The One Blessing of Abraham

Scholars have long known that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are an extended prologue, an etiological grounding, among other things, of the accounts to follow. The very next chapter features the calling of Abram. Why did the calling of Abraham become necessary?

Genesis begins by narrating how God, wanting to make creatures that can image him, prepares a fitting environment. He then brings humans into the picture and gives them instructions to live by – instructions they are capable of performing. However, other forces are apparently vested in God’s project. Before long, the project was derailed, while only two humans were in the project. Things only got worse. By the time four named humans were in the project, there was a murder. It went further down from there.

What was God to do — scratch the project altogether? No, that would be a resounding victory for the sinister forces. Start afresh? Yes, but not quite from ground zero. So, in a sense, the restart is a continuation. Abraham would have to do.

What is Abraham’s qualifying attribute for this mission? The most noticeable feature is that he was childless, and his wife was past the age of childbearing. The reader should remember that God needed a people and chose a waterless vessel for that mission. In other words, God has picked someone who would require a miraculous intervention to get the project back on track. He said to him:

Genesis 12:2 ESV
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.

Of course, becoming a great nation implies having many children and descendants. Sounded like a good deal to Abram, and he obeyed. While he was on his way to where God sent him, at the oak of Moreh, and as if to make the point transparent:

Genesis 12:7 ESV
Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. 

Again, Abram is assured that he will have children of his own. This in itself, especially from Abram’s perspective, is a major blessing. It is worth stressing that before God called him, Abram was already a man of considerable material wealth (Gen 12:5). Of course, the rich can become richer. My point is that Abram was not a church rat when he was called – and I should clarify that imagery; I do not mean modern-day church rats. And as far as we know, he didn’t tithe or invoke any divine giving-and-receiving law to acquire his wealth. He seemed a regular, shrewd, Near-Eastern businessman. For emphasis, I repeat that Abram did not sow any seed before God told him he would inherit the land of the Canaanites. The only thing Abram at this point had given God was his obedience to leave Haran.

Besides what Abram already had in Haran before Yahweh called him, the first material blessing that we read about was when Pharaoh treated Abram well because of Sarai (Gen 12:10-20). Notice however that this was a cunning and evil move: Abraham gave up his wife for sexual exploitation to save his life! Put another way, the seed Abraham sowed to reap material gains here was his wife. Hence, whatever the pharaoh gave Abram was likely expected dowry. This is a clear indicator that Abram wasn’t called because he was morally upright. Indeed, he would soon sleep with a slave girl, an act that likely would be a case of rape had the girl not been an enslaved person, who was likely 60 years younger. And when she became pregnant, Abram would let Sarai send her away.

Even the famous encounter with Melchizedek does not teach anything about seed sowing, as I have written about elsewhere. In that encounter, Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils of war once to Melchizedek and gave the rest out to his men and the king of Sodom. He didn’t give out a dime of his own wealth. So, Abraham didn’t accrue material wealth through his encounter with Melchizedek.

So, God chose Abram in spite of Abram. He chose him to bless him with his own children and prosper his business. More importantly, God chose Abram so that he might become a blessing (12:3). Put another way, Abraham would become a vessel through whom all people would be blessed. What sort of blessing did Abraham become for the world?

According to the argument of Galatians, the promised Holy Spirit came through the lineage of Abraham. You see, Abraham had material wealth – but that was not the blessing he was to become to the world. The blessing Abraham was for the world was that through him, a people would be miraculously established through Isaac and would lead to Jesus. That’s the real blessing Abraham became. That’s the argument of Galatians:

Galatians 3:8 ESV
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

Paul here says the gospel of Jesus, fully revealed in Paul’s time, was preached beforehand to Abraham. That gospel message is this: “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” What nations? The nations whose stories were covered in the Table of Nations (Gen 10) and whose language God confused in Genesis 11. Every nation outside of Abraham’s lineage. God miraculously gave Abraham a family in the hope of using a descendant of that family to fix the problems Adam unleashed under the influence of sinister forces. That was always God’s plan. When God started afresh with Abraham, he engineered a solution for the nations. It wasn’t an abandonment.
The Gentiles (or the nations) were always going to be accepted by faith – by putting their trust in the faithfulness of God and his Messiah. And when they do, they will receive the Spirit of Jesus as a deposit guaranteeing things to come in the coming age. This, ultimately, is Abraham’s only relevant blessing.

As if to connect the dots, one of the first things the Spirit did upon breaking into human hearts in Acts 2 was a reversal of what happened at the Tower of Babel just before Abram was called. At Babel, the people’s languages were confused, so that they couldn’t understand one another (Gen 11:7-9). In Acts 2:5, first, “there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN.” These were descendants of Jews exiled all over the nations for their disloyalty. God would collect them first before collecting the rest of the world. (That’s what’s meant by the Gospel being for/to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles.) Next, all these people who then spoke the languages of the corners of the world they came from heard the Spirit-enabled Galilean disciples of Jesus speak their various languages! This is just the reversal of the events at Babel, which finally precipitated the calling of Abram.

