with bad people who predominated in primeval history) and that God’s promises to these pious patriarchs were grounded on their personal merit. From this reading, it was only a small step to the conclusion that Yahweh had ransomed Israel from Egypt and was about to give them the Promised Land on the basis of their intrinsic worth.

Moses detected this self-righteous mindset among some of his contemporaries and warned them with words that allude to the patriarchal narratives:

Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, “It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,” whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. (Deut 9:4–5)

With these strong words, Moses eliminates any fantasy his contemporaries may have entertained regarding their supposed superiority to their pagan neighbors.

“Ah!” says one of Moses’ fellow Israelites, “I agree that we have not established a good track record with Yahweh in our wilderness wanderings. But as your concluding words indicate, we will enjoy Yahweh’s blessing because of the fathers, that is, on account of their merit!” Moses replies, “My dear kinsman, you have greatly misunderstood the meaning of my words. It is not on account of the fathers’ merits that you will inherit the land. Rather, the land will become yours on account of God’s gracious promise to the ill-deserving among whom the fathers are included!” Then Moses encourages his Israelite neighbor to reread Genesis—especially the patriarchal narratives. There he will not find plaster saints and huge reservoirs of human merit. On the contrary, he will find that his patriarchs and matriarchs sometimes behaved worse than the pagans around them. There he will learn that salvation is by grace alone and not by works.

Moses did not write Genesis for his generation only. He wrote it also for future generations. Fourteen centuries later a Jew named Saul of Tarsus would come to see that Genesis was not written to set off the Jews as the sole heirs of salvation, nor was it written to ground their hope in the piety of their ancestors (or their own for that matter). Once converted, this Saul-turned-Paul would argue that sin’s sway over Israel functioned as a portrait of sin’s sway over every man thereby condemning the entire human race (Rom 3:9–19).[62] Paul would even use Abraham as an example of one over whom sin had sway, placing him on the same level as the penitent yet forgiven King David—a sinner who rejoiced in the God who “justifies the ungodly” (Rom 4:3–8).

Paul’s characterization of Abraham as “ungodly” (ἀσεβῆ) cannot be limited to Abraham’s pre-conversion state. Paul bases his portrayal of Abraham as an ungodly man who has been justified on Gen 15:6, a text characterizing the patriarch some time after his initial conversion (compare Gen 12:1–6 with Acts 7:2–4; Heb 11:8). Although Abraham was justified once for all years before his act of faith described in Gen 15:6, that simple faith remained paradigmatic of the patriarch’s first act of saving faith. Moreover, the blessing attributed to Abraham in 15:6, namely, being credited as righteous, continues to contemplate his state as “ungodly,” that is, as a sinner in need of saving grace. Similarly, Paul’s citation of David’s words in Ps 32 applies to post-conversion experience (Ps 32:1–2; Rom 4:7–8). Thus, it seems likely that Paul’s characterization of Abraham as “ungodly” is not based merely on the patriarch’s pre-Canaan life (Josh 24:2; Neh 9:7) but embraces the totality of the patriarch’s life as depicted in the patriarchal narrative.

Think about that for a moment: Paul classifies Abraham as “ungodly”! Someone may object, “But does not Gen 15:6 tell us that God counted him as “righteous”? “Yes,” says Paul, “but God reckoned him so on account of faith in God’s promise” (Rom 4:3–5). And if we examine Gen 15:6 in its context, we conclude that it was God’s faithfulness, not Abraham’s faithfulness, that Moses highlights.

At that time Abram was struggling with doubts because he had neither an heir nor an inheritance. So God comes to him and says, “Fear not, I am your shield [or benefactor]; your reward shall be very great” (15:1). God’s admonition against “fear” does not refer primarily to the dread induced by an encounter with deity but to the circumstances in Abram’s life that were giving rise to anxiety. Abram identifies these circumstances as the lack of an heir (15:2–3) and an inheritance (15:8). God addresses the patriarch’s fears by reiterating the promises of an offspring (15:4–5) and an inheritance (15:7). And while Abram responds to God’s promise in genuine faith, God senses that the patriarch’s faith needs more than a bare word. Abram’s appeal, “Oh, Lord God, how am I to know I shall possess it?” (15:8) suggests that Abram needed greater assurance. Accordingly, God condescends to his weakness and places himself under a self-maledictory oath (15:9–21; Heb 6:13–18). Thus, the accent of the chapter falls on God’s great faithfulness rather than on Abram’s great faith.

