Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, "Please place your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac." The servant said to him, "Suppose the woman is not willing to follow me to this land; should I take your son back to the land from where you came?" Then Abraham said to him, "Beware that you do not take my son back there! The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my birth, and who spoke to me and who swore to me, saying, 'To your descendants I will give this land,' He will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there. But if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be free from this my oath; only do not take my son back there." (Genesis 24:2-8 NASB)
Do not get a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites but from Abraham's family; and even more, do not take Isaac to Abraham's family. Why so specific? Abraham has met Melchizedek who he tithed to and who blessed him in one of the names Abraham used for his God. Isn't he and his city, Salem, righteous enough to produce a wife for Isaac? What about Abimelech, the king to whom Abraham lied about Sarah being his wife? He demonstrated both character and faith, why couldn't his city produce a righteous woman for Isaac? What is it about Mesopotamian women or ones from his clan that is so important?
On the surface, pagan beliefs and practices would seem to be the cause. Yet examples of places in Canaan where those were not practiced were also found. So it had to be something else as well. I believe Abraham is thinking about his "descendants".
What if his concern is that his descendants become 'Canaanite' rather than a distinct people who will dispossess the Canaanites? I think this might be more toward the issue with Abraham. Another clue to that being so prominent in his mind is the other charge, 'only do not take my son back there.'
Isaac needs to remain in Canaan, but not integrate with them. If he goes back to Abraham's family then the danger is he will not return; the promise would fail. If he marries among the Canaanites, he will loose his distinction and become yet another Canaanite tribe. But really, what's the big deal? As long as descendants of Abraham inherit the land, who cares who marries whom?
The only way I can meander through some sort of understanding of this is to follow Abraham as he follows God. God tells him his descendants will inherit the land, yet Abraham doesn't have any. God tells him that the promise will be for children of his. So he tries to fix it with a "non-barren" wife, Hagar, and it seems to work. God rejects this one. Hagar is an Egyptian, part of the line of Ham. God promises to bless Ishmael, but the promise of the land is not for him.
Part of the lesson Abraham learns from Isaac's birth is that this blessing he has been given will not be through any line but his family's. It is a thoroughgoing rejection of the line of Ham (Genesis 9:20-27) which includes a curse on Canaan. This is even though Canaanites demonstrate moments of lucid worship of God (i.e. Melchizedek, Abimelech, Shechem, and perhaps Mamre and Hebron). That amount of good "seasoning" were not enough to overcome the rejection. It's sobering to consider the total rejection of an entire 'branch' of humanity by their Maker.
So what do I learn from this 'possibility'? Well, I see my Master a bit differently. He can choose to reject entire branches of humanity, even though they demonstrate some degree of righteousness. I see this as indicative of His complete knowledge of all things regardless of time. Sure Melchizedek and Abimelech demonstrated righteous understanding of God, but their influence is gone in a few generations. The 'remnant' left over is actually recovered by my Master, but out of that line, and into the line of His chosen people. So, while the entire 'branch of humanity' is rejected, my Master reserves a remnant for Himself; it's not a total and complete rejection. There's hope for me in that.
But in the midst of this rejection on such a wide scale I see grace at work. While it may be shocking to think that the Maker of the universe would "have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and wrath on whom He will have wrath;" the real wonder is that He doesn't have wrath on everyone. We all deserve it, we have all failed Him, there are none righteous, no not one. Yet not all are destroyed. Why not? If I focus just on the ones under His wrath, then I miss a key element of His character. Even among those rejected, He still pulls out an remnant. Even in the midst of His wrath, He still saves some.
It is arrogance that sees this as unfair to those rejected. It is the height of rebellion against the Maker to call Him to task for the destruction of His wayward and apathetic creatures. And yet, it still bothers me. That some are destroyed makes me uncomfortable because I see that there is little distinction between myself and them. I stand before a Master Creator Sovereign King, and I see that it is only by His work I stand there. People fall to either side of me, and I should be among them. It's not about me, I diminish into the background of His mercy and grace; elements of His glory and holiness.
These two things help me understand my Master better. They help me see myself more truly as I am (powerless), not as I wish I were (powerful). I can't change this world, the people around me, or the circumstances I find myself within. I can only change how I respond to the One truly able to change this world (which He created), the people around me, and the circumstances I find myself within. I respond in worship. He is worthy of all my praise, my adoration, the focus of my entire life, and all within my grasp. He is worthy of it all. The problem is that I am so often unwilling to give it. That is where my lesson is; school is now in session (does it seems early this year?).
No comments:
Post a Comment