What does reckoning righteousness to Abraham mean (Gen 15:6)?

It is often said in the context of studying the Bible that we should ask first what a passage meant in its own context before applying it to our lives. For Christians, however, it is almost impossible to read the sentence in Gen 15:6 in the context of Abraham’s own story without hearing Paul’s arguments about justification by faith (Rom 4:1-25; Gal 3:1-9). In fact, many only know the sentence from the New Testament. The exact historic context in which Genesis 15 was written is uncertain, but the Law has not been given in Abraham’s time, so God’s approval is not an emphasis on faith as opposed to Law. Even if the writer intended to address issues in later Israel, there is no evidence in the Old Testament that the tension for Israelites was between a faith relationship and legalism. It is not that Israel meticulously kept the details of the law and in the process forgot the relationship with God. Rather, they worshipped other gods (sometimes in conjunction with the Lord) and consequently neglected obedience and discipleship (e.g. 2 Kings 17:7-23; Isa 1:1-4; Neh 9:16-31).

To reckon blood to someone (Lev 17:3-4)

Paul’s argument is undoubtedly central for our Christian convictions, and we hold it dear, but it is worth probing Scripture further and asking what this incident communicated apart from the debate of grace versus law. How would ancient Israelites have understood faith being reckoned as righteousness? Elsewhere, the same expression (to reckon something to someone) is used, for instance, in the sacrificial system. Anyone who slaughtered an animal without offering the relevant portions to God in sacrifice, bloodguiltiness (literally blood) was reckoned to him (Lev 17:3-4). While God made a concession after the flood and allowed people to eat meat, they were not supposed to eat the blood because it symbolised life (Gen 9:3-4). The logic of Leviticus is that when a sacrifice was offered, the blood was poured out before God, as a way of offering the animal’s life back to God, the Giver of Life. Without this symbolic gesture, the slaughter of an animal was treated as illegitimate, and the person had blood on his hands! This did not simply mean that he was counted a murderer, however. In the pronouncement of his sin is also his judgment, explained in the next sentence of the verse: he shed blood and now he will be cut off (normally indicating divine punishment – God will take his life). Thus, reckoning ‘blood’ to someone indicates both his sin (he shed blood unlawfully) and its consequence.

Sin (‘avon) as consequence

It is a well-recognised fact, that ‘sin’ (‘avon) in Hebrew refers both to the act of transgression as well as its consequence. Thus, in legal texts of the Pentateuch, a common phrase is to ‘bear one’s sin’ (nasa’ ‘avon, e.g. Lev 7:18), which means to endure the consequences of the sin, such as punishment. In Ps 32:2, the psalmist says that the person to whom God does not reckon sin is blessed (the Hebrew construction is the same as in Gen 15:6, ‘to reckon something to somebody’). The psalmist then describes what it was like before he confessed his sin (when presumably God would have reckoned sin to him) and how it sapped the life out of him. But when he confessed his sin, God forgave him (Ps 32:5). Translations vary how they render the last phrase, but woodenly translated the Hebrew would read ‘And You [God] bore the sin [‘avon] of my iniquity [hatta’t – another word for sin]’. Just as a sinner may bear his sin, i.e. the consequences of his sin including any punishment, so when God forgives, He bears the consequences of sin (e.g. the hurt and pain and ultimately the punishment in Jesus Christ, though this latter fact would have been hidden in the days of ancient Israel). We see in these examples that at times it is difficult to distinguish between an act and its consequence or outcome and this is worth keeping in mind as we turn to the question of righteousness.

The meaning of righteousness

What then does righteousness mean? In the Old Testament, it is generally understood in the context of relationships where parties have mutual obligations (for instance, in a covenant). When those commitments are fulfilled, whether this involves treating others rightly or how one behaves towards God, the person is considered righteous. For God, righteousness (fulfilling His covenant commitment) means that He responds to godly Israelites who call to Him for help and delivers/saves them. In other words, God’s righteousness can be equated with salvation. Conversely, God’s righteousness may involve justice and punishment when Israelites rebel against Him and refuse to repent. Righteousness, then, means the right behaviour within the expectations of the covenant. Thus, in Isa 56:1, Israel is admonished ‘to preserve justice and do righteousness’ (which is part of their covenant obligation towards God) to which God’s response is His salvation, which is His righteousness (notice how the consecutive lines say the same thing slightly differently – a common feature in Hebrew poetry). The next verse then calls those who do righteousness blessed (Isa 56:2). Thus, the outcome of human righteousness is God’s blessing. Blessing and righteousness are also set parallel in Ps 24:5, so that they act as synonyms.

That ‘righteousness’ can express not only the quality of an act or a person, but also the consequences that follow from it is also evident in a number of passages.[1] In Deut 6:24-25, a rationale is given for obeying God. The commandments are ‘for our good’, says v.24, and the next verse clarifies that ‘it will be righteousness to us’. Likewise, Isaiah envisages restoration, the outpouring of God’s Spirit when justice and righteousness will characterise Israel, which will lead to idyllic conditions in the land (Isa 32:15-20). Specifically, Isa 32:17 equates righteousness with peace, quietness and confidence. In other words, like ‘sin’ (‘avon), so its opposite ‘righteousness’ (tsedaqah) can be used to incorporate not only the act but its consequences (our good, peace, etc.).