Reading the patriarchal narratives in a way that does not turn a blind eye to the many weaknesses and the sometimes large faults of the fathers will serve as a powerful antidote to a works-based religion. In fact, Paul himself argues that one of the primary functions of the law (of which the patriarchal narrative was an essential part!) was to increase the magnitude of Adam’s original trespass by means of displaying its spread among Adam’s progeny among whom death reigned (Rom 5:14a, 20–21).[63] Thus, the entire book of Genesis underscores man’s desperate need for saving grace. This point has relevance not merely for the Jewish contemporaries of Moses or Paul. It needs to be proclaimed in the church in every generation—especially today when contemporary Protestant scholars are conflating faith and obedience as the instruments of justification.[64]

We cannot truly appreciate the grace of God unless we truly appreciate man’s sinful condition and his need for a righteousness that is not his own but is a gift from God.

3. A Right Reading Of The Patriarchal Narratives Contributes To A Biblically Balanced View Of Sanctification And The Christian Life.

When describing the believer who is simultaneously a righteous man and a sinner, Martin Luther coined the phrase, simil iustus et peccator.[65] Luther applied this description not only to the believer’s legal status before God (i.e., justification)[66] but also to his moral condition as a result of the “already-not yet” tension of sanctification. Hence, commenting on the believer’s inward struggle with remaining sin depicted by Paul in Rom 7, Luther remarks, “Therefore I am at the same time a sinner and a righteous man, for I do evil and I hate the evil which I do.”[67] Luther’s portrayal of the believer underscores the same reality highlighted in the patriarchal narrative: namely, true saints are still sinners.

Unfortunately, the tendency to ignore or minimize the spread of sin theme in the patriarchal narratives deprives the reader of this important doctrine. Of course, the patriarchs and matriarchs were men and women of genuine faith and piety. Abraham displays unqualified devotion to Yahweh in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, the very son of promise (Gen 22:1–19).[68] Jacob is unrelenting in his determination to obtain Yahweh’s blessing (Gen 32:22–32). Joseph believes that God had used his brothers’ evil intentions for the ultimate good of the promise (Gen 50:20). No doubt, Moses intended his readers to be inspired by the positive examples of faith and obedience portrayed in the patriarchal narratives. Not surprisingly, the author of Hebrews calls attention to these exemplars in his famous “Hall of Faith” (Heb 11:1–40).

But the author of Hebrews was familiar with the patriarchal narrative and the fact that sin sometimes prevailed even among the patriarchal community. Thus, when he follows up the “Hall of Faith” with an application to his Christian audience, he exhorts believers not only to persevere in faith, as did these OT saints, but also to “lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles [them]” (Heb 12:1 nau). The implication is that these paragons of faith whom he has set forth as “so great a cloud of witnesses” also had to strive against remaining sin that sometimes encumbered and entangled their steps in the path of devotion to God.

Can you imagine trying to run a marathon race in a long wedding gown? The ancients did not wear wedding gowns. But they did wear tunics or robes that sometimes extended beyond the knees. And when they wanted to run, they either had to remove the tunic or, more commonly, they would pull it up and tuck it into their belt or girdle. And as we read the patriarchal narratives without rose-colored glasses, we find that there are times when their tunic of remaining sin sometimes slips out of the girdle, falls below their knees, and trips them up. Indeed, sometimes they fall on their face and have to get back up again. This is an important point we should not miss!

Most of us are acutely aware of the dangers of “Easy-believism” and the so-called “Carnal Christian” doctrine. These are views within Evangelical Christianity that promote the idea that a person can accept Jesus as Savior but need not acknowledge him as Lord. A sinner may receive forgiveness and the hope of eternal life, but he need not be concerned about holiness. For some of us, it was a concern to distance ourselves from this teaching that prompted us to embrace a “Reformed” view of sanctification with its emphasis on the need for repentance and perseverance in holiness.

