So Much Detail, So Little Land

"My lord, listen to me; a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between me and you? So bury your dead."  Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver which he had named in the hearing of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, commercial standard.  So Ephron's field, which was in Machpelah, which faced Mamre, the field and cave which was in it, and all the trees which were in the field, that were within all the confines of its border, were deeded over to Abraham for a possession in the presence of the sons of Heth, before all who went in at the gate of his city. (Genesis 23:15-18 NASB)

Abraham has servants and animals, all of which he bought, but we are never given the details of the transaction.  When Abraham intercedes for Sodom there is about as much detail as here.  Yet in other places where interaction with the people of the land had to happen, we're not.  Mamre and his two brothers had to be notified that Abraham was taking 318 from his household to track down the Four Kings of the East, we're not told how or what was said.  So why such detail now?

This chapter represents one of those passages that puts most faithful followers of Jesus asleep.  It's repetitive, monotonous, but mostly, it's viewed as pointless.  The question, "so what" just seems unanswered.  The part that bothers me is that my Master made sure this piece made it into the story, and that it remained, preserved for thousands of years.  The question for me is not "so what", but "why this piece?"  I'm not concerned with the point of the author or editor, but the point of my Master.

I do have an opinion, untested (I'm not sure how I would test it really) so just an opinion.  I think this passage may represent, in a tangible form, the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise of God to Abraham.  This represents the first of the land to be possessed by Abraham (and therefore, his descendants).  It's not much, just a field with a cave, and the surrounding trees (shade for the tents?).  Yet it represents for God's chosen people a deposit on what is to come. 

So, what point does my opinion have for me now, some four thousand years later?  It can still be asked, "so what", so...what?  Well, the lesson I take away from this passage's inclusion in the story is that God will sometime accommodate our desire to see what He has promised for later.  I don't think this encouragement is necessarily for Abraham except perhaps upon reflection later.  I think that this encouragement if for those who read this later.  As Israel's history plays out for the next few millennia, this passage will stand as an example of their true Lord and Master making good on the promise of land, their land, to His chosen ones.

For me, I see that my Master will sometimes accommodate my desire to see something of what He has in mind or has promised.  Right now, in this place, there are elements of His people assembled by Him for something.  I don't know what that "something" is at this point, but He has something in His mind.  I would love to have a glimpse of what that will be.  I would love to catch a vision for what He has in the works.  But at this point, He has seen fit to give that glimpse to others.  That's fine, because through them, I gain some sort of glimpse as over the shoulders of someone else or through their account of it.  I perceive a need for something for the young people of this place.  Perhaps that is what He's up to.  The glimpse hasn't become that clear to me yet.  Maybe I need the lens of a few more of His people. 

Filtering Ancient Perspectives

Now Ephron was sitting among the sons of Heth; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the sons of Heth; even of all who went in at the gate of his city, saying, "No, my lord, hear me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it. In the presence of the sons of my people I give it to you; bury your dead." (Genesis 23:10-11 NASB)

Who are these "sons of Heth" mentioned here?  One, Ephron, is a Hittite, but who are the rest?  There is a good case that can be made that, from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures, these are the "Hittites" to which they refer from time to time.  The case ties this passage to several others, and grounds the Hittites of the Hebrew Scriptures to Heth, the son of Canaan, the son of Ham, the son of Noah.  Regionally speaking it's not easy to discern which of Noah's sons settled where, there's a lot of overlap.  But Canaan is typically easy to figure (not so much his sons though).

The problem with this is that there is a commonly referred to people group from the region of Asia Minor known as the Hittites.  This people is most likely very largely responsible for inaugurating the iron age of humanity.  They were an early empire of city-states that conquered into Mesopotamia and Egypt for a time.  They were a feared people, yet their form of diplomatic treaties were used long after their passing from the political stage.

