Which Spirit That God?

“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” -Genesis 15:6

Much has been made of the above scripture that it is not, as I read. Likewise, more has been made of Abraham (the one who believed) than he is. The apostle Paul, in his hermeneutic of this scripture in Romans 4, contradicts the Word of God in verse 16 by calling Abraham “the father of us all,” though the Word of God said to those who received him, “call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Christ, [Word of God] speaking to the Jews of his time, said, “Ye are of your father the devil,” (John 8:44) naming the devil “Abraham” twelve verses later, saying to those same Jews, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.” (John 8:56) See how subtle Paul's pen.

Paul goes on, in Romans 4, to say of Abraham “Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.” (Romans 4:18- 21) At this point, you're supposed to be laughing aloud.

Whatever Paul's up to, he keeps turning truth on it's ear to get there. Genesis 17:17 says of this, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” In the next chapter, (Genesis 18:12 & 13) “Sarah [also] laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?” Is it craftiness in Paul which compels him to so distort the historical account of-- in his words-- "the father of us all," (Romans 4:16); or humor?

If Abraham were the man Paul makes him out to be in Romans 4, why would an inherently righteous thing have to be counted to him for righteousness? After all, the works of God-- evil and good-- are righteousness (Matthew 5:45), and according to the Word of God, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Was Abe, then, not righteous; or was the one he believed not sent by God? Could it be both?

For instance, if God had had respect for Cain the way he did toward Abel, wouldn’t he have had the same respect for his offering as he did toward Abel’s offering? It’s not like he’s utterly adverse to an offering from the field, such as Cain brought. Almost every sacrifice of flocks required by Levitical law demands an offering from the field-- usually of flour and oil-- to accompany it, most of them with a drink offering of wine, also from the field.

Truly, if the sacrifice offered by Abel is properly apprehended, it would seem Cain's offering were after all more efficacious than Abel's, considering the fruits of the field were bestowed by God upon man, by Genesis 4 (the chapter in which Cain establishes a religious institution by murdering his brother) while the meat of the flocks wasn't, until after the flood of Genesis 7 "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:20) It wasn’t the nature of Cain’s offering that displeased the Lord: it was the nature of Cain, himself. “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” (Proverbs 15:8) One should understand Abel's sacrifice was received in respect of Abel-- perhaps in spite of the substance thereof.

Abraham believed, but it wasn’t righteousness in him, otherwise it wouldn’t have been counted for righteousness: it would have simply been acknowledged as righteousness. In him. So, there must be something going on that isn’t necessarily explicit in the text of Genesis 15:6. The previous verse (Genesis 15:5) might hold the clue we’re looking for.

“And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.” (Genesis 15:5) This is, as I recall, the only thing Abe is ever recorded to have believed God about, and isn’t it perhaps tellingly ironical that this promise is a carnal one, having to do with Abe’s seed? Is Abe after strange meat? Tempting God to make a man child of homosexual fornication? Or is it simply a trial of faith which renders him so 'old and dried- up' by the time his only wife bears him her firstborn- and- only son? He was, after all, "blessed," shall we say, with many children of the "concubines" -- more so after than before his only wife died.

Paul writes to the Galatians “For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.” (Galatians 6:13) So, if some so glory in the flesh of others, isn’t it possible Abe so gloried in his own, and not in the One who promised his flesh such virility? "Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers [i.e. children of concubines]." (Isaiah 2:6)

Now, some-- the apostle James, for instance (James 2:21)-- might be quick to say I’ve made an error in citing the above as the only time Abe was recorded to have believed God. He did, after all, promptly obey in offering Isaac as a burnt sacrifice, (Genesis 22 ) but that wasn’t God who told him to do so. In fact, God (in Jeremiah 19:5) implies the "angel of the Lord" of Genesis 22 is the voice of Baal, when he says, “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.”

Genesis 22:1 says, “that God did tempt Abraham.” I don’t know which one "that God" is-- if not Baal-- but according to James 1:13, it isn’t the one who made heaven and earth. James says, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” Does this mean he didn't tempt Abe, or are we to understand Abe was no man? In fact, according to verses 11 & 12 of Genesis 22, this one Moses (who wrote Genesis) called “that God,” in verse 1, was an "angel of the Lord" tempting Abe, not God.