But there is an opposite danger or imbalance. In reacting to errors like “Easy-believism” or the “Carnal Christian” doctrine, we must beware of the opposite extreme that leaves little or no room for the reality of remaining sin in the life of a believer. The Bible in general and the patriarchal narratives in particular compel us to concede that a truly pious believer may have periods of backsliding and in some cases serious lapses into sin. This biblical and experiential tension should not prompt us to engage in sin that grace may abound (Rom 6). Instead, it should encourage us to be realistic and patient in our self-expectations and our expectations of other believers. We are not talking about an unbiblical tolerance of “anything goes,” but we are referring to a healthy realism and godly patience that will enable us to come alongside one another and extend a helping hand—remembering God’s great forbearance with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!

Notes

1. Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1973).
2. See esp. pp. 38-45.
3. Accordingly, I entitle the first section of my introductory chapter “Whatever Became of Sin (in the Patriarchal Narratives)?” See Robert R. Gonzales, Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in Genesis with Special Focus on the Patriarchal Narratives (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010).
4. Some debate the precise dividing line. A number of biblical scholars and commentators conveniently locate the dividing point between Gen 11 and 12. More commonly, however, interpreters mark the division between 11:26 and 11:27. A few make the division as early as 11:9. Von Rad carries primeval history through 12:9 and begins patriarchal history at 12:10 (see Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary [trans. John H. Marks; 2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974], 5-7).
5. In addition to a shift in thematic emphasis, which is the focus of my analysis, they note that the primeval narratives focus on human history in general whereas patriarchal narratives are concerned with the beginnings of Jewish history in particular. Second, they point out that primeval history proceeds at a quick pace and spans huge epochs of time (no less than 2000 years), whereas in the patriarchal narrative the pace slows and the events recorded occur within just four generations (or less than 300 years).
6. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, 2005), 1:154, 168. See also von Rad, Genesis, 152-54.
7. Gibson sees God’s activity in the first eleven chapters as “a rearguard action as [God] desperately defends his Kingdom against [sinful man’s] usurping hands.” But beginning in ch. 12, “God launches his counter-offensive” (John C. L. Gibson, Genesis [2 vols.; OT Daily Study Bible Series; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981], 1:212-13).
8. Stating it from a different angle, Hamilton avers, “After the series of sorry examples presented in chs. 1-11, we are meant to read chs. 12ff. (patriarchal history) as the solution to this problem” (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 11).
9. Noting the use of narrative typology in the Pentateuch in which the narrator highlights how earlier redemptive events anticipate later ones, Sailhamer compares the “spread of sin” motif in Genesis with the theme of the “defilement of the camp” in Lev 11-16. But in Sailhamer’s analysis, the “spread of sin” theme is limited to the first eleven chapters of Genesis (John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 39-41). Gen 1-11 depicts “an endless cycle of chaos, evil, and destruction,” according to Bill Arnold. “But a significant turn occurs with the call of Abraham in chapter 12. The problem of human sin finds partial resolution through covenant relationship with God” (Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis [Encountering Biblical Studies; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 200). T. D. Alexander remarks, “While the early chapters of Genesis concentrate mainly on the terrible consequences of these initial developments [i.e., human disobedience, alienation from God, and divine punishment], the rest of Genesis, from chapter 12 onwards, moves forward with the hope that humanity may yet be reconciled to God” (T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 98). See also S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen & Co., 1904), lxx-lxxi; Eugene F. Roop, Genesis (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press, 1987), 88, 93-94; Allen Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 67; Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 34-35; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), li; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Continental Commentary; trans. John J. Scullion; London: SPCK, 1984), 66-68, 604-5.
