What Difference Have I Made?

The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?  For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him."  And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.  I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."  Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD.  Abraham came near and said, "Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?  Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?  Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"  So the LORD said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account."  And Abraham replied, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.  "Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?" And He said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there."  He spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose forty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it on account of the forty."  Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."  And he said, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the twenty."  Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the ten."  As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 18:17-33 NASB)

After discussing the coming child, as Abraham is sending his important guests on their way, they stop along the way '...down toward Sodom' (v.16).  Now the Maker of all matter in the universe asks (I still don't know who) if He should tell Abraham what's about to happen.  Obviously a rhetorical question, but it presents an opportunity to, once again, cover the covenant promise.  It seems that Yahweh has heard the outcry of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.  It is so bad that their sin cries out to Yahweh.  It's so sinful, sin doesn't approve any more.  Yet He never says He will destroy the place, Abraham has an idea of what He will find (okay, already knows, but there's a "game afoot" here), and connects the dots.

So, as the two "artillery spotters" leave, Abraham sidles up to Yahweh and begins to negotiate with the Ruler of the universe.  What if there are 50 righteous in the two cities?  Can the Righteous Judge treat the wicked and the righteous the same?  How about 45, 40, 30, 20, and finally, 10.  What is Abraham up to?  I'm not alone is supposing he is trying to save his nephew, Lot.  Lot moved to the valley, right next to Sodom with his entire "household".  Surely, out of such a large household, 50 of them would still be righteous.  But you would think at least 10.  Prior to the next chapter, Lot is never described as being married nor of having daughters old enough to be married.  Much has been added to Lot's household, so surely now, with a wife and daughters, there should be 10 righteous, at least.

In the preceding chapters, we're never told how much contact Abraham had with Lot after the battle of the four Kings of the East.  In fact, we're not told what sort of communication they had.  It might be assumed that there was some sort of contact, but we're never given any indication.  Clearly Abraham cared enough to go to war for his nephew.  Here he is willing to haggle with the Omniscient One, which is tough because He already knows everything you might say.  How do you provide Him "additional" information?  What Abraham is banking on, hoping for, and counting on is that Lot has maintained some sort of influence for righteousness in that place.  Whether he has or not is answered in the next chapter.

So, I'm left with the question for myself, "what sort of influence have I had?"  I don't live in one of Satan's cities (that's 8 hours south of here), but if my Master did want to destroy my town, would I have had enough of an influence for ten righteous to be found here?  This is really a rhetorical question since we already have more than that, and did before I got here.  My point has to do with my level of influence among the people I live near.  How much influence for righteousness have I had?

Now, I can say that I've only been here less than a year.  I can point out that I don't interact much because I work all day in my "inescapable" office, a slave to my IP phone.  I can complain that I'm still getting to know my neighbors.  I can say all that, but the question still remains, because none of these questions excuses me from the responsibility to be an influence for my Master.

In my accountability group, we have a great question, "Did you accomplish things of eternal significance each day?"  Wow!  I have to answer "no" most of the time.  I deal with customers all across the US, and in some foreign countries, and don't really know what sort of "eternal significance" the interactions might have.  But, what about with my family?  What about with my wife?  What about with my daughter?  My church family?  My neighbors?  I have plenty of opportunity to accomplish something of eternal significance, but do I take it?  If someone had to negotiate with the Master of the universe for this city, would I have had enough influence here that my Master would spare it?

Well, now that I've beaten myself up with such demands and challenges, I suppose I should get after it.  I'm burning daylight, and have things of eternal significance to pursue.  Maybe today I will accomplish one or more of them.  Do they carry over to the next day?  I suspect not.

She Who Laughs Second

Then they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "There, in the tent."  He said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him.  Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing.  Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"  And the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?'  "Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son."  Sarah denied it however, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. And He said, "No, but you did laugh." (Genesis 18:9-15 NASB)

So, in chapter 17, we have Abraham falling on his face laughing when El Shaddai tells him Sarah will bear a son.  Because of that the child will be named Isaac.  The child would be born in one year (..."at this season next year." Genesis 17:21b).