Abraham’s blessing to the world is Jesus.

Continue Reading

Jesus Goes to Hell: The Gates of Hell in Matthew’s Gospel

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13-16)

Background: The Confession of Peter

The Confession of Peter is a famous passage in which Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of the living God. The Synoptic Gospels all record the event, but Matthew provides more details. In this piece, we shall mainly use Matthew’s account to explore the meaning of the event and Matthew’s literary use of the story in his Gospel.

Matthew’s Gospel is often described as the most Jewish of the canonical gospels. The claim is not without warrant. Matthew’s first step in his Gospel is to provide a genealogy that connects Jesus to both Abraham and David. That move is not trivial. The link to Abraham establishes Jesus as a legitimate, potential, promised “seed” candidate (Genesis 3:15, 22:18). Simultaneously, the connection to David evokes ideas of a messianic king – themes known to people familiar with the Jewish worldview. Matthew also portrays Jesus in ways reminiscent of Moses, the chief Apostle and Prophet of Judaism. Both Moses and Jesus escaped being killed as infants by the rulers of their times; Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount contrasts with Moses’ giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. Also, both men serve as deliverers of their people and perform miracles in the liberation process. Even in our day, the Jewishness of Matthew continues to be appreciated. I have watched several stories of Messianic Israeli Jews who embraced Jesus after reading Matthew.

In popular understanding, the Confession of Peter is important because it conveys divine revelation of Jesus’ true identity as the promised Messiah. That much is undoubtedly true, but Matthew does more in his telling, given the extra details he provides. Besides, we should notice that Matthew has already dropped numerous hints about Jesus’ true identity before Peter’s confession in Chapter 16. Let us consider a few of these hints. 

Matthew’s Many Portrayal of Jesus as Yahweh

First, Matthew introduces John the Baptist as one preparing the way for Jesus in this way (3:3): “This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: ‘A voice of one calling in the wilderness, “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” ’ In the original Isaiah passage, “the Lord” was Yahweh. So, Matthew’s use of the passage ascribes the divine name to Jesus. In Matthew’s story, John the Baptist did not know at this point that Jesus was Yahweh. Still, a careful reader of Matthew’s work would have noticed this literary move. 

Continue Reading

Revelation 4 and 5: Divine Council and Christ’s Reign

Background

As mentioned earlier, John arranged his writing into two major parts based on the motif of judgment. The first part deals with the judgment (or warning/encouragement) of the Church. Some of the seven churches of Revelation received rather stern warnings and threats of judgment. For instance, certain members of the Pergamum church have embraced false teaching, leading them to sin similarly as ancient Israelites did when Balaam enticed them towards “food sacrificed to idols” and they “committed sexual immorality” (2:14). In response, Jesus says, in John’s vision, that these members of the Pergamum church should repent, or he will visit them soon and “fight against them with the sword of his mouth” (2:16). That sword kills (Rev 19:21). Similarly, Jesus warns the Philadelphian church about the possibility of losing their crowns (3:11), if they do not continue to hold fast to sound doctrine.

Chapters 6 to 20 contain the second division of the book, which details the judgment of the world, following that of the churches. But this arrangement leaves Chapters 4 and 5 hanging. Why might John do that? Among other things, he does so to make a subtle theological point of presenting Jesus as Yahweh. 

Continue Reading

Reading Revelation Right (Series Part 1)

The Book of Revelation has been on my mind for a few months now. I have read and re-read the book and consulted with some of the best specialists in modern scholarship. Some things I knew, but there have been so much more I was ignorant of. I am just gonna say a few things here. (I may also walk through the whole book, picking out specific nuggets I found interesting.)

1. If John wrote Revelation as a graduate schoolwork today, he no doubt would get an “F.” No, it would not be so much because his work would be difficult to understand – Immanuel Kant probably surpassed John on that point and is still praised for it. John would score an F because of plagiarism, failing to properly cite his sources. (Of course, John did not do any wrong per the literary standards of his day.)

2. Let us get the simple hermeneutics point out of the way. John wrote to encourage young churches near the first century. So whatever John wrote about was something that, in principle, his audience could/would have understood. Hence, there are no cryptic references to helicopters, missiles, China, Russia, Putin, Trump or any of the other recent lazy readings.

3. Indeed, there is cryptic messaging in the book -it was John’s way of critiquing the empire without its knowledge. The cryptic messaging is of a very different sort from what people now tend to imagine. For example, John primarily referred to Rome as Babylon, and that move is itself pregnant with a whole worldview and dense theology.

Continue Reading

Spiritually Gifted Men Were the Problem (Series Part 2)

Paul Quotes the Corinthians

As emphasized earlier, we have much-needed data missing from the Corinthian correspondence. Scholars have presented several possible explanations, but not one satisfactorily answers the text’s questions. Each explanatory schema answers a few questions while neglecting the rest. In truth, we may only be able to fully understand the text if archaeology comes to the rescue once more.