10. In the patriarchal narrative, Abraham is commended for his faith (15:6), pious fear (22:12), and obedience (22:16; 26:5). Not surprisingly, later Scripture writers refer to him as God’s “servant” (Ps 105) and “friend” (2 Chr 21:7; Isa 41:8; Jas 2:23), and he is held up as a paradigm of piety for NT believers (John 8:39-40, 56; Rom 4:18-24; Gal 3:7, 9; Heb 11:8-17; Jas 2:21-24). The Scriptures also refer to Isaac and Jacob as God’s “servants” (Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27) and attribute the same quality of faith to them (Heb 11:19-20) as well as to Joseph (Heb 11:21), whose moral integrity is especially highlighted in the patriarchal narrative (39:8-9).
11. The larger context reads: “And the Lord knew that Abraham was faithful in all his afflictions, for he had tried him through his country and with famine, and had tried him with the wealth of kings, and had tried him again through his wife, when she was torn (from him), and with circumcision; and had tried him through Ishmael and Hagar, his maid-servant, when he sent them away. And in everything wherein He had tried him, he was found faithful, and his soul was not impatient, and he was not slow to act; for he was faithful and a lover of the Lord” (17:17-18). Later the author describes the patriarch as “perfect in all his deeds with the Lord and well-pleasing in righteousness all of the days of his life” (23:10a) (The Book of Jubilees [The Little Genesis] [trans. R. H. Charles; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902], 121-22, 145).
12. This is the twelfth of fourteen Odes that are appended to the Psalms in the Greek manuscript codex Alexandrinus (fifth century a.d.) and bears the title, “The Prayer of Manasseh.” Its earliest known appearance is found in a third-century a.d. writing known as the Didascalia, but most scholars date the original work to the first or second century b.c. See Bruce M. Metzger, Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), 123-28.
13. Baba Bathra (17a). In addition to attributing to the patriarchs an invulnerability to sin, the rabbinic teaching of the Talmud also affirmed patriarchal merit. Berakoth of Seder Zera’im, for example, attributes the efficacy of Daniel’s prayer (Dan 9:17) to the merits of Abraham (7b). See The Babylonian Talmud (ed. Isidore Epstein; London: Soncino Press, 1935-1948), 35. See also Alfred Edersheim’s survey of the Talmudic literature in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2 vols.; 1886; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 1:271-72.
14. The Rabbi goes on to anticipate the question, “What will [Abraham] do for those who sinned too much?” to which he replies, “He will remove the foreskin from infants who died before they were circumcised and will place it over [Israelite sinners] and then lower them into Gehenna [protected by the skin]” (Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis [trans. Jacob Neusner; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985], 182). In Parashah 44:5 (commenting on Gen 15:1-21), Abraham reasons with God: “Lord of the ages, you made a covenant with Noah that you would not wipe out his children. I went and acquired treasure of religious deeds and good deeds greater than his, so the covenant made with me has set aside the covenant made with him.” Then God is portrayed as answering the patriarch: “Out of Noah I did not raise up shields for the righteous, but from you I shall raise up shields for the righteous. And not only so, but when your children will fall into sin and evil deeds, I shall see a single righteous man among them who can say to the attribute of justice, ‘Enough.’ Him I shall take and make into the atonement for them all.” Jacob Neusner, the translator and editor, interprets this to mean that the “merit of Abraham will protect Israel in time to come, and, in future ages, there will be someone in the model of Abraham, who will serve as atonement for Israel” (ibid., 128-29).
15. Cited in Mark Sheridan, ed., Genesis 12-50 (ACCS 2; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 7. When Isaac assesses Jacob’s act as deceptive (Gen 27:35), Augustine assures the reader that Isaac is only using the term in “a figurative sense” since in reality “a guileful, deceitful man . . . would deserve a curse” (ibid., 179). Chrysostom was not given to the allegorical method of interpretation. Nevertheless, he still betrays a penchant toward justifying the behavior of those in the covenant family when he portrays Rebekah’s deceptive scheme to secure the blessing for Jacob as “a mother’s affection” and equates it with “God’s designs.” According to Chrysostom, it was God “who prompted her to make plans and also made sure all turned out well” (ibid.,169).