Here Sarah laughed "to herself" or literally "inside herself" when Yahweh said she would bear a son.  The timing is very similar to last chapter, "this time next year".  There are enough similarities between these two chapters that it would seem to be different examples of the same event.  That probably bothers some people, in fact it would probably bother a lot of comfortable Sunday school teachers.  But it shouldn't.

The issue winds up being one of inspiration and "inerrancy".  If these are the same event, but two very different perspectives, how can they both be "without error"?  Ironically, the people asking this question seem to be just fine with four different Gospels in the Christian Scriptures.  So why have a problem here?

As I've said before, my view of Scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian is "flexible" enough to incorporate such duplication without a problem.  In fact, in my estimation, that there are two indicates a stronger case for their importance and inspiration.  The Master I serve is not threatened by two different accounts of the same event of Him speaking personally with one of His human creatures.  Something so disruptive to any person's psyche could easily make various impressions at various times.  If He's not threatened, why should I be?

The point of application for me is that this is an example of my Master accommodating His human creatures.  He visits Abram, eats his food, changes his name to Abraham, discusses the covenant and circumcision, asks about Sarai, changes her name to Sarah, predicts her delivering Isaac in one year, they both laugh, the child is to be named Isaac for their laughter, and then comes the discussion of God "nuking Sodom and Gomorrah from orbit".

What makes it into Scripture is this event in two pieces.  In fact, there were probably other things said that didn't make it into the text.  Since there wasn't a transcriptionist hanging on every word, I can't be sure there wasn't more said.  So, my Master doesn't look at what was remembered, and say, "What have you done?! You got it all wrong!  Scrap that and go back and do it again?"  And the people editing this "anthology" of God didn't say, "Oops, we have two versions here.  Which one do we keep?  How do we 'meld' them if we keep both?"  Instead they kept both, and kept them distinct.  They recorded the two versions faithfully because they viewed them as both being inspired accounts of God visiting His servant Abraham.

God inspires the text to be written, but fails to protect the "inerrant" original texts?  Really?  So, He's capable of forming stars and galaxies, and subatomic particles, but protecting His inspired texts is just beyond Him?  That was too hard?  Read the text! "Is anything too difficult for the LORD?"  Is my Master sovereign over all matter except pens?  If these inerrant original texts were all that important for my Master to demonstrate His inspiration of them, is it rational to believe that He would not protect them?  If they no longer exist, then isn't it also rational to believe they're unnecessary to demonstrate inspiration? 

If followers of Jesus can agree that God is sovereign, why can't we also agree that the texts we have are the ones that God wants us to have?  And if we agree on that, why can't we accept them as they are without some sort of reference to non existent texts we don't have because God didn't preserve them?  Why fight over the very thing that reveals to us that our Master wants to bring us together and love each other?  The world going to hell will know our Master by our love for each other?  If there's no love shown, will they still know our Master?

Now, that being said, I still wade into arguments about versions and texts.  I still debate Sianaticus versus Vaticanus versus Alexandrinus.  I am not above weighing various text differences in order to translate a passage from Hebrew and Greek.  So, in a way I too contribute to the "war of words" regarding the words of my Master.  But I still need to live by what I discover as I delve into those words.  I must still open my heart and mind, both, to permit my Master to build faith and teach me obedience.  As I sift, I must also submit.  It does me no good, and is one of the darkest evils of my life, to work with Scripture but not permit it to enter my heart and mind.

The things I do as I study should drive these words of my Master deeper into my soul, not wear them as as a badge of honor on the surface.  If they have no impact on my life, I have wasted the amazing gift given to me by Master, the gift of His Scriptures, the gift given to His children across this globe.  And it is a gift that so many of His children do not have a chance to enjoy.  How can I neglect such an amazing gift?  I live in a land where I have no excuse and have an education that is supposed to impel me even more.  Time to grab the SCUBA gear and pen; I'm diving in!

What Do You Feed the Creator of All Matter?

Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.  When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, and said, "My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by.  "Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant." And they said, "So do, as you have said."  So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, "Quickly, prepare three measures of fine flour, knead it and make bread cakes."  Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and choice calf and gave it to the servant, and he hurried to prepare it.  He took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed it before them; and he was standing by them under the tree as they ate.