It seems that the Hittite people the Hebrew Scriptures refer to are Canaanites settled in and around Hebron.  Abraham's friend, Mamre and his three brothers, are among these.  This would also most likely include the member of King David's elite body guard, Uriah; the man David kills to get his wife and avoid a scandal.  There are other examples.  They figure as part of the scenery of much of the story of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I'm not sure of the etymological development of the name of the two groups, and it could possibly be an accident of language that connects them.  The Hittites of Asia Minor get their name from their capitol city, Hattusa, whereas the Hittites of the Hebrew Scriptures get their name from the son of Canaan, Heth.  In terms of ancient Semitic written language, there are a lot of similarities between these two possible sources.

There are other opinion(s) on who the Hittites of the Hebrew Scriptures actually were and how/if they are connected to the Asia Minor empire.  These views typically work from the possibility that the Hebrew record seeks to explain or account for the Hittites of Asia Minor through the explanation of the sons of Heth.  The problem of locating them in Hebron isn't that daunting considering the extent of struggles the Hittite Empire had with Egypt.  One problem comes with timing, juxtaposing the Hittites campaigns against Egypt with Abraham's sojourn in Hebron.  Another problem comes with the other people groups associated with Hebron, the "sons of Anak" and others.  So, both views are problematic.  It seems that until the Assyrians resettled Syria, pockets of Hittite political city-states existed defiantly against changing political climates.  So, it's possible this could be one of the more southerly colonies.

Why bring this up, and as with much of world history, "who cares?"  What people usually mean by that is, "Why should I care?" so I will address that question by explaining why I care.  In essence, I care because I want to understand Abraham better; I want to understand Moses; I want to understand David; I want to know what it was like in their world, and how they dealt with it.  I want to know because that is where my Master dealt with them, and they dealt with my Master.  It was in the set of environments of an ancient world that my Master spoke with them, and understanding that environment better helps me understand how my Master deals with me, how He speaks with me, and how I must deal with Him.

I can't always translate the faith of Abraham across four thousand years, but I'm not going to be able to bring across even a tenth if I don't try to better understand the world in which he lived with his Master.  I have to have faith in a digitally driven world.  His was entirely analog, things took months and years which now take seconds or less.  Then people heard God's voice, and now we give people drugs for schizophrenia when that happens.  God "rained fire and brimstone from the heavens" and we don't see that much now.  Things are different, so how to I understand the context of his faith and bring that understanding forward to apply to this digital world?

To a huge extent, understanding Abraham's world is impossible.  Therefore understanding just the intricacies of that region in that historical period is really impossible.  When it comes down to it, I can only ever gain a clearer glimpse of such a place and time.  My hope is that just that more detailed glimpse will provide me a better understanding of how I live and walk in faith with my Master.  As I face the challenges of my environment, how do I show faith in my Master as Abraham did?  He drew a knife and raised it to kill his son Isaac.  I would be thrown in jail and/or a mental hospital for such behavior.  Then, it wasn't unheard of; now it's heard of as stories of insane parents who destroy their families in murder/suicide family activities.

Who the Hittites are influences how I understand the people who saw Abraham as a "Prince of God".  It influences how I understand his ability to influence such people for his Master.  I have people around me who need to be influenced for my Master.  What were Abraham's people like compared to mine?  What did he do, and what should I do?  Maybe it is as simple as just living with them as I live with my Master.  Maybe there's something I can say or do or see and understand that will help.

So I continue to "shovel" down into the Scriptures seeking to "unearth" some meaning and understanding of my Master and His work with me.  In the mean time, I probably should get out and talk to my neighbors more.  Who knows, maybe the answer will come in the midst of being faithful with what I know now, rather than what I discover later? Maybe it's both.

Abraham, Prince of God

Gen 23:3-7 3 Then Abraham rose from before his dead, and spoke to the sons of Heth, saying, 4 “I am a stranger and a sojourner among you; give me a burial site among you that I may bury my dead out of my sight.” 5 The sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him, 6 “Hear us, my lord, you are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our graves; none of us will refuse you his grave for burying your dead.” 7 So Abraham rose and bowed to the people of the land, the sons of Heth. http://olivetree.com/b/Gen.23.3.NASBStr

When Sarah dies, Abraham loses a wife of nearly a Century. That exceeds most hopes of modern couples, if not their imaginations. And understandably, he mourns. And then he buys a place to bury her. This is a problem because he is a nomad and holds no land of his own. That is part of what makes God's promise of all of Canaan so odd to Abraham; it takes great faith. In this chapter it begins to be fulfilled with a field and a cave.

