And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. (Jas 2:23 NET)
Regarding this the Watchtower states:
How Abraham Was Accounted Righteous
“The case of Abraham deserves particular attention. His being declared righteous is mentioned by two writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, both of whom were writing to first-century Christians who were called to be a part of the 144,000 members of spiritual Israel.—Romans 2:28, 29; 9:6; James 1:1; Revelation 7:4.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul argues that those “called to be holy ones” (1:7), both Jews and Gentiles (1:16, 17), are declared righteous “by faith apart from works of law.” (3:28) To substantiate his argument, he opens a long explanation (4:1-22) and quotes Genesis 15:6 in saying: “Abraham exercised faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Then, in the concluding verses of chapter 4, Paul says that Jesus “was delivered up for the sake of our trespasses and was raised up for the sake of declaring us [that is, “the holy ones” (Romans 1:7)] righteous.” “Us” cannot include Abraham, since he died long before Christ’s death and resurrection. Consequently, when, in the following chapters, Paul speaks of those who are to “rule as kings” and of their being declared righteous “for life” with a view to becoming “God’s sons” and “joint heirs with Christ,” he was obviously speaking of something quite different from God’s attributing righteousness to Abraham.—Romans 5:17, 18; 8:14, 17, 28-33.
James also mentions Abraham as an example to prove that faith must be backed up by godly works. After stating that Abraham was declared righteous, quoting Genesis 15:6, James adds a comment that helps us to see the scope of Abraham’s justification. He writes: “The scripture was fulfilled which says: ‘Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,’ and he came to be called ‘Jehovah’s friend.’” (James 2:20-23) Yes, due to his faith, Abraham was declared righteous as a friend of Jehovah, not as a son with the right to perfect human life or to kingship with Christ. Interestingly, in his Synonyms of the Old Testament, Robert Girdlestone wrote concerning Abraham’s righteousness: “This righteousness was not absolute, i.e. such as would commend Abraham to God as a rightful claimant of the inheritance of sonship.” (The Watchtower December 1, 1985 pg. 15 pars. 8-10)
Since Abraham came to be called God’s friend, did this mean God viewed him as being outside of the family and not as his son?
I believe a careful reading of Paul’s words to the Galatians may shed some light on this:
“Now I mean that the heir, as long as he is a minor, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything. But he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. So also we, when we were minors, were enslaved under the basic forces of the world. But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights. And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, who calls “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.” (Gal 4:1-7 NET)
If Paul meant to convey that, prior to accepting Christ, both Jews and Gentiles were not sons why would he choose to illustrate it by using the situation of a minor child? Why not simply say to his audience that previously they were not God’s sons but merely slaves? His point seems to be that they were sons but, because of their age, were treated like slaves.
For the answer, I searched what commentators had to say on the subject.
Albert Barnes
“Though he be lord of all – That is, in prospect. He has a prospective right to all the property, which no one else has. The word “lord” here (κύριος kurios), is used in the same sense in which it is often in the Scriptures, to denote master or owner. The idea which this is designed to illustrate is, that the condition of the Jews before the coming of the Messiah was inferior in many respects to what the condition of the friends of God would be under him – as inferior as the condition of an heir was before he was of age, to what it would be when he should enter on his inheritance. The Jews claimed, indeed, that they were the children or the sons of God, a title which the apostle would not withhold from the pious part of the nation; but it was a condition in which they had not entered on the full inheritance, and which was far inferior to that of those who had embraced the Messiah, and who were admitted to the full privileges of sonship. They were indeed heirs. They were interested in the promises. But still they were in a condition of comparative servitude, and could be made free only by the gospel.”
Matthew Poole’s Commentary
“Such children were all believers, the seed of Abraham; from the first designed to a gospel liberty, but that was not to be fully enjoyed, until the fulness of time should come when God intended to send his Son into the world; and during the time of their nonage they were kept under the law, as a tutor and governor, leading them unto Christ.”
Both of these commentators place believers, prior to their accepting Christ, in a state of sonship from God’s standpoint until the time determined by him for them to receive the full benefits of such.
However, I think the most extensive and helpful was the Expositor’s Bible:
Expositor’s Bible
“The difference between Judaism and Christianity, historically unfolded in chap. 3, is here restated in graphic summary. We see, first, the heir of God in his minority; and again, the same heir in possession of his estate.