16. Luther and Calvin get off to a good start. Luther begins his exposition of the patriarchal narratives well by noting Abraham’s deliverance from idolatry and interpreting it “as proof for the doctrine of grace over against the worth of merits and works” (Martin Luther, “Lectures on Genesis,” in Luther’s Works [LW] [ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; 55 vols.; Philadelphia: Muehlenberg and Fortress, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986], 2:246). Yet, throughout his lectures, Luther is quick to commend Abraham and his descendants for their piety, while at the same time excusing or minimizing their sins. Calvin also commences his treatment of the patriarchal narratives by underlining “the gratuitous mercy of God” in Abram’s call (John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis [trans. John King; 2 vols.; 1845; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 1:343). But he, like Luther, feels compelled to emphasize the godliness of the patriarchs and to downplay their faults.
17. “Lectures on Genesis” (LW 2:294). Luther imagines Abram reasoning with Sarai as follows: “Therefore, my dear Sarah, do not say that I am your husband; say that I am your brother. Thus I shall remain alive through your favor. But as for you, do not have any doubt. You will experience the help of the Lord, so that nothing dishonorable may befall you; and I shall also help you in this regard as much as I am able, with prayers before the true God, who has promised that He will be merciful” (ibid). Luther appears to be following Augustine’s interpretation of this event as presented in the latter’s “Reply to Faustus the Manichean,” Bk. 12, 33-40 (NPNF1 4:285-88).
18. “Lectures on Genesis” (LW 5:110).
19. “The law and rule,” writes Luther, “ordained that Esau was the firstborn; but God, with His First Table, made the transfer. Indeed, He changed that law and decreed as follows: ‘Esau I did not want; Jacob I did want.’ Hence Rebecca and Jacob did not sin. No, they acted in a godly and saintly manner. They had every right to despoil Esau and to deprive him of that fief of primogeniture [emphasis added]” (ibid., 5:115-16). As further justification for Rebekah’s deception, Luther adds, “Thus in their wars the saints frequently deceived their enemies, but those are lies one is permitted to use in the service of God against the devil and the enemies of God” (ibid., 5:150).
20. Calvin, Genesis, 2:84-85. Interestingly, Calvin’s editor is constrained to file a caveat against Calvin’s interpretation: “This is a dangerous position, however it may be modified or explained” (ibid., 2:85 n. 1).
21. Ibid., 2:85-86.
22. Štefan Porúbc̆an, Sin in the Old Testament: A Soteriological Study (Rome: Herder, 1963). At the time of its publication, Porúbc̆an claimed, “So far there is no thorough and comprehensive study of sin in the Old Testament” (xiii).
23. While Porúbc̆an’s assessment of the patriarchal history and of Abraham’s piety is not devoid of truth, his failure to mention any patriarchal sin in a section purporting to be a history of sin is an obvious deficiency of his work. The author’s desire to emphasize Abraham’s merit (an emphasis consistent with his Roman Catholic theology) has to some degree blinded his eyes to the real and frequent portrayals of patriarchal sin in this period of redemptive history.
24. Genesis 1-17, 11. Hamilton references George Coats who makes the same superficial contrast: “Genesis 1-11 seems uniform in presenting man as a creature who seeks divine power but whose search comes to ruin in confrontation with God. . . . One might well ask, on the basis of the disobedient model, what an obedient model would look like. The primeval history leads naturally to the history of God’s relationship to Abraham” (see George W. Coats, “The God of Death: Power and Obedience in the Primeval History,” Int 29 [1975]: 234).
25. David Clines appropriately notes, “In the final form of Genesis, therefore, there is at no point a break between primaeval and patriarchal history. What follows immediately upon the Babel story (11:1-9) is the genealogical table leading from Shem to Terah (11:10-26). But who Shem is can be learned only from the Table of Nations, where his family is detailed . . . (10:21-31), or from the Noah story . . . (9:26). So the Shem genealogy is firmly linked into the primaeval history. On the other hand, it is plain that the goal of the genealogy is Abram (11:26-30). Its function is equally to trace the ancestry of Abram—so it is attached to what follows—and to follow the line of descent from Shem—so it is attached to what precedes” (David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch [JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT, 1978], 84-85). Based on the toledot structural device, Mathews argues, “The composition forms an Adam-Noah-Abraham continuum that loops the patriarchal promises with the God of cosmos and all human history” (Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26 [New American Commentary 1a; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996], 41). See also Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 136-60; Thomas Mann, “All the Families of the Earth: The Theological Unity of Genesis,” Int 45 (1991): 341-53.