Abraham goes to the people of Hebron, the Sons of Beth, another term for the Hittites. It's a long convoluted ritual dialogue, but one interesting element is the term the people use for Abraham: a Prince of God. It could be that these are pagans and this really refers to "gods", but this is Abraham. It seems he has made quite an impression. Most translations render this unique reference as "mighty prince", but I suspect the faith he had and the work of God around him made this reference as it is.

Abraham's "witness" was so good pagans thought of Abraham as a prince wof his God. How often can that be said of me? Not as often as it should be, that I know. I'm more concerned that others know I know my Master at all, rather than see me as a "prince" of His. I don't do so well at that. I'm supposed to be a knight and servant, and I doubt people even see that in me. How would I be perceived as a prince. But the truth is that I am a prince. I'm the adopted child of the King of the Universe, and therefore a prince. But can others tell by watching my actions and hearing my words? I'm not confident of that.

Methodical Obedience

So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. (Genesis 22:3 NASB)

My wife and I finished watching "Taken" where a father uses his special ops skills to rescue his daughter from an overseas human trafficking mob.  I can't do that, I don't have those skills.  The list of things I can do to fix such a situation forms a very short list.  I want that sort of ability, of control, but I don't have it. 

Seeing that movie was scary for two reasons beyond the obvious one.  First, it scared me because I know that can't be done anyway, not by one person anyway.  Second I was scared because I know what it means that I want that sort of control; it separates me from my Master, the One truly in control.  Such desire, when given room in my soul, is me grabbing the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It's me wanting to stand in the place of my Master in my life and world.  Want it all I want, it's not going to happen, so the only result is separation from my Master.

Abraham has been told to take his only son (the only one left because of God), and go burn him completely on an altar to God.  His response is to follow very methodical steps to accomplish this, steps that ensure his success rather than failure.  He rises early not to waste time.  He saddles the donkey to ensure he could pack all he would need.  He took help with the bags so he could do the climbing necessary (on Mount Moriah), and not have to worry about leaving the bags behind.  He split the wood for the fire that would soon be consuming his precious son.  What's not in this verse, but later on is that he had fire prepared even before they ascended Moriah.  He was methodical even on the trip.

In obedience to my Master, being methodical to ensure success is an excellent quality.  But when my Master tells me to do something repulsive, shocking, and that I know will shatter my personality, I might not be so methodical.  The thing is, I should be.  I don't have to understand.  I don't have to know what is going on that I can't see.  I don't need to see from the perspective of my Master.  All I have to have is faith that He sees, that He knows, and that He understands.  I don't need the "knowledge of good and evil", I need the faith to leave that knowledge in the hands of my Master; to obey Him without reservation, holding nothing back from Him, not even my family, not even my sanity.  I can barely imagine such faith.

Now I suppose that Abraham thought that the fulfillment of the promises God had made of all Abraham would receive through Isaac wasn't his problem, it was God's.  I suppose that he held that perspective and that this thought empowered him to be obedient in this horrific exercise.  But still, there had to be some level of willingness to also sacrifice the blessings he was to receive from God for his relationship with God.  There just had to be.  In the games of "what if..." that played through the mind of this parent, there had to be some level of resignation that he might not have those blessings after all.  But he would have the connection with God.

Do you wonder if at this point Abraham had to also weigh whether or not he wanted a relationship with such a god?  Keep in mind that in this cultural environment, worship that included child sacrifice wasn't unheard of.  Things done in worship that would be crazy to us were not that crazy back then.  But there were plenty of worship options that didn't include child sacrifice.  Abraham could have opted for one of those on the religious "cafeteria plans" in vogue at the time.  He didn't.  He took God as He is rather than as Abraham wished or wanted Him to be.  It may not be popular, but it is necessary for true faith in my Master.  But I have to say, I'm not enjoying this part of the journey.  Faith is shockingly hard sometimes.