Chapter 17 begins by saying that God appeared to Abram (v.1) and when He was done speaking to Abraham, He ascended (v.22).  From this I gather that this was a physical appearance.  One thing said in that personal encounter was that Sarah would bear Isaac by this season the following year.  No mention was made of the hospitality of Abraham.  In that conversation, Abram's name is changed to Abraham, the name used in chapter 18.  The impression given is that 18 happens afterward.  Yet in chapter 18, the same comment about Sarah bearing Isaac around this time next year is made again.  It's just weird.  Now the other content is different, like God being called El Shaddai in 17, and Yahweh in 18.  Also circumcision is prescribed in 17, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in 18.  There are obvious glaring differences, but the subtle similarities are also striking.

But whatever is thought about the relationship between the two, one glaring difference which has always arrested my attention is the hospitality of Abraham.  In 18, he sees "three men" so runs, and bows down before them.  The first verse says that Yahweh appeared (much like 17), and Abraham calls Him Lord (not by name).  But Abraham's behavior is not as one to an equal (like Mamre and his brothers) but as to a Sovereign.  It's his behavior that suggests Abraham knows exactly Who has shown up at his tent.  Abraham's response is hospitality.  So, what does one feed the Creator of all matter?

From Abraham's choice of items, it seems that his best beef and fresh bread is what makes the perfect meal served with butter and milk.  He also stood by as their waiter, attending to their every need.  The scene then, as Yahweh informs Abraham of the coming of Isaac (again?) is the three men seated beneath the "Oaks of Mamre", enjoying the fresh meal, Abraham standing to attend to them, and Sarah listening at the tent opening.  It makes an interesting setting.  This account of a personal visit by the Maker of all things has engaging story elements, and visualizing it is much easier than in Chapter 17.  In fact, the whole encounter in Chapter 18 is more experiential or existential (as those terms really should be understood, not as philosophy has redefined them today). 

The point where these verses hit me most personally is in Abraham's immediate response to seeing the three men.  He recognizes his Master and immediately responds with hospitality.  Would I be able to really recognize my Master so well?  If I did, would I be able to keep my wits about me enough to be properly hospitable?  What does "properly hospitable" even mean when my Master comes to visit?  How is it even possible to be properly anything where a personal encounter with God is involved?  He makes stars!  What can I do, what do I feed, what do I say that can "properly" respond to such a One?

Abraham simply does what his cultural traditions dictate is done when an important person comes by.  He is himself in his setting at that time.  And his Master participates.  They wait, they eat (really?), and then have a conversation with Abraham (and Sarah as it turns out).  God is pleased with Abraham's preparations and treatment of Him.  Isn't it important to note that the Creator and Master of billions of galaxies accommodates the traditions and culture of one of His creatures?  I think I get so caught up in what "form" my Master may want, but when He hasn't "prescribed" a "form" I think this passage reveals that He isn't concerned about the form as much as He is the encounter, the relationship.  He does so much concern Himself with what format my prayers are in, as much as He is that I pray.  When I sing in worship, He is not so concerned that I am on key as much as He is concerned that what I sing reflects my adoration of Him.  It's not what's on the plate, it's that I serve it to Him.  Now, that is grace.  Well, I better get cooking, you never know who's coming to Sunday lunch!

He Who Laughs First

Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.  I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."  Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"  And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"  But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.  "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.  "But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."  When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. (Genesis 17:15-22 NASB)

This is the main place this chapter overlaps with the next.  In addition to the charge to circumcise, enough to fill a conversation all by itself, God also gives the timing of the child of promise, and the missing detail that he will come through Sarah (quick name change to grow her up, you know, now that she's 90 and all).  The element about Sarah bearing a child is more than Abraham can bear, and he falls further on his face (see verse 3).  It's as if he falls down laughing, so I imagine him going from a bowing position to rolling over holding his belly laughing.

I can only imagine all the emotion that the laughter contains.  He has waited 13 years for another word from his Master, he has raised a son he loves, he has achieved a "grove", and now to have it interrupted...again.  It couldn't have been easy wondering for the last 13 years where this child he invested his heart into would fit, or even if he would fit, into God's plan.  Again with the life interruption.  Again with the plan changes.  It could very well have been that if Abraham hadn't laughed, he would have cried.