26. James McKeown, Genesis (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 2.
27. Similarly, Terence Fretheim remarks, “It is striking the extent to which the more emphatic themes of chaps. 12-50 are grounded in chaps. 1-11, wherein God promises and blesses, elects and saves. . . . God’s work of blessing in the world does not begin with Abraham; it is integral to chaps. 1-11 (see 9:1, 26) and so God’s blessing work through Abraham must involve intensification and pervasiveness, not a new reality. . . . Issues of creation and redemption are integrated throughout Genesis” (Terence E. Fretheim, “Genesis,” in vol. 1 of The New Interpreter’s Bible [ed. Leander E. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994], 328-29). See also Mann, “All the Families of the Earth,” 345.
28. Von Rad notes the themes of sin, mitigation, and judgment (Genesis, 152-53). Claus Westermann highlights the pattern of Vergehen/Schuld (sin/guilt), Strafspruch/Beschluß (judgment-speech/decree), Strafakt/Strafe (act of judgment/punishment) (“Arten der Erzählung,” in Forschung am Alten Testament [Munich: Kaiser, 1964], 47-58). David Clines combines the work of these two scholars and proposes the four categories of sin, speech, mitigation, and punishment (Themes of the Pentateuch, 68). Margaret Dee Bratcher builds on all three and adds the categories of temptation and discovery (“The Pattern of Sin and Judgment in Genesis 1-11” [Ph.D. diss.; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1984], 225-54). The table above excludes the theme of “temptation,” since it is not obvious in the flood or Babel narratives.
29. See also Rom 4:15; 7:7-9; Gal 3:19, 22.
30. Some, such as Dunn, attempt to tie the term in this context to Abraham’s covenantal standing (i.e., he was justified while outside the covenant) and disconnect it from any negative moral connotations (Romans 1-8, 204-5). The basic meaning of the word ἀσεβῆ, however, demands a negative moral description of the person in view (see also Gen 18:23, 25; Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; Ps 1:1, 4-6; 9:23; 11:5; 17:9; 26:9; Prov 1:10; 2:22; 10:20; Isa 5:23; 13:11; 55:7; Ezek 20:38; 33:8, 9, 11, 12, 14; Rom 5:6-8; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5-6). This is further confirmed by the inclusion of David’s words (Rom 4:7-8) from Ps 32:1-2, which bear biographical witnesses to the kind of “ungodly” person God justifies (i.e., in David’s case, an adulterer and murderer). The point of Paul’s argument is not merely that God declares people righteous who are outside the covenant (i.e., Gentiles) but that God declares people righteous who do not merit that accreditation.
31. Note that Paul bases his portrayal of Abraham as an ungodly man justified in Gen 15:6, a text characterizing the patriarch some time after his initial conversion (compare Gen 12:1-6 with Acts 7:2-4; Heb 11:8). Although Abraham was justified once-for-all years prior to his act of faith described in Gen 15:6, that simple faith remained paradigmatic of the patriarch’s first act of saving faith. Moreover, the blessing attributed to Abraham in 15:6, namely, being credited as righteous, continues to contemplate his state as “ungodly,” that is, as a sinner in need of saving grace. Similarly, Paul’s citation of David’s words in Ps 32 certainly applies to David’s post-conversion experience (Ps 32:1-2; Rom 4:7-8).
32. In other words, Paul’s characterization of Abraham as “ungodly” is based not merely on the patriarch’s pre-Canaan life (Josh 24:2; Neh 9:7) but embraces the totality of the patriarch’s life as depicted in the patriarchal narrative. With respect to Abraham’s legal status and moral condition before God, he is always viewed, to use Martin Luther’s coined expression, simul iustus et peccator. See “Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia,” in LW 25:63; “Lectures on Galatians, Chapters 1-4 (1545),” in LW 26:232.
33. Gonzales, Where Sin Abounds, 95-99.
34. Ibid., 99-100.
35. Ibid., 100-107.
36. Ibid., 109-11.
37. Ibid., 111-18.
38. Ibid., 133-39.
39. Ibid., 127-33.
40. “Gen 16, 1-6 ist tatsächlich die Erzählung von einem Sündenfall” (Werner Berg, “Der Sündenfall Abrahams und Saras nach Gen 16, 1-6,” BN 19 [1982]: 8).
41. Gonzales, Where Sin Abounds, 133 n. 73.
42. Ibid., 188-20.
43. Ibid., 122-25.
44. Although the term for “nakedness,” ערוה, does not occur in the Lot narrative, later Mosaic legislation describes the acts of sexual immorality, including incest, in terms of “uncovering another’s nakedness” (Lev 18:6-19; 20:11-21; Deut 22:30; 27:20).
