Absalom (part 22 of 22)

Having made this crossing of the Jordan (leaving the Promised Land), Absalom will never cross back.  It is not insignificant that Absalom’s crossing of the Jordan coincides with blessings beginning to come David’s way.  It is reported that “When David came to Mahanaim,” men came to him and “brought bedding, basins, and pottery utensils.  They also brought food for David and all who were with him, including wheat, barley, flour, roasted grain, beans, lentils, honey, curds, flocks, and cheese” (2 Samuel 17:27a,28-29a). 

Remarkably (or perhaps not so remarkably), this provision of food and supplies for David and the people with him sounds like what is to be found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy.  There, along with the copious listing of curses that will come upon the covenant God’s people for failure to adhere to the terms of the covenant, one also finds the promise of blessings.  It is written: “If you indeed obey the Lord your God and are careful to observe all His commandments… the Lord your God will elevate you above all the nations of the earth.  All these blessings will come to  you in abundance if you obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the field.  Your children will be blessed, as well as the produce of your soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs of your flocks.  Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed.  You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out” (28:1-6).  One can almost certainly imagine David reflecting upon these promised blessings as he receives the items that are being brought to him at Mahanaim. 

If he is thinking in such ways, then it is at this point that he knows that his God has turned things in his favor, that truly he is still the anointed one of Israel, and that Absalom should not have raised his hand (or contemplated raising his hand) against him.  After contemplating the blessings related to sustenance, David could go on to consider what follows in Deuteronomy, which is “The Lord will cause your enemies who attack you to be struck down before you; they will attack you from one direction but flee from you in seven different directions… The Lord will designate you as His holy people just as He promised you… Then all the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they will respect you” (28:7,9-10).  It is after he receives the gifts that, for him, could serve to indicate the return of the Creator God’s favor and to remind him of the anointing and promise of his God that had been placed upon his life and his rule, that “David assembled the army that was with him.  He appointed leaders of thousands and leaders of hundreds.  David then sent out the army” (18:1-2a). 

David knew that Israel’s God was going to be with him and that his return to the throne was now but a foregone conclusion.  With full knowledge that the change of events was instigated by Absalom’s agreement to unnecessarily raise his hand in violence against his father, when David sends out the army he says “For my sake deal gently with the young man Absalom” (18:5b).  This, of course, does not happen, as Joab, David’s general (who has no fear of reprisal from David for a variety of reasons), has Absalom executed at the first opportunity to do so, which presented itself relatively quickly.  In fact, Absalom was struck down in the very first military engagement of his kingship, which is extraordinarily telling.  As was said before, once Absalom crossed the Jordan, thus departing from his exodus and going into exile, he would never cross back.  The only thing that was waiting for him on the other side was the completion of the curses of exile, which was death---dragged into the subjugation of creation’s great and foreign power.        

Absalom (part 21)

Returning to the text of Absalom’s story, Hushai, after gaining Absalom’s ear, passes along to David the news of both his and Ahithophel’s advice, along with Absalom’s response to that advice.  Knowing his own history and reflecting upon his previous time in exile, this must have been somewhat heartening for David.  Obviously, there would be a level of sadness, in that he now learns that his son thinks that it is a good idea to have him dispatched from existence, but there would be a level of encouragement because he could see this as a sign of his God’s favor returning upon him. 

David could reflect upon the fact that he did not raise his hand against Saul, and that he had been ultimately rewarded for his restraint.  He could think about the fact that Saul came out after him, and though Saul’s efforts at striking David down proved unsuccessful, Saul’s efforts also proved to be less than beneficial.  In this unwarranted plan to attack David without provocation, as (according to the narrative on offer), David has not actively said or done anything to defeat what he feels might very well be the work of the Creator God, Absalom has now turned oppressor. 

Absalom is no longer Moses, but rather Saul.  He is no longer rescuing the people from subjugation, but he is instead attempting to subjugate his father who is also now his subject.  Yes, David and the men with him are now Absalom’s subjects, and therefore it is incumbent upon Absalom to secure blessings for them.  This is quite difficult to do if one is plotting to bring death to said subjects.  

With Absalom’s approval of Hushai’s plan, events begin to unfold rather quickly.  David is advised to move quickly, lest he be caught, and he does so along with all his people.  Ahithophel, who appears to be sensing oncoming defeat in addition to having his advice ignored in favor of that of Hushai, kills himself.  David and those with him have crossed the Jordan River, symbolically leaving the land of Israel, and going to Mahanaim (2 Samuel 17:24a).  Following the plan, “Absalom and all the men of Israel had crossed the Jordan River” (17:24b) as well. 

One may be predisposed to read by that quickly, but perhaps such should not be the case.  Crossing the Jordan was of tremendous significance in the history of Israel.  Following the exodus and Israel’s time in the wilderness, the crossing of the Jordan meant that they had crossed over into the land of the Creator God’s promise.  It was, in a sense, the completion of the exodus, though the exodus would never truly complete, as exodus would prove to be an ongoing process of deliverance, rescue, redemption, and salvation, which must be worked out diligently. 

Even after Israel crossed into their promised land, they still had to take the land, drive out its occupants, and crush the rampant idolatry (which they would fail to do).  In the days of John the Baptist, baptism in the Jordan River was a clear signal of a new exodus movement and a submission to the claims of the coming kingdom of their God, just as baptism in this day is a sign of departure from exile into a life of exodus (a constant entering into the Creator God’s mission and purpose) and submission to the covenant God’s King, that being Jesus the Messiah.  David, already in a self-imposed exile from Jerusalem and his throne, crosses the Jordan as he flees Absalom, who is now, unfortunately, intent upon killing his father. 

This does carry some meaning for David, though it carries far greater meaning for Absalom.  After crossing the Jordan River in his pursuit of his father, as he