So now the name of the child will be Isaac, he laughs.  Here it is Abraham laughing, yet still pushing for minimal disruption in his world.  "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"  A plea for the child he has come to love, his child, first born son, and the one he has poured 13 years into.  God hears the plea, and His word to Abraham sounds a lot better than the "donkey man" speech He gave to Hagar.  But it is clear that Ishmael will not be the chosen one.  So what were the last 13 years about anyway?

This time next year Isaac will be here.  One more year to wait and the child of promise will finally arrive.  It's been 13, and now there is one more.  What is the thing God is revealing about Himself that is so important?  What do I learn about my Master from Abram's waiting 13 years for a name change and a "frag order"?  What do I learn about my Master from dragging out the fulfillment of this promise, the gradual revelation of various details, the name changes, and the incorporation of the one not chosen?  What's the lesson?

Who am I to put my Master in a box or framework to enable me to understand Him?  When does it become possible that He will accommodate my timing over His own?  What plan can I come up with that covers the bases, dots the i's and crosses the t's to a more thorough degree than His?  Why do I continue to see the world around me through lenses I create, grind, and wear, knowing they distort the truth my Master wants me to see (I call these lenses 'fear')?  Seriously, the lesson I believe in this passage for me is, "How long before I finally relent and let God be the Master of all?"

The laugh of Abraham could also have been one of relief.  The peace missing for the last 13 years, caused by the tension of knowing that the child before you isn't the child of promise, but having no other alternative.  The released tension of wanting desperately to hear the voice of his Master, yet being left to muddle or trudge through on his own; well at least feeling that way.

Perhaps what I need to learn is to laugh with Abraham; to release my tension and receive His peace; to finally drop my lenses; to finally disassemble my "framework" limiting my Master; to quit planning for Him, finally, and just let Him be the God Who Hears, Who laughs, Who sees me, and Who permits me to see Him and live.  Maybe what I need is a good laugh.  So, a horse walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Why the long face?"

Beyond The Pain, Why This Mark?

God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.  This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.  And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.  And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.  A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.  But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."  (Genesis 17:9-14 NASB)

The custom of circumcision among Jews is the most well known of the practices, but it seems it isn't necessarily the oldest.  Herodotus wrote of it in the 5th Century BC and considered an ancient custom then.  The date of this custom with Abraham would be over 1000 years prior, almost 2000 years.  If that is considered ancient by the standards of Herodotus this could pre-date the Egyptian custom.  There is a wall depiction in the tomb of a priest/physician which depicts the custom in detail, and dates from the 6th Dynasty.  That would put the custom fairly well established somewhere between 2500 and 2000 BC, right around this time.  So it could have been in common practice when Abram visited there right after entering Canaan.

As my wife would say, "So what?"  The reason I look at this custom is made up of a couple of elements.  The elements answer the questions, "why this?" and "why now?"  I don't want to argue for or against the practice, but rather grapple with the question of why use this as a sign of a covenant.  The covenant it signifies has already been bound by God through a semi-Hittite covenant ratification ritual where God bound Himself to the promise.  Here it is Abraham who is bound to the promise.  But he's bound in a way that imposes this sign on the entire household, actually only the males of the household.  How involved were they in this promise prior to this?  If nothing else it would be a sign of their dedication to Abraham.

Another part of my reason for considering this important is that the custom is not typically something commonly observable in normal interactions.  It's a sign that would be private, as if between the person and God.  And yet it is something that Abraham had to know as customary in the cultures around him.  So while it would mark to him and his household the sign of the covenant for people and the land to his people, that would not be obvious to others, even if they found out about Abraham's custom.  What I mean is that when it was established, it wasn't that unique.  It became unique as the Greeks swept through the nations around the Jews, and the practice died out everywhere else.  That was 1500 years at least after this dialogue between Abraham and God.

So, this private sign of a covenant, a sign not that uncommon in Abraham's world, signified for his entire household that he believed in covenant between God and him.  It also signified that his household was now intimately involved in the promise contained in the covenant.  So, why this, and why now?