Abe should have known something was amiss when the “that God” tempting him referred to Isaac as “thy son, thine only son Isaac,” (verse 2) shouldn’t he? Genesis 17:19 & 20 says God had already acknowledged Ishmael-- Abe's firstborn -- as Abe's son; though he didn't give Abe license to circumcise Ishmael or himself. Isaac was not his only son (or his “only begotten son” as Hebrews 11:17 claims). Sarah was Abe's only wife. God-- the real one that made all of Creation and numbers all the hairs of your head-- "telleth the number of the stars" that God promised to number Abe's children after: and "calleth [those same stars] all by their names." (Psalms 147:4) He wouldn’t lose count of Abe’s two sons. Or forget the name of one.

Some would say Abe believed God when he swore by him to the king of Sodom in Genesis 14:22 & 23, saying, “I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth… that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich.” We swear, after all, by that which we believe in. For instance, one of Moses’ commandments to the children of Israel in the wilderness was, “Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” (Deuteronomy 6:13) The problem, here, is in the one Abram chose to believe in (or swear by). Abe swears by Melchizedek’s “most high God,” and the first seven chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews-- which some attribute to the aforementioned apostle Paul-- are clear indication that his descendants have sworn by the same “God,” ever since.

Melchizedek ("the priest of the most high God" -Genesis 14:18) was one of the indigenous people of the land of promise, of which and of whom the Lord later spake on this wise to Moses (who wrote Genesis) “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.” (Exodus 34:12- 15)

Melchizedek was the priest of “the most high God, possessor [as opposed to the Creator] of heaven and earth;” a man who-- unlike the Christ and all his followers (Matthew 23:9)-- had no father, no mother, no "beginning of days" (or born- on date): in spite of obviously serving a “God” as priest, and having a maker that "made" him “like unto the Son of God,” according to Hebrews 7:3. In a word, he's an oxymoron: a contradiction in terms; perhaps a figment of Abe's imagination.

Melchizedek blessed Abram in the name of his “most high God,” in Genesis 14:19, (just before Abe swore to the king of Sodom in the name of the same God) for saving five cities it pleased the Lord to destroy for the wickedness thereof (which destruction he never repented of, as I read Jeremiah 20:16 ). If his “most high” were the same God who destroyed these cities in Genesis 19, wouldn’t Melchizedek have rather rebuked Abe in Genesis 14 for saving that which his God would destroy? Widespread, ubiquitous depravity doesn’t become a cultural phenomenon overnight in one city, much less five. They were obviously steeped in wickedness at the time of this ante- holocaust encounter.

The very next thing the text in Genesis 15 records happening, after Abe’s belief was counted to him for righteousness, is the Lord tells Abe, “I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.” (verse 7) And Abe says, “Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (verse 8) If this doesn’t make you laugh, it should. Abe just received a merit badge for believing, and immediately he’s doubting, seeking a sign (Matthew 12:39) so he might believe.

The next thing whomever Abe is calling “Lord GOD” in Genesis 15 (Maybe it was an angel of the Lord, or the "lying spirit" of 2 Chronicles 18:21.) tells him to do is what we call divination or soothsaying: “And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.” (Genesis 15: 9- 11) In this matter, as in the case of Isaac’s proposed barbecuing, Abe apparently obeyed without hesitation or argument. And he got his sign.

As to the subtlety of Paul's pen: To make any sound doctrinal sense of Paul's hermeneutic of Romans 4, in light of scripture-- "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," that is to say (1 Corinthians 2:13)-- we have to go to verse 5 of the same chapter and pay heed to which God he's writing about as the God of "the father of us all" in Romans 4: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

The reason verse 5 is so key to our understanding of Romans 4 is: God does not justify the ungodly. "For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off." (Psalms 37:28) God justifies the sinner who's godly sorrow compels him to repent of his wickedness-- by never mentioning those things he's repented of. As Ezekiel 18:21 & 22 says, "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live." Again, Jude says, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 14 & 15) If believing were enough: where shall the devils be found? James 2:19 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

And repentance is godly. As Paul writes to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 7:9 & 10): "Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly [i.e. repentant] manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world [i.e. ungodly sorrow] worketh death."

Which God, then, "justifieth the ungodly," if not the same God which compelled his priest Melchizedek to bless Abram for saving the ungodly, as recorded in Genesis 14? And who would this "most high God, possessor of heaven and earth" be, if not "the god of this world" referred to-- again, by Paul-- in 2 Corinthians 4:4? The true God is the Creator of heaven and earth, after all, not the possessor of the same.

Therefore, I have to conclude sign- seeking Abram's faith was 'counted to him for righteousness' (by whomever was counting) as a legal exception: because the God he believed in was a "spirit of error" (1 John 4:6), for "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24) After all, it was Abe's descendants who crucified the Christ, signifying their belief that God considers his own Word accursed on their behalf. And it was none other than the Word of God who said, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." (Matthew 12:33)