To reckon righteousness to someone (Abraham and Phinehas)

What is the significance of all this for understanding Gen 15:6? The expression to reckon righteousness to someone only occurs in connection with Abraham above and with Phinehas (Ps 106:30-31) and it is worth comparing their stories, since it is likely that the expression is used similarly.[2] Phinehas’ story goes back to Israel’s wilderness wanderings when they worshipped Baal and committed acts of sexual immorality with Moabite/Midianite women (Num 25:1-18). Moses has already condemned their acts, when an Israelite brazenly takes a Midianite woman into his tent in full view of all the people. Phinehas, a descendant of Aaron and therefore a priest, kills the man and the woman and stops the plague that God is sending among the people. Gruesome as we may find Phinehas’ act, God rewards him for his faithfulness and promises him ‘a covenant of perpetual priesthood’ (Num 25:12-13).

In both the story of Abraham and Phinehas, then, there is an act of extraordinary faithfulness that is rewarded by God’s response of a covenant. Abraham has already been promised the land and Phinehas was already a priest, but their faith/faithfulness leads God to strengthen that promise with an extra affirmation in an enduring covenant. Reckoning righteousness to Abraham, then, is not simply saying that he did the right thing, his faith was the correct response in the relationship with God (all true, of course), but it also points to the amazing outcome of such faith. God responds to Abraham’s faith with further blessing and affirmation that is not only for him, but which flows over into the life of his descendants and has enduring implications. It is indeed a recurring theme in the Old Testament that God hears the cries of Israel and has compassion on them even when they sin because of the covenant with Abraham (e.g. Exod 2:24; 32:12-13; Ps 105:42-44).  

Application for Israel

For Israel at various times, the incident of Abraham’s faith and God’s response would have had different significance. When they became puffed up in their pride, it was a sober reminder that God’s commitment to them was nothing to do with their righteous acts (Deut 9:27) – far from it! When they were disheartened, particularly during the exile, they would have found comfort that God’s commitment to them would endure because it went a long way back to their forefather (Isa 41:8-10; 51:1-3). It would also have encouraged them to respond to God like Abraham did because his circumstances were as hopeless as those of the exiles.

Paul’s use of Gen 15:6

If you have read this far, you might be wondering how all this fits in with Paul’s reading. It is worth remembering that the NT rarely if ever interprets the OT for its own sake. Rather, as believers work out the implications of Jesus for the relationship with God, as well as how the Gentiles fit into Israel’s story, they use the OT polemically (i.e. as part of an argument to make a point). What they say about the OT is in fact more like the application of the passage to their own context rather than a detailed explanation of what a passage means. So, Paul argues against those who put the Law in a central position and require Gentiles to keep aspects of it. In his argument that faith is the fundamental basis for the relationship with God, he cites Abraham’s example and notes that God’s approval of him came before he was circumcised (Rom 4:9-12) and 430 years before the law was given (Gal 3:17-18), which surely relativises the centrality of the Law.

However, Abraham’s faith is only an analogy, not an exact match to the Christian’s faith. Abraham’s trust in God related to the promise of physical descendants (and land), not to faith in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation and so his ‘justification’ is God’s approval for the way he relates to the Lord in relationship, rather than the all-encompassing justification that leads to Paul’s summary, ‘there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 8:1). Nevertheless, the central point that faith is the foundation of our relationship with God, which leads to God’s approval, is relevant in both contexts and this is Paul’s argument. Paul does not pick up on the aspect of righteousness as consequence and enduring blessing overflowing to others, probably because it does not further his argument in the debate about faith versus Law. Interestingly, James comes from a different context where his audience may be arguing that faith is everything. Thus, he uses Gen 15:6 and the wider story of Abraham to point out that faith without a life of obedience is meaningless and not faith at all (James 2:18-26). We see then the different emphases coming through these NT interpretations depending on the writers’ context. It should caution us to think that there is only one application that can be drawn from a given passage.

Learning from Gen 15:6

What can we take away from this exploration of Gen 15:6? I have already commented on the lessons that arise from Abraham’s trust in God in my last post (Trust in God who overcomes (Gen 15:1-6)). Thinking of righteousness as consequence and overflowing blessing for others, it may be humbling to think that God’s blessing at times may come to us not because of our faith or commitment but because of others’ legacy (perhaps parents, grandparents whose faith, prayers, godly life, and faithfulness to God) overflows now as blessing into our life. Like Abraham, whose faith brought many blessings for the generations to come much of which he never saw, it could encourage those who quietly trust and live for God that their faithfulness is not in vain. One can think of missionaries who toiled and saw little fruit in their ministry, yet the next generation of missionaries reaped the harvest they have sown. It is also a challenge to think whether our trust and relationship with God leave a godly legacy for others to step into. Ultimately, we look to Jesus Christ, whose faith and sacrifice of Himself, His righteousness, overflowed into the blessing of salvation and eternal life for us who are ‘in Him’ (Rom 5:17-19; 2 Cor 5:21).

---

[1] Walter Moberly argues that like ‘sin’ (‘avon), its opposite, ‘righteousness’ (tsedaqah), can refer not only to an act but also its consequence or outcome, which for righteousness means the blessings that flow from a righteous attitude. “Abraham’s Righteousness (Genesis 15:6),” in From Eden to Golgotha: Essays in Biblical Theology (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 47. His essay originally appeared as “Abraham’s Righteousness (Genesis XV 6),” in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. J.A. Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 103-130.

[2] I am indebted to Walter Moberly who compares Gen 15:6 and Ps 106:30-31 and argues for the sense of righteousness that includes a kind of legacy and overflowing blessing for others, made concrete by God’s affirmation through His covenant. My own interpretation in what follows flows from this insight. Ibid., 47-50.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.