I believe the answer lies in the intimate nature of the sign and the timing of Isaac's coming.  The intimate nature of the sign on the household of Abraham meant that it was a sign that each of them understood, but those outside the household knew little of.  It was personal and bound them tightly distinguishing them from other households, even if not from other cultures (like the Egyptians).  Everyone entering the household either through birth or money entered into this custom and were a part of the covenant promise. 

A year after this custom is initiated, Isaac is born.  So after the required healing, after the household returned to some semblance of normalcy, Sarah is with child.  The household could care for her special needs effectively, and Isaac knows nothing of an uncircumcised life.  For him, the covenant is an eternal thing beginning before him and continuing on well after.

I believe the point of application for me is in acknowledging the same desire my Master has for intimate private relationship with me.  Not that I need this sign, but perhaps my heart does.  Perhaps, as the prophet Jeremiah says, I need to circumcise my heart (Jeremiah 3:4).  The sign of my belief, a sign that is private and intimate between my Master and me, may be the best application of this passage.  Am I unwilling to take painful steps?  Am I against personal pain?  Of course!  But it shouldn't keep me from honoring my Master.  In fact withholding such an offering because of personal pain would, I believe, dishonor myself and my Master; or possibly even worse.  I could lose the very thing I seek to save by saving myself from the pain! 

Essentially, my belief is that my heart must be circumcised, set apart for my Master, focused energetically on my Master's face, and constantly seeking His pleasure rather than my own comfort.  I don't see other options.  Walking in the path of Abraham in his relationship with the same Master, I will probably do things that make little sense to those around me and will even hurt my own heart.  For my Master, there can't be any reservation.  Again, I'm not a fan of causing myself pain, I don't endure it well either.  But circumcision of heart means painfully removing those secret intimate things that no one else sees, but still keep me from my Master.  And so I hand my Master the stainless steel circular saw, lay back on the table, and get ready for the quadruple bypass of cardiocircumectomy.  It just sounds fun doesn't it?  What anesthesia?

Same Song, Different Dance

Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.  I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.  I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.  I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Genesis 17:3-8 NASB)

So let's recount here how many times have we read so far that God will give Abram descendants and the land of Canaan.  In Chapter 12 (the land, not descendants) as God told Abram to go to Canaan, again in Chapter 13 (both land and descendants), again in Chapter 15 where God binds Himself to the promise in a complex Hittite form of covenant, and finally here in chapter 17 where Abram's name is changed and he is bound to God through circumcision.  That makes this the fourth recitation of the promise of God in one form or another.  Why such repetition?

Well, this isn't the last time the promise is covered.  In Chapter 18, we have another rendition of Chapter 17 except it is a more interactive encounter with God, a somewhat more detailed appearance, and the part about circumcision is missing.  The discussion content is remarkably similar.  So, the total of these promise repetitions will number about 5 before Isaac even makes an entrance.  What's up with that?

Each time the promise is repeated, something is added.  Sometimes a detail is added, or sometimes an additional element is added.  The progressions goes something like this, 1) Promise = Land, 2) Promise = Land + Descendants, 3) God binds Himself to Promise of Land + Descendants, 4) God binds Abram to Promise of Land + Descendants through name change and circumcision and gives detail of timing (next year at this time).  In the next chapter, the timing will be repeated, but Sarah laughs as Abram did in this chapter.  There is a certain logic to the progression.

The progression is gradually building faith in Abram until Abraham will eventually sacrifice Isaac.  The progression starts with moving Abram from his family region around Haran to an unknown land.  Then the promise grows, but there is no real "proof" and the fulfillment is delayed.  Then God binds Himself to the promise, and Abram and Sarai attempt to bring it about through traditional cultural means.  Then, after their attempts fail to produce the child of promise, God binds Abram (now Abraham) to the promise.  Here God is no longer building Abram's faith, He is tempering it through test after test.  And the tests will continue even after Isaac is born.

So, is this the process God uses with everyone?  Does God lead me through a progressive revelatory faith-building process, and then a tempering process?  I'm not sure if this pattern works globally or universally as a pattern for His work with everyone.  I don't see it in the case of Moses, unless it is compressed down into the burning bush incident.  I don't see these details in the case of Joshua, but I do with Gideon.  I don't with Samuel but I do with Saul.  I don't with David nor Solomon, and I don't have a lot of detail in these interactions beyond these.  Perhaps with Elisha God follows this pattern?  Yet Elijah just shows up whole, so I don't have any idea how God did that.