Specifically Precious

He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." (Genesis 22:2 NASB)

One historical context of this is also a literary context.  God had already told Abraham to send Hagar and Abraham's first born away into the desert.  Because of God, at His command, Abraham had lost one precious son.  Isaac wasn't always Abraham's "only son", and there, as here, it was the fault of Abraham's Master.  This passage cannot be understood, and Abraham's faith cannot be really understood, without that context.

As the writer of Hebrews points out, Abraham figured God would raise Isaac from the dead or something since the promise given to Abraham was to come through Isaac.  But I also believe that Abraham had arrived at a place through faith that would accept the removal of the promise of land and seed.  As long as Abraham continued to hold conversations with God, he would do anything asked, and give anything requested. 

I was discussing the Calvinist theological position with a professor at school once (well, more than once, but in this one instance) and I asked if Calvinists could ever be sure that they were one of the "elect".  The answer is "no", but from their faith and behavior, the answer was "more than likely."  In other words they assume so.  But with that assumption had to come some sort of acceptance that even if they were designed to be "objects of wrath" and not the "elect" they would faithfully walk to that eventuality and glorify God with their life here on earth, and in whatever they were designated for after this life.  Essentially, any true-blue Calvinist has to accept that as part of their position.  Before you condemn that posistion, ask yourself if you have that same level of devotion to God?

In a way, Abraham shows that level of devotion, but in the things of the life he knew, not the one he didn't.  It was more real and visceral than some nebulous possibility or low probability.  This was the flesh of his son.  He was about to kill and burn up completely the child of his old age, irreplaceable, even by his Master (unless, like the writer of Hebrews said, he received Isaac back from the dead).  The gut response, the required level of devotion and faith is actually to a point most self-proclaimed Christians would be unwilling to go.  It suddenly deviates from the bounds of our definitions of God and therefore we cannot follow.

But it deviates from our definitions, and steers us directly into Who the Maker and Sustainer of the universe truly is.  The question for me is will I remain in the popular definitions of my fellow believers, or follow my Master "off reservation" (pun very deeply intended) into Who He truly is.  Will I agree to sacrifice everything at His command?  Will I follow Him to the exclusion of my wife, at the sacrifice of my only child?  Will I renounce my job, home, church, and anything else precious to me at the request of my Master?  Is He truly my Master?  Is He truly Lord of my life?  And, to the point, am I truly His servant in a relationship with the True God of the universe?

An Altar or a Tree?

So they made a covenant at Beersheba; and Abimelech and Phicol, the commander of his army, arose and returned to the land of the Philistines.  Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.  And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines for many days. (Genesis 21:32-34 NASB)

In a few locations (precisely 3) Abraham builds an altar on a spot where God speaks to him.  One is Shechem, one is at Bethel, and the third is in Hebron.  He has been to the Negev before, and from what I hear, there are plenty of rocks with which to build an altar, but he doesn't.  Here, Abraham plants a tree, a shade tree, and calls on the name of Yahweh, El Olam.  Why the tree and not a stone altar?

In this place, Abraham has found an unexpected pocket of righteousness in Abimelech and his people (except for the grumpy shepherds who stole his well).  Here God spoke on his behalf to the king and Sarah is protected and Abraham rewarded (for lying, but that's a previous entry).  In this place Isaac is born, circumcised, and weaned.  And, most recently, Abraham buys a well back.  So why the tree?

It's the desert.  One typical characteristic of deserts is the lack of trees.  When they are seen, it usually means the presence of a spring or oasis.  To desert folk of nearly any culture, they represent life.  But there are desert trees that do not necessarily mean water or a spring.  Tamarisk trees do well in deserts and can be found on three different continents and wide varieties of deserts, from high to valley deserts.  In the US, they can be found in West Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.  They are present in the Sahara of Africa, the Arabian Desert of the Arabian Peninsula, and in the southern wilderness of Palestine. 

Found at this website

When my oldest sister was married, she and her husband planted a "Silver Dollar Eucalyptus Tree" at the church.  It lasted many years (not as long as their marriage, they're still going!), and was a growing thriving reminder of their relationship.  I think the tree serves a similar purpose here.  It isn't that uncommon in the desert, it doesn't necessarily mark water or refer to "life", rather it marks a meaningful event in the life of Abraham.  That location became a place of meaning for him.  Rather than an altar of stone, he plants something that the Philistines would not have considered remarkable.  It wasn't a symbol for them, it was for him.  For them it marked his well?  Possibly.  But for him it marked a place where he met and received from his God.

Where is my "tree"?  Where would I plant them if I were to follow this practice?  Where has my Master fulfilled His promises to me, protected me, blessed me?  Where have I "redeemed a well"?  There are several places for me that fit this description, but the most recent is here in Northern Nevada.  I would have to be blind and foolish beyond description not to notice how clearly I have been led here, established here, and blessed here.  It's really amazing to review.  I am still experiencing blessing and the presence of my Master.  Ironically, I'm in the desert too.  I could plant a tree, and a Tamarisk might do really well here.  I wonder where I could find one.

Strange Negotiations

Gen 21:28-32 28 Then Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 Abimelech said to Abraham, “What do these seven ewe lambs mean, which you have set by themselves?” 30 He said, “You shall take these seven ewe lambs from my hand so that it may be a witness to me, that I dug this well.” 31 Therefore he called that place Beersheba, because there the two of them took an oath. 32 So they made a covenant at Beersheba; and Abimelech and Phicol, the commander of his army, arose and returned to the land of the Philistines. http://olivetree.com/b/Gen.21.28.NASB

After sending away his first-born and the mother, Abraham has another visitor. The king he deceived earlier, the who seemed to already know God, stops by, but with his battle chief (prince of armies).  He acknowledges that God is with Abraham, and wants a covenant of "honesty" with him.  Considering the previous chapter, and how God seems to back Abraham, even in deceit, I totally get that.

So, Abraham agrees, but then takes the opportunity of the King's visit to bring up something else, a dispute over a well.  Literally, it says Abraham "rebukes" or "corrects" the king standing there with his battle chief. Brave. Stupid, but brave. On the other hand Abraham has 300+ of his household who already took on the kings of the east, so he is probably safe.

The response of the king is denial of any knowledge or participation in the dispute. In fact, he pushes the issue back on Abraham saying that this is the first he's heard of it. Why didn't Abraham bring this to his attention earlier? I wonder if the battle chief knew more of the issue than the king, and if it was his.presence with the king that occasioned the discussion at this time.

Rather than argue the point, Abraham finishes his covenant proceedings with the king by giving him tribute. But he also sets apart 7 lambs by themselves. This is the tribute #2 for another "ad hoc" covenant. When Abimelech asks, Abraham tells him these are the surety that Abraham has dug the well. In essence, if the king takes them, he agrees that the well is Abraham's by right of having dug it.

In a sense Abraham purchases a well he dug himself. Or did he? I suppose since he doesn't move around that much, it makes a certain amount of sense that he would dig a well. He'd have a place to return to if he did leave, like the altars he makes. Either way, he is willing to buy the well in a covenant with the king.

Considering the integrity and character of the king in the last chapter, I tend to believe him about the well. It's the presence of his general that makes wonder if political winds are changing and power is beginning to shift to the army. That happened a lot in those days. So, while the king didn't know about the well, there's a good chance the general did. The covenant, in a sense, puts the power back onto to the king. So Abraham may have just bought security.

Any way it's looked at, Abraham negotiated a well out of the deal. If nothing else, his household and herds are secure. On the edge of a desrt wilderness, that's a big deal. That is where my point of application lies. Am I willing to take the one-down position, swallow my pride, and buy what's already mine? As I read Scripture I see my Master did this very thing to save me and very other human creature. I think it's safe to say that God does call me to live at peace with anyone, and I have to admit that my pride sometimes makes that difficult. Here I see one powerful man willing to negotiate a price to resolve a dispute over something he already has rights to. Am I willing to follow Abraham, and my Master, in this path of minimal resistance? Hmm. I wonder if crow is tasty when eaten with garlic?