What would have happened to Paul’s argument for grace-based righteousness in Romans 4 if he had chosen Phinehas instead of Abraham as the model of faith? What if Paul had quoted Psalm 106:31 instead of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3? Would it have reversed the entire thrust of Paul’s argument in Romans 4?

The two Old Testament passages sound quite similar. Psalm 106:31 reads, "this was credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come," and might be mistaken for the earlier reference in Genesis: "Abraham believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness."

The problem is the antecedent of "this" found in Psalm 106:30. It is not a reference to Abraham believing God, but to Phinehas killing Zimri and his prostitute companion, Cozbi, with a single thrust of his well-aimed spear. For that, Phinehas was credited with righteousness.

Could Paul have used Psalm 106:31 as easily as Genesis 15:6? Perhaps he could. My reason is based less on the understanding of Phinehas and his actions than on the possible misunderstanding of Abraham and his.

Recent debates in the Adventist Church (late 1960s to present) about faith and works may actually have failed to ask the most pertinent questions. Wrong questions inevitably lead to wrong conclusions, much like entering a Greyhound bus station in Los Angeles and asking which bus is best to take to Tokyo.

Some Adventists in the faith/works debate are eager to insure that obedience is not neglected. Others react against this apparent legalism and focus exclusively on grace available through faith. Is it possible they are both at the Greyhound station searching for a bus to Tokyo?

Dallas Willard, in Divine Conspiracy, his remarkably readable and insightful volume on the Sermon on the Mount, comments on a similar trend within the larger Christian community.

Think of the bar codes now used on goods in most stores. The scanner responds only to the bar code. It makes no difference what is in the bottle or package that bears it, or whether the sticker is on the "right" one or not. The calculator responds through its electronic eye to the bar code and totally disregards everything else. If the ice cream sticker is on the dog food, the dog food is ice cream, so far as the scanner knows or cares. . . The theology of Christian trinkets [such as bumper stickers and bracelets that read "Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven"] says there is something about the Christian that works like the bar code. . . Perhaps there has occurred a moment of mental assent to a creed, or an association entered into with a church. God "scans" it, and forgiveness floods forth. An appropriate amount of righteousness is shifted from Christ’s account to our account in the bank of heaven, and all our debts are paid. We are, accordingly "saved." Our guilt is erased. . . Life now being lived has no necessary connection with being a Christian as long as the "bar code" does its job.1

Willard then asks the rhetorical question, "Can we seriously believe that God would establish a plan for us that essentially by-passes the awesome needs of present human life and leaves human character untouched?"2 Though Willard’s audience is a larger Christian community divided between erasing individual sins (on the right) and eradicating social ills (on the left),3 his observations are instructive to Adventists who may be obsessed with "returning to the blueprint" on the one hand or "living with assurance" on the other. Perhaps both have missed the bus because they need to be at the airport instead if they want to arrive in Tokyo.

Do Abraham and Phinehas have anything in common? Do their stories in Genesis 15 and Numbers 25 teach opposing or parallel lessons? Is one a story of faith and the other of works? Was Abraham credited with righteousness for believing and Phinehas for behaving? Rather than explore the less familiar story of Phinehas, reconsider the more familiar one of Abraham.

The context of Genesis 15 certainly has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, justification, or the assurance of eternal life. The context is Abraham’s maturing confidence in God’s ability to give him a son by Sarah when she was well past menopause. Paul honors the context of the Genesis passage, focusing on the very real human dilemma (Rom. 4:18–21) and turning to David rather than Abraham (Rom. 4:4–8) when he wants to make a direct point about the forgiveness of sins and removal of guilt. Genesis 15 is not dealing with guilt; it deals with the trustworthiness of a friend.

Abraham’s friendship with God is a matter of some comment in Scripture (2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8; James 2:23). Despite lapses and setbacks in that friendship (Gen. 16 is the story of Hagar!), it seems to be characterized by Abraham’s growing ability to trust God with tangible realities of life. Abraham also seemed to grow in his awareness that such trust would eventually impact God’s ability to form friendships with other human beings.

In one of the finer moments of their friendship, Abraham urges God to act in a way that will honor rather than distort his divine reputation (Gen. 18:22–25). Abraham seems to mature toward a genuine interest in God’s reputation and the needs of others rather than a narrow preoccupation with himself. He was God’s friend. Does this negate Paul’s argument in Romans 4? Hardly! As one commentator says, "No friend of God will be in hell." 4

Moses, the only other person in the Bible specifically referred to as a friend of God (Exod. 33:11), exhibits the same characteristic. He is jealous for God’s reputation (Exod. 32:11–12; Num. 14:13–19; Deut. 9:25–29), eager to facilitate the reconciliation of God and his estranged children, and surprisingly un-anxious about his own eternal destiny (Exod. 32:31–32).

Friends of God like Abraham and Moses (in their finest moments) are truly models of faith-saving faith, justifying faith. And perhaps their faith is so commendable because it is so practical, so tangible, so connected to daily life, and, in its most mature stages, so connected with the interests of God and the needs of others. It is a faith that goes way beyond either forensic or behavioral "sin management".

Perhaps a faith like this is more likely to lead us to the right questions. It might also lead us to the airport rather than the bus depot. It might even help us understand the actions of Phinehas and his commendation in Psalm 106:31.

Notes and References

1. Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998), 36–37.
2. Ibid., 38.
3. Willard coins the term "sin management" to refer to the narrow salvation perspective of either the right (management of individual sins) or the left (management of social sins).
4. Ibid., 48.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE