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?

Saved By the Well

So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar, putting them on her shoulder, and gave her the boy, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba.  When the water in the skin was used up, she left the boy under one of the bushes.  Then she went and sat down opposite him, about a bowshot away, for she said, "Do not let me see the boy die." And she sat opposite him, and lifted up her voice and wept.  God heard the lad crying; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter with you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.  Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him by the hand, for I will make a great nation of him."  Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the skin with water and gave the lad a drink.  God was with the lad, and he grew; and he lived in the wilderness and became an archer. 21 He lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt. (Genesis 21:14-21 NASB)

This is one of the saddest most pathetic stories in Scripture.  Hagar leaves the household of Abraham, again.  Only now she hasn't done anything wrong.  God told her to go back and submit, and she did.  Now here she is again, but innocent.  This time her son is with her (he who shall be nameless).  Abraham gives them bread and water and sends them off on a donkey.  Even before the water runs out, the donkey disappears (oh sure they'll take the donkey back!).  But the water does run out.

When the water is gone, Hagar throws the boy under a bush, and goes a distance away because she doesn't want to see her son (the boy) die.  It's gut wrenching, dramatic, you almost weep with her it's so sad.  She cries out in mourning.  Oddly, it seems "the boy" is crying as well, only he's crying out to God; and it works (go figure).  God calls long distance from heaven and in His customary gentle, soothing tone, says, "What's the matter with you!"  I love that.  And before you begin to get all huffy with God, go back and read chapter 16, especially verses 7 through 12. 

God called Hagar on her faith.  She should have had confidence in God, that He would fulfill His promises to her and "the boy".  She had been promised that her son would be the father of a great nation, much like Isaac, only her son would be a "wild donkey man" (okay, so it wasn't all good news).  God had promised Hagar, then Abraham, then Abraham again, and now Hagar again.  But it's not the promise of God for the future that saves them.  It's not such words that she's encouraged to go on and make it some how.  The human spirit was not going to persevere beyond the need for water, not this time.  God provided their need for water, not just promises of a future.

The reality of their need didn't change because God promised a future.  In order to fulfill His promise of a future, God also provided for the present need.  This is where I need to camp out for a while.  There are a lot of promises of God in Scripture, many that can be claimed by modern believers (and many that can't).  I can go on and on about the uncomfortable promises of punishment that apply as well, but that's not where I see the point here.  One prominent promise of God is that followers of the King of Kings will one day stand in His presence before His throne and worship.  That's a promise which requires some present support.

For me to believe and accept that I will one day stand in His presence and worship Him, I have to believe in a lot of other stuff as well.  I also have some needs in the present that have to be met some how.  I have to believe in Jesus, that He existed, exists, and has provided for the restoration and preservation of my relationship with my Maker and Master.  That's not an option, I have to believe that.  I also have to believe that my Master loves me (which is why Jesus accomplished all that stuff).  That's warm and fuzzy, and I like that part.  But I also have to believe that my Master has my back, that He is my protection.  But this is a deceptive belief that requires understanding and acceptance of another belief (it's sort of like a line of dominoes).

I have come to accept that my Master is concerned about my life here and the details of it only to the extent that He can use my life and those details for His kingdom.  When He promises to preserve my life eternally, He understands life to mean my relationship with Him, and in no other way.  That is what I am promised will never end, not my physical existence here.  Here I may find difficulties, pain, sadness, and injustice.  He never promised me that I wouldn't.

But because of this promise of an eternal relationship with Him, I have some present needs He also attends to.  He takes care of a "bully" that threatens to take me out.  Seriously, the adversary and enemy of all humanity can only taunt me through a fence.  Sure it's a chain-link fence and it seems awfully close, but it's also tall, topped with serious razor wire, and guarded by the armies of Heaven.  My part is not to listen to the taunts (which I have difficulty with).  But I live, breathe, and walk through my life behind this impenetrable fence.  My relationship with my Master is a life where I walk about in His presence and only the taunts of my enemy can reach my ears, and only then when I listen for them.

Sure, this world in which I experience my life with my Master is hard, but that life with Him is protected by Him.  I can engage in all things in this world with the confidence that the fence is secure.  He could splash me with gas, toss a match, and still, my life would be safe with my Master (I may be much darker, but my life with my Master would be in tact).  When my Master has my back, the important, eternal things are secure.  The events of this world are merely taunts of a imprisoned defeated enemy.  I just have to turn that male skill of "selective listening" to my advantage and focus on my Master.  Which also means I probably should give up control of the various TV remotes.  Dang, I hate that.

Rejection and Ejection as a Pathway to Righteousness

Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking.  Therefore she said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac."  The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son.  But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.  "And of the son of the maid I will make a nation also, because he is your descendant."  So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar, putting them on her shoulder, and gave her the boy, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba. (Genesis 21:9-14 NASB)

This is an account where what's really going on is implied rather than explicit.  First off, for whatever reason, Ishmael is never named but referred to obliquely throughout the chapter.  Second, he wasn't mocking, he was laughing with the boy named for such behavior.  I see clues that there are two other reasons for sending Hagar and Ishmael away.

The first is from what Sarah says to Abraham, "...the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac."  It's not that they "play" together, it's that Ishmael threatens Isaac's inheritance, or blessing, from Abraham.  It is more jealousy than physical or emotional protection of Isaac.  But why be jealous?  Hasn't God made it clear that Isaac will be the one through whom the promise and covenant will pass?  Time for the second clue.

The second clue I find in what God says to Abraham.  Abraham doesn't want to send Ishmael away.  He wasn't distressed for Hagar, the word was evil in his eyes because of Ishmael.  It sounds like a natural attachment of a father to a son, but God says something interesting, "...through Isaac your descendants will be named."  That hadn't been brought up, but wouldn't it be strongly inferred from the promise?  God will make Abraham a great nation, and the promise is to pass through the promised son.  Yet, God has to tell Abraham again, more specifically.  It's as if Abraham still holds on to the possibility that Ishmael can carry the blessing of God; or at least his family blessing.

I see two possibilities that could be true at the same time.  I think Sarah is jealous and I think Abraham has given her reason to be.  He seems to still hold on to a primary position for Ishmael in his heart.  It shows up when he is asked by Sarah to send Hagar and Ishmael away.  God finally points it out.  But God appreciates that this view isn't evil in a character sense, but it is evil in a "faith" sense.  It is contrary to the direction laid out by God.  Abraham still hopes for Ishmael.  And God honors the character of Abraham.  He again promises to make Ishmael into a great nation. 

The point I take from this is that my Master knows me better than I know myself.  He sees the places where I'm in denial.  He sees the places I'm completely blind to my weaknesses.  But He also is diligent to correct those faith flaws that aren't necessarily character flaws.  In other words He corrects character that distracts from faith.  It may not have been Abraham's problem, but when my Master reveals character that is contrary to His call, I also discover that the character quality is often about me rather than my Master. 

An example of this is discernment.  Through the study of Scriptures, I can often discern when people and situations deviate from my Master's design.  This isn't all that unique, in fact it's really common.  But when I decide to step in where I'm not invited either by my Master or the person(s) involved, that discernment becomes about me rather than about my relationship with my Master.  Sometimes my Master does invite me, and then it's a faith issue to become involved.  But if I'm not prompted by His Spirit, and the person hasn't asked, then I need to draw from my discernment and pray specifically for the person(s) in that situation.  That's just one example, but it demonstrates the difference between the unrighteous good and the righteous good.  One is about me, that is self-righteousness.  The other is about my Master, and that's true righteousness.

The Timely Arrival of Isaac

Then the LORD took note of Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as He had promised.  So Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the appointed time of which God had spoken to him.  Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac.  Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.  Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. (Genesis 21:1-5 NASB)

In the land of Gerar, on the edge of the Negev wilderness, "at the appointed time of which God had spoken..." Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age.  God honored his promise to Abraham to give him a son through Sarah.  The time was right, and it seems the time was important.

Abraham is 100, so Sarah is about 91.  They have just come through a confrontation with the king of the region where they live, and Abraham didn't come out looking very "righteous" or "faithful".  Sarah almost could be said to be with child by Abimelech rather than Abraham, but God stepped in and made that impossible, and obviously so.

Essentially, in Chapters 19 and 20, the timing God gave to Abraham included this particular regional problem.  God knew that Abraham would need to head south and embarrass himself just prior to Isaac being born.  It's all in the timing.  Had Isaac been born earlier, there would have been no need for the deception of Chapter 20.  Obviously a woman with child is more than a "sister".

I wonder about my Master's timing in my life.  He hasn't promised me innumerable seed, but He has led me to the town I live in, He did so one year ago today, and He has blessed me in this place.  It was a process to understand that this was the place and when exactly was the time.  The "process" I used was to simply not do anything until God said to.  It was somewhat awkward at times, but it was also clear.