I. One can fancy the Jew replying to Paul’s previous argument in some such style as this. “You pour contempt,” he would say, “on the religion of your fathers. You make them out to have been no better than slaves. Abraham’s inheritance, you pretend, under the Mosaic dispensation lay dormant, and is revived in order to be taken from his children and conferred on aliens.” No, Paul would answer: I admit that the saints of Israel were sons of God; I glory in the fact-“who are Israelites, whose is the adoption of sons and the glory and the covenants and the law-giving and the promises, whose are the fathers” (Rom_9:4-5) -But they were sons in their minority. “And I say that as long as the heir is [legally] an infant, he differs in nothing from a slave, though [by title] lord of all.”
The man of the Old Covenant was a child of God in posse, not in esse, in right but not in fact. The “infant” is his father’s trueborn son. In time he will be full owner. Meanwhile he is as subject as any slave on the estate. There is nothing he can command for his own. He is treated and provided for as a bondman might be; put “under stewards” who manage his property, “and guardians” in charge of his person, “until, the day fore appointed of the father.” This situation does not exclude, it implies fatherly affection and care on the one side, and heirship on the other. But it forbids the recognition of the heir, his investment with filial rights. It precludes the access to the father and acquaintance with him, which the boy will gain in after-years. He sees him at a distance and through others, under the aspect of authority rather than of love. In this position he does not yet possess the spirit of a son. Such was in truth the condition of Hebrew saints-heirs of God, but knowing it not…
…The sending of the Son brought the world’s servitude to an end. “Henceforth,” said Jesus, “I call you not servants”. (John 15:15) Till now “servants of God” had been the highest title men could wear. The heathen were enslaved to false gods (Gal. 4:8). And Israel, knowing the true God, knew Him at a distance, serving too often in the spirit of the elder son of the parable, who said, “Lo these many years do I slave for thee.” (Luke 15:29) None could with free soul lift his eyes to heaven and say, “Abba, Father.” Men had great thoughts about God, high speculations. They had learnt imperishable truths concerning His unity, His holiness, His majesty as Creator and Lawgiver. They named him the “Lord,” the “Almighty,” the “I Am.” But His Fatherhood, as Christ revealed it, they had scarcely guessed. They thought of Him as humble bondmen of a revered and august master, as sheep might of a good shepherd. The idea of a personal Sonship toward the Holy One of Israel was inconceivable, till Christ brought it with Him into the world, till God sent forth His Son…
…To us He is “the Spirit of adoption,” replacing the former “spirit of bondage unto fear.” For by His indwelling we are “joined to the Lord” and made “one spirit” with Him, so that Christ lives in us. (Gal. 2:20) And since Christ is above all things the Son, His Spirit is a spirit of sonship; those who receive Him are sons of God. Our sonship is through the Holy Spirit derived from His. Till Christ’s redemption was effected, such adoption was in the nature of things impossible. This filial cry of Gentile hearts attested the entrance of a Divine life into the world. The Spirit of God’s Son had become the new spirit of mankind.
Abba, the Syrian vocative for father, was a word familiar to the lips of Jesus. The instance of its use recorded in Mark 14:36, was but one of many such. No one had hitherto approached God as He did. His utterance of this word, expressing the attitude of His life of prayer and breathing the whole spirit of His religion, profoundly affected His disciples. So that the Abba of Jesus became a watchword of His Church, being the proper name of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Gentile believers pronounced it, conscious that in doing so they were joined in spirit to the Lord who said, “My Father, and your Father!” Greek-speaking Christians supplemented it by their own equivalent, as we by the English Father. This precious vocable is carried down the ages and round the whole world in the mother-tongue of Jesus, a memorial of the hour when through Him men learned to call God Father…
…”So that thou art no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God.”
An heir through God- this is the true reading. and is greatly to the point. It carries to a climax the emphatic repetition of “God” observed in Gal. 4:4; Gal. 4:6. “God sent His Son” into the world; “God sent” in turn “His Son’s Spirit into your hearts.” God then, and no other, has bestowed your inheritance. It is yours by His fiat. Who dares challenge it? (Comp. Rom. 8:31-35; Acts 11:17) Words how suitable to reassure Gentile Christians, browbeaten by arrogant Judaism! Our reply is the same to those who at this day deny our Christian and churchly standing, because we reject their sacerdotal claims.