From this I can conclude that the pattern is not the point.  The point is the end-product, the faith-filled relationship between God and His chosen pawn.  Even the tension within this relationship is not enough to sever the connection.  I am to be in a faith-filled relationship with my Master.  That is the point.  I am to be willing to sacrifice the "child of promise".  I am to be obedient to challenge the evil of the land, the Pharaoh, the evil king, and the Philistines.  I am to be courageous to take on the lion, the bear, and the giant.  I am to be confident to stand against the enemy alone when my fellows desert me.  I am to be sure of what I cannot see, and claim the hope given to me as evidence of its completion.  It is an odd life, but an amazing adventure to be a part of.  Truly it is the life of a knight of the realm of the Master of the universe, and a servant to the Creator of all matter.  I am to live it with a sword in one hand, and a towel in the other.  Do I paint a strange picture?  Good, then I'm on the right track.

Every Decade or So

Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless.  "I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."  Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,... (Genesis 17:1-3 NASB)

Chapter 16 finishes by telling me that Abram was eighty-six years old.  Now, thirteen years later, God shows up again for a chat.  Thirteen years!? I'm not confident that my faith would hold out a full decade while I'm heading through my eighties and nineties waiting for God to fulfill His promise.  He made it clear to Hagar that Ishmael wasn't the "one", so...where is he?  And finishing out his nineties isn't where Abram wants to be when he has a child.  He probably looks back on the early years with Ishmael and would rather not repeat it, especially not now.

Well, while I'm very sure about the time, but the Scriptures also make it very clear that Abraham's "nineties" are not like what people endure or live like in their nineties now.  There's strength and "iron" in Abraham that is lacking in people of this modern time.  I believe the passage and others in Scripture make a good case for Abraham wanting Ishmael to be the promised one because he loved the boy very much.  While Abraham may complain that he's too old to have kids, later passages are not implying that's not the case, they state it plainly (Genesis 25:1-4).  So, his complaint had to do with something else.

So, I may not want to wait a decade through my nineties for a word from my Master, but can I really use the age as an excuse?  What about through my forties?  What about through my thirties or fifties?  The age really isn't the issue, it's the time.  Am I so patient that I can wait for a word from my Master?  Until then what do I do?  I live.  Really the only option while waiting is living out the life called to.  What was the last thing my Master asked me to do?  Wait, worship and walk before Him, sort of like what He commanded of Abraham here.

Even through the good strong years of my life (about 3 years right after I got out of the Army, after that, well...) I don't think that I would have been patient to wait for the next word from my Master.  I tend to get bored, get into trouble, and it begins to become all about me.  Really, it isn't even "patience" as much as steadfast faith that is the real issue.  Do I have the faith to stay the course He has laid out even when I haven't heard from Him in the last nine or thirteen years?

One of the common complaints I use for why I left ministry is that I never had a mentor to help me through the rough spots and avoid pitfalls.  But as I read this passage, where was Abraham's mentor?  The thing is, I really have no excuse where I can blame another, or blame the circumstances, or the "people" or anyone else.  I made the choice I made at the time believing it was the right thing to do.  It wasn't even a choice I made thinking that it was in my best interest.  What went through my head wasn't self-centered, it was removing myself from the place of distraction so God could get directly at them.  What I didn't understand is that God really doesn't choose to work that way.  The church failed anyway, families from there caused other churches to fail, ran into sin obliterating marriages, and disintegrating families.  I'm not sure I could have stopped that, but I certainly didn't succeed in enabling them to hear God better. 

Rather than ask whether or not I should have waited it out, what I need to ask now is what am I waiting for?  Is there a promise that my Master has given me that I'm holding out for?  Unfortunately, I'm not sure.  I suppose I'm really just waiting for the next thing, trying to be open to what that might be.  I believe I'm in a much better place to hear my Master than I have been before.  So, I suppose that, since my last marching orders were wait, worship, and walk before Him, I'll do that.  Since it's Sunday, the middle one should be easy, but Monday's coming...