45. One would expect the opposite, seeing that Lot was probably privy to a greater amount of special revelation than was Noah.
46. Gonzales, Where Sin Abounds, 125-26. Noah curses his son’s offspring in moral indignation (9:24-25). There is no indication, however, that Lot pronounced a curse on his daughter’s offspring, though the Scriptures elsewhere indicate that God marked them as a cursed people (Num 21:25-30; 23:7-24:19; 2 Sam 8:2, 12; 2 Chr 20:22-23; Neh 13:23; Isa 15:1-16:14; Jer 9:25-26; 48:1-46; Ezek 25:8-11; Amos 2:1-3), even assigning them a judgment likened to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Zeph 2:8-11).
47. Gonzales, Where Sin Abounds, 140-43.
48. Ibid., 143-48.
49. Ibid., 148-62.
50. Ibid., 164-74.
51. Ibid., 176-78.
52. Ibid., 179-82.
53. Ibid., 182-92.
54. Ibid., 194-208.
55. Ibid., 208-12.
56. Ibid., 213-20.
57. Ibid., 220-32.
58. Stephen Mathewson, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 38,” BSac 146 (1989): 389.
59. William Dumbrell, Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 32.
60. Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (trans. David G. Preston; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 211. Likewise, David Atkinson sees primeval history as establishing the pattern that “sin leads to punishment” and avers, “Through Abraham the covenant story of sacred history begins” (The Message of Genesis 1-11: The Dawn of Creation [Bible Speaks Today; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990], 184-85). According to John Gibson, God does not “set the Gospel story in motion” until “the call of Abraham” (Genesis, 1:213).
61. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 11. Of course, Hamilton would deny neither instances of regeneration in primeval history nor examples of degeneracy in patriarchal history. But for that reason, his representation of the thematic shifts in the Genesis narrative is unwarranted.
62. Specifically, Paul concludes that “the law speaks to those who are under the law [i.e., Jews], so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world [i.e., Jews and Gentiles] may be held accountable to God” (3:19, emphasis added). John Murray insists that the phrase τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ includes all people in light of the following universal descriptions, πᾶν στόμα and πᾶς ὁ κόσμος, as well as the teaching of Rom 2:14-15. See John Murray, Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:106-7. The phrase ἐν νόμῳ, however, is also used more restrictively to refer to the Jews (2:12). Consequently, Paul seems to be arguing that the law’s condemnation of the Jews (which is found throughout the OT canon) serves as an indictment on the entire human race. See Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 204-6.
63. Rom 5:20 is key: “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” Interestingly, the Greek word translated “trespass” is singular and includes the article: τὸ παράπτωμα. In every other case in which it is used in this passage, it refers specifically to Adam’s one act of disobedience (5:15 [twice], 16, 17, 18; see also vv. 14 [τῆς παραβάσεως], 16 [ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος], 19 [τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου]). Hence, Richard Lenski translates the verse, “Now the law came in besides so that the fall increased [emphasis added]” (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1945], 383-84). This raises the question of how the law, which was given millennia after Adam’s sin could cause his one sin to increase. Sensing the difficulty, some commentators interpret the singular τὸ παράπτωμα as a collective noun, referring to the sins of men in general or Israelites in particular (see Charles Hodge, The Epistle to the Romans [1835; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983], 177). In this context, however, Adam’s transgression is chiefly in view, and whatever sins follow Adam actually point back to his own transgression. Accordingly, Leon Morris suggests that “the word may be chosen as a way of bringing out the continuity between his sin and that of his descendants” (The Epistle to the Romans [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 241). See also Robert Haldane, An Exposition of Romans (1839; repr., MacDill AFB, Fla.: MacDonald Publishing Co., 1958), 227. Hence, Paul’s allusion to the reign of death between the time of Adam and Moses as indicative of sin’s presence in the world (5:13-14) and his continuance of the sin-death-reign connection in the next verse (5:21) would seem to suggest that one of the law’s purposes is to “increase” Adam-like transgressions. The book of Genesis, as part of the Torah, certainly functions as a magnifying glass that demonstrates the spread of “the trespass” and “the reign of death.” Thus, even though men may not have reckoned their sinful behavior as transgression against the will of God prior to the law, the law, particularly Genesis, demonstrates that such sinful behavior is linked to Adam’s transgression and is therefore a violation of God’s will and worthy of his wrath.