What this inheritance includes in its final attainment, “doth not yet appear.” Enough to know that “now are we children of God.” The redemption of the body, the deliverance of nature from its sentence of dissolution, the abolishment of death-these are amongst its certainties. Its supreme joy lies in the promise of being with Christ, to witness and share His glory. “Heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ”-a destiny like this overwhelms thought and makes hope a rapture. God’s sons may be content to wait and see how their heritage will turn out. Only let us be sure that we are His sons. Doctrinal orthodoxy, ritual observance, moral propriety do not impart, and do not supersede, “the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” The religion of Jesus the Son of God is the religion of the filial consciousness.” (Expositor’s Bible)
This commentary also makes connections with what Jesus did in making his father’s name known to his disciples. Opening up to their minds that God wanted them in a close relationship with him as beloved children. (John 1:12; 17:20-23) No longer to fear God or merely to serve him but experience the kind of relationship with him as Jesus himself experienced.
The Living Bible renders Paul’s words to the Galatians this way:
“But remember this, that if a father dies and leaves great wealth for his little son, that child is not much better off than a slave until he grows up, even though he actually owns everything his father had. He has to do what his guardians and managers tell him to until he reaches whatever age his father set. And that is the way it was with us before Christ came. We were slaves to Jewish laws and rituals, for we thought they could save us. But when the right time came, the time God decided on, he sent his Son, born of a woman, born as a Jew, to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law so that he could adopt us as his very own sons. And because we are his sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, so now we can rightly speak of God as our dear Father. Now we are no longer slaves but God’s own sons. And since we are his sons, everything he has belongs to us, for that is the way God planned.” Gal 4:1-7 TLB
Returning to the original question, what about Abraham? Did being called God’s friend mean God viewed him as being outside of the family and not as his son?
Paul, in writing to the Hebrews did say that Abraham was given an inheritance.
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place he would later receive as an inheritance, and he went out without understanding where he was going. By faith he lived as a foreigner in the promised land as though it were a foreign country, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, who were fellow heirs of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with firm foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (Heb 11:8-10 NET)
Here Abraham, along with Isaac and Jacob are all referred to as heirs of the promise. Slaves do not inherit, but sons do. It would seem, according to Paul’s argument in Galatians that they were viewed by God as sons, though minor children. Although the time for them to receive the inheritance was yet future, they would indeed as his sons without fail inherit it.
But what are we to make of Paul’s words in verses 4 and 5?
But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights. (Gal 4:4-5 NET)
Just when are Christians adopted as sons? Is it not at the time they accept Christ and are baptized? Yes. Note what Paul writes to the Romans:
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children. And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ) – if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him. (Rom 8:14-17 NET)
This, however, is only the first step in the process. The completion comes at their resurrection.
Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:23 NET)
Regarding this The New International Commentary on the New Testament states:
Paul’s description of the climax of salvation for which we are eagerly furthers this sense of eschatological tension. For the “adoption” that, in Rom. 8:14-17, we were said already to possess is here made the object of our hope. As we noted at Rom. 8:15, some seek to relieve the tension thus created by making only the “Spirit of adoption,” not the adoption itself, a present possession of the Christian, but Paul clearly goes further than that in Rom. 8:14-17. Christians, at the moment of justification, are adopted into God’s family; but this adoption is incomplete and partial until we are finally made like the Son of God himself (Rom. 8:29).
“Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” (1John 3:2 )
This final element in our adoption is “the redemption of our bodies.” “Redemption” shares with “adoption” and many other terms in Paul the “already-not yet” tension that pervades his theology, for the redemption can be pictured both as past:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our offenses, according to the riches of his grace (Eph 1:7 NET)
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col 1:14 NET)
But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Rom 3:24 NET)
He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, (1Co 1:30 NET)
and as future:
And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation) – when you believed in Christ – you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:13-14 NET)
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (Eph 4:30 NET)
As Paul has hinted in Rom_8:10, it is not until the body has been transformed that redemption can be said to be complete; in this life, our bodies share in that “frustration” which characterizes this world as a whole (cf. Rom_8:20). (NICNT)