I learned a lot about my walk with my Master.  I learned that my ways were inadequate and pointless.  I learned that details I worried about were really His problems, not mine.  I learned to trust and that peace is found in trust.  It was truly strange, wonderfully exciting, yet blessedly peaceful.  I learned that even 4,000 years later, my Master still does His work in His "appointed time."

Genesis 20: Leadership Demonstrated

Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a nation, even though blameless?  Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."  Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her." (Genesis 20:4-6 NASB)

One of the strange ironies of Scripture is how it provides examples of concepts.  For instance, in this chapter, Abraham says he feared that there was no fear of God in this country, Gerar.  What turns out to be the case is that Abimelech is not only a God-fearer, but an extraordinary leader.  Notice his response to God is on behalf of his nation, not himself.  "Lord, will You slay a nation, even though blameless?"  His appeal is for them and he qualifies them as blameless, or even righteous.

Secondly, he claims "integrity of heart" for himself, and God agrees.  This king, assumed to be pagan, is not only a God-fearer but one with God-confirmed integrity.  Two things found unexpectedly in this small city-state on the edge of the wastes of the Negev.

Already, in the life of Abraham, a priest-king, Melchizedek is found unexpectedly in the city of Salem.  Now a righteous king and people is found in Gerar.  The example of this leader is as tremendous as it is unexpected.

One more example of his leadership is found in verse 8, where he calls the household together to share the dream he just had.  Again, odd, but not as unexpected as their being there in the first place.

But notice something that Gerar shares with Salem in the Hebrew Scriptures.  While in the time of Abraham, these may be examples of righteousness among pagans, by the time of the Exodus and ensuing invasion these examples are no longer righteous.

What I mean to gain from that is the importance the leader has on the righteousness of the people.  While a righteous leader does not guarantee the righteousness of the people, the influence is unmistakable.  This truth is seen throughout the history of Israel and Judah.

So, in my life, my family, and my church, the importance of righteous leadership is just as unmistakable.  While there is again, no guarantee, the influence is unmistakable.  And the need is unmistakable; in my life, my family, and in my church.  I have roles in each, and I have a clear call to lead with integrity of heart.

Genesis 20: Righteousness Found in Canaan?

Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a nation, even though blameless? (Genesis 20:4 NASB)

Two words used in this verse are interesting.  First, is the king's reference to God, Lord.  Unbeknownst to many people, but knownst to some, there are actually two Hebrew words used in the Hebrew Scriptures for a "lord" or "master".  One is "Adonai" which is commonly used to refer to human masters and God.  The other is "Baal" which is not as common, an older idiom, used in the Hebrew Scriptures for a "lord" or "master" and almost exclusively used to refer to the Canaanite god of thunder.  The word this Canaanite king uses when he replies back to God is "Adonai", not "Baal".  Interesting that he knew to do that.

The second word is what is translated here as "blameless".  The word is typically translated as "righteous", but has the connotation of being "just", "justified", or "vindicated" in court settings.  So this Canaanite king replies back to the Master of universe correctly, and refers to his kingdom as "righteous", or "right before God."  A pretty amazing thing to find in this passage.  And yet, in verse 6 God replies in agreement with this king in his assessment of himself (and by inference, his nation). 

Now before I leave this tidbit of detail, I want to also note that in verse 3, God Himself uses the Canaanite word for "lord", "baal" to refer to the relationship of Sarah and Abraham; "she has been married to a baal".  So there was plenty of room for this word to be used in the king's reply, yet he didn't.  So, this isn't necessarily a "writer's ploy" or just an idiom from the writer's day/perspective.  There's good reason to believe that this king and his kingdom were actually followers of Abraham's Master.

This is very similar to my entry a few weeks ago when I was impressed by these "pockets" of righteous people in Canaan during Abraham's sojourn there.  Perhaps this is what God was referring to when He said that the sin of the Amorite is not yet complete.  Perhaps there were at the time, more righteous in Canaan than were found in Sodom and Gomorrah.  It would seem that changed over time.  But there I dealt with religious prejudices I hold and am not necessarily aware of, here I want to look at God's "remnant" often found in strange places.

Abraham assumed that there was no fear of God in that place, and was wrong.  Another prophet later discovered that he was not as alone as he thought he was in the increasingly pagan Northern Kingdom of Israel.  What I derive from this is that I can find people on whom my Master is already working, and I can find them anywhere.  I found a worship leader in a guy who delivered coffee to me at a camp ground this past weekend.  It turned out we had other common interests as well.  Unlooked for, but welcome, brotherhood found in a very tiny mountain town.

But what about in my own neighborhood?  It is possible that I will find pockets of people already in a relationship with my Master.  It may look different than mine (again the prejudice could kick in), but it might still be there.  I found a guy and his wife at the camp ground in the site across from ours who is a Christ-follower, but practices and believes very differently from me.  We both rely on the grace of our Master, Jesus for salvation, but we differ over how we see church and how we view the Scriptures (the Hebrew Scriptures to be specific).  It's possible that he might not be saved, but the odds are good that he is.

So the challenge for me is find that remnant, and join my Master in the work He is already doing.  This is a "Henry Blackaby" "Experiencing God" -ism, actually the basic premise of that study.  This is specifically looking for a "remnant" of followers of my Master, but where they are, He is working.  Joining them instead of trying to re-invent ministry for or in place of them is a much more "kingdom-minded" approach.  So, in my neighborhood/community, where are other followers of my Master being used by our Master, and what can I do to further that work?  Perhaps later I'll look at filling a gap left by the work of others.  Right now, I believe that this is where the work is, among His busy servants and knights.  Tally-Ho!

Genesis 20: Why Here, Why Now?

Now Abraham journeyed from there toward the land of the Negev, and settled between Kadesh and Shur; then he sojourned in Gerar.  Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. (Genesis 20:1-2 NASB)

Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.  Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; 13 and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said to her, 'This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother."'" (Genesis 20:11-13 NASB)

This chapter in Genesis seems odd for a lot of reasons, only one of which is that Sarah is now 90.  It may be difficult to imagine a 90-year-old winning a beauty contest in our day, but perhaps, longer lifespans of that age would make it plausible.  She lives long enough after this to raise a son, so perhaps at this point she can win one.  But that's just one oddity.

Another odd piece is the placement.  Either this happens a lot or Sarah really can't win a beauty pageant.  Abraham and Sarah have used this ploy ever since they have been in Canaan.  It makes it seem as if everywhere they go, this is how they introduce themselves, as brother and sister.  This is one of the reasons it's difficult for me to believe that this is a response to fear or lack of faith.  If it is, it one that God seems to permit.

The position of this account is sandwiched between Sarah being revealed as the mother of Isaac and the birth of Isaac.  So, I have wondered whether or not this account really ocurred at some other time in the lives of Abraham and Sarah.  It's placement here creates some tension in the story of Abraham because there is suddenly the danger that Isaac would not be Abraham's son, or at least that it wouldn't look that way.  That Abraham would continue this ploy after the assurance that Sarah would bear Isaac also seems strange.

So, as I examine this passage, I am left with two possibilities that fit the character of both Abraham and God.  Either the passage is in the wrong place but placed here for narrative tension, or Abraham really isn't "scared" at all, rather he is shrewd.  In this account, as in Genesis 12, he is handsomely rewarded.  He comes out on the other end of it with more than he started with.  And God backs him up in this.  It seems oddly out of character for both Abraham and God, regardless of placement.

The character of both God and Abraham are where I find my application.  Abraham is not a "perfect" prophet, or at least not perfect in his assurance that God will protect him without his deception.  God is perfectly willing to protect his weak chosen one.  He has a specific plan and will even support the deception of his prophet to make it happen.  And God is perfectly willing to raise up a chosen people from one with such character.  I see in this relationship room for me to have this sort of walk with my Master.

In Abraham, I see someone who I can measure up to.  I see that God is willing to work with my strange lapses into weakness.  I see that I can't really mess up God's plan, at least not in specifics.  I see that God will choose to work with me regardless of gaps in my character.

So if the key is not "perfectly complete" faith, what is it?  What is the key to such a relationship with the Master of the universe, Creator of all matter?  From this passage the key seems to be the Master.  Even with the king, Abimelech, the key is the Master.  It's not me, my character, or my ability to meet a standard that continues the relationship with my Master, it is my Master who continues the relationship with me. 

The grace of my Master, once having initiated my relationship with Him, now is the mechanism sustaining that relationship.  The love of the One forming stars fashions a link with me that I cannot really control or break.  Perhaps it's the irresistable grace of Calvinists, but I think of it more in terms of an irresistable desire of an irresistable God.  It's not that I want Him or that I have "gotten His attention."  It is that He has regarded me for His own reasons. 

I believe that I responded and that this response of mine is crucial; like the obedience of Abraham in leaving Haran.  But that He has regard for me is not because of something I have done.  Whatever potential He sees in me, He put there in the first place.  It was never a potential "created" or "imagined" by me.  Again, and again, my prayers have to begin with, "You love me, You have my back, and I am at Your service."  For me in my walk with my Master, that is what it is about.