Interesting link. Thanks.
Buggs & XS, what do you think of the link at #67?
Interesting. I’m at work, so I’ll have to work up a reply over lunch.
There are two equally and opposite errors one can make in approaching the issue of Abraham's religion: To equate to modern Judaism, down to the current traditions, as many of the rabbis do, and to claim that it had no continuity with Judaism as we know it today, as many Christians do.
First, it has to be noted that there is no Hebrew word--indeed, no ancient word that I am aware of--for "religion" in the modern sense. The closest we come in Hebrew is the phrase, "the fear of HaShem." To the ancients, religion was more a matter of which god or gods one worshiped than the specifics of that worship. So in that sense, Abraham was certainly practicing Judaism, which is the worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The error the Christian makes is in taking too broadly the statement that Abraham was given the promise 430 years before the Law (Gal. 3:17). Paul was of course speaking strictly of the Written Torah (possibly also of the precepts of the Oral Torah). However, to suggest that there was no connection at all between the Torah given on Mt. Sinai and the torot (teachings) given to Abraham--even to suggest that the two constitute different religions!--is dispensationalism at its worst and most absurd. If the Holy One is truly the same yesterday, today, and forever, why wouldn't that eternal immutability be reflected in His commands?
Furthermore, suggesting that Abraham knew the moral commandments but not the ceremonial flies in the face of Scripture. The sabbath dates from creation (though we cannot be certain that it was celebrated before Sinai, should it seem strange to us if Abraham chose to imitate his God by likewise resting on the seventh day?), offering sacrifices goes back to at least the time of Abel, Noah knew the distinction between clean and unclean, and Abraham was given the covenant of circumcision.
And yes, salvation has always been by the Holy One's grace received by trusting Him--and that has always been Judaism's belief as well. If you don't believe me, go read the Amidah or the Avinu Malkaynu; I'm working on a series on the Standing Prayer (the Amidah) here.
On the other hand, some of my more zealous Jewish brethren overstate the matter when they claim that Abraham knew the whole Written and Oral Torahs as they were given by God through Moses. The latter is particularly ridiculous, since we can document the evolution of the Oral Torah over the last two thousand years: Just compare the Mishnah to the Gamara to the Shulkhan Aruch, for example. While certain features have remained fixed, others have not.
In fact, the rabbis of Judah HaNasi's time were reluctant to commit the Oral Torah in writing (and agreed only due to the great need) precisely because having it in an unfixed form allows for more flexibility in dealing with unanticipated situations.
Furthermore, how could Abraham have learned the Oral Torah concerning, for example, Passover, when that Feast was not given for another four centuries? Would Abraham have avoided eating the sinew of the thigh nearly a century before Jacob dislocated his wrestling with the Angel of HaShem? Is there anything to suggest that he wore tzitzit, which were given in response to one man's disobedience in keeping the Sabbath (Num. 15)? There is certainly no reason to suppose that he was given all of the specifics of the Tabernacle service, or harvest feasts and commandments that would have meant nothing to a nomadic shepherd, or administrative commands given to govern a nation of millions instead of a single extended family and their servants.
However, as I said, the Eternal One, who does not change, would hardly have given our Patriarch a Torah completely alien to the one which He later gave Moses, or a different religion. And we see in Genesis that Abraham grew into a man given to much thought and great reverence and hospitality. Therefore, I think the article is partially right when it says that Abraham was able to derive, at the least, the underlying principles of God's Torah (Teachings) from both natural law and the revelations that the Holy One gave him.
All sides need to avoid investing the Torah with anachronisms, like the argument that Hebrew refers to a language rather than a people. That is largely true now, but it was not when the Torah was written "in the language of the Hebrews." Abraham was a Hebrew, because he was a descendant from Eber, and because he "crossed over" the Euphrates at God's command. His descendants were known as Hebrews in Egypt because it happened to sound like the Egyptian word apiru, "foreigner."
Likewise, Abraham was not a descendant of Judah nor an inhabitant of Judea, so in one sense one could argue that he was not a Jew. But the fact is that ever since the time of Esther, when Mordecai, a Benjaminite living in the Persian Empire, was called a Jew, the word has had a broader meaning that is synonymous with the term Israelite. Since Abraham was the father if Israel, founding Israel's religion in the worship of the one, true God, calling him "the first Jew" is altogether appropriate.