Continue Reading

Man is the “Head” of the Woman? (Series Part 1)

Background

First Corinthians 11 is one of those Bible passages that no reader can forget about in a hurry. It is the kind of passage you read and wonder about afterward. The chapter is significant not just for the challenging issues it raises for scholars but also for the impact it continues to have in churches. After all, the passage is full of apostolic pronouncements for the global church. First Corinthians 11 is the famous chapter about hair covering and the claim that “neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” —a passage that the church has subsequently used to treat churchgoing women as “others.” Of course, the othering of women, based on this passage and other similar ones, would not be problematic if, indeed, that is the kind of thing Paul had in mind. 

Continue Reading

The Father is Greater and Other FAQs (Series Part 4, Finale)

I have argued for the divinity of Jesus with no reference to Apostle Paul’s writings at all. This is by design. Some critics, especially Muslims, sometimes claim that Paul bastardized the “true religion” of Jesus and that Jesus never claimed to be (equal with) God. Surely, such a complaint cannot be made now. We can establish the case for the divinity of Jesus without Paul’s writings. If we add Pauline epistles, we have more data to corroborate the case made so far. But before that, I want to address some passages critics, especially Muslims, typically use to argue against the divinity of Jesus. 

The Father is greater than I

In John 14:28, Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I am.” The issue here is the apparent logical inconsistency of one God being greater than the other—a contradiction in terms. Indeed, this passage is one that proved most difficult for many church fathers and theologians. In church history, this is one of the central passages informing the Arian Heresy. Admittedly, if one is convinced on other grounds that Jesus is not Yahweh, then it is easy to see how this passage may be used as an argument-defeater. However, since the data strongly support the idea that Jesus is Yahweh as already argued, I am inclined to inquire: in what way is the Father greater than Jesus?

Continue Reading

Jesus as God: Plurality in the Godhead of the New Testament (Series Part 3)

Let us quickly review where we are. We began our journey from the end, investigating what post-apostolic church fathers, who lived some 200 years before Emperor Constantine reigned, believed concerning the deity of Jesus. We learned that these influential bishops affirmed the divinity of Jesus, and many of them founded their beliefs on the teaching of the Old Testament besides the New Testament. I cannot stress enough the importance of realizing that the notion of a plurality in the Jewish God was widespread before Yeshua ever permanently put on a body, and it remained for about 200 years after Jesus exited the earth as the Jewish scholar, Alan Segal, details in his The Two Powers in HeavenEarly Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism

Some ignorant critics, including many Muslims, often assert that the Bible never claims that Jesus is God. Some others would say Jesus never claims to be God. Both groups of critics are wrong. The bible documents facts to the contrary. The claim that Jesus is God or, more correctly, is a member of the Godhead is an inescapable conclusion when one considers the data en masse

Continue Reading

Plurality in the Godhead of the Old Testament (Series Part 2)

What is Elohim?

In an older article linked here, I wrote about how “God” has taken on a definite meaning in Christianized spaces. I think a sufficient trace of older worldviews still survives in the modern rule that requires us to capitalize “G” in “God” when referring to the Christian God. Such a rule assumes the existence of other gods. Indeed, ancient Hebrews affirm the existence of other gods, the Hebrew God being the most high of them all. The Hebrew God is ontologically superior to the other gods.

The Old Testament uses the term elohim for “gods,” and the range of its application helps explain what exactly “god” meant to the people in the ancient Near East. “Elohim” is plural in form but, according to Hebrew grammar rules, the context can establish the exact referent of the term: if the verb is singular, “Elohim” often refers to the Most High; if plural, it typically refers to other gods. Carmen Imes writes: 

“God”(elohim in Hebrew) and “Lord” (adonai in Hebrew) are not names. Elohim is a category of beings who inhabit the spiritual realm; angels are elohim and so are the gods of other nations. Adonai is a title that means “master,” whether human or divine. Both words can describe Israel’s deity. However, the God of Israel also revealed his name, inviting the Israelites to address him personally as “Yahweh.” (6)

Continue Reading

Emperor Constantine Did NOT Make Jesus God (Series Part 1)

Background – An Everlasting Myth?

The matter of the deity of Jesus is one of the most debated issues in Church history. Indeed, we have addressed one piece of the debate here before. The disagreements continue partly because Judaism teaches monotheism, and some people find the idea of multiple persons in the Godhead contradictory. Moreover, the notion of there being three persons in the Godhead is, admittedly, not intuitive, and many a Christian who claims to believe in a trinitarian God cannot adequately defend the doctrine. In our day, it also does not help that there is much historical misinformation on the subject. It is common, for instance, among many who deny thehttps://decolonizedchristianity.org/the-fundamental-error-of-crowthers-critics-series-part-3-fina le/ deity of Jesus to charge that nobody before the 325 AD Council of Nicaea believed Jesus was God. It is an old myth that will probably never go away. Dan Brown, in his famous The Da Vinci Code, puts the following in the mouth of the character, Sir Leigh Teabing:

Continue Reading