64. Some modern scholars argue that the faith that justifies must be understood in its active sense, namely, obedient faith or faithfulness. Hence, they understand Paul and James to be referring to the same genus of justification in their appeal to Abraham’s faith in Gen 15:6 (see Rom 4:3-5; Jas 2:21-24). For example, Daniel Fuller argues that it was the combination of Abraham’s initial act of faith whereby he left Ur together with his ongoing perseverance in faith that served as the condition for his justification (The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God’s Plan for Humanity [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 310). Not surprisingly, Fuller goes on to fault Luther and Calvin for interpreting Paul and James to be referring to two different kinds of justification (311). Don Garlington avers, “In keeping with the Hebrew term ´emunah, the Greek noun translated ‘faith,’ pistis, is two-sided: faith and faithfulness. Given this set of data, righteousness does consist of pistis in the expansive sense of ´emunah, that is, covenant conformity” (“Imputation or Union with Christ,” Reformation & Revival Journal 2 [2003]: 52). N. T. Wright appears to be moving in the same direction when he remarks, “Faith and obedience are not antithetical. They belong exactly together. Indeed, the word ‘faith’ itself could properly be translated as ‘faithfulness,’ which makes the point just as well.” Wright quickly assures the reader that his definition of faith does not compromise the doctrine of justification by faith alone by adding, “Faith, even in this active sense, is never and in no way a qualification, provided from the human side, either for getting into God’s family or for staying there once in. It is the God-given badge of membership, neither more nor less” (What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Saul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 160). Wright does not appear to understand the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. The Reformers never denied that true faith eventuates in good works. What they taught was that the one and the same faith responds differently to divine promise than it does to divine law. Faith responding to promise is passive or receptive. Faith responding to law is active or obedient. Faith in its passive or receptive role is alone the instrument of justification. Faith in its active or obedient role may be viewed as the instrument of sanctification, as well as the evidence of one’s justification. For an analysis of Luther and Calvin’s conception of justifying faith, see Samuel E. Waldron, Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide (Palmdale, Calif.: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2006), 13-71. Paul was focusing on faith in its receptive role. James was focusing on faith in its active role. For this reason, they were each using the term “justification” differently. James Buchanan calls attention to this distinction in his classic work on the subject: “While ‘Justification’ is a forensic or judicial term, it is used in Scripture to denote, sometimes the acceptance of a sinner as righteous in the sight of God [e.g., Paul’s usage]—sometimes the manifestation or proof of his acceptance, by which it is attested and made sure [e.g., James’s usage]: and this variety in the application of it is the ground of an important theological distinction—the distinction between actual [Paul’s focus] and declarative [James’s focus] Justification” (The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture [1867; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991], 233). For a helpful exegetical analysis of the respective ways in which Paul and James use Gen 15:6, see G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 622-24, 1003-5.
65. Or something similar, like simul iustus, simul peccator.
66. “Lectures on Romans” (LW 25:260); “Lectures on Galatians, Chapters 1-4 (1545)” (LW 26:232); “Lectures on Galatians, Chapters 1-6 (1519)” (LW 27:231).
67. “Lectures on Romans” (LW 25:63). Later in his “Scholia,” Luther uses different words to express the same idea: “In the same way man is at the same time both flesh and spirit” (LW 25:339). For further discussion of Luther’s application of this description to the believer’s sanctification, see Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (trans. Robert C. Schultz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 242-45.
68. Leland Ryken sees ch. 22 as the climax of the plot in which the conflict between faith and expediency are resolved (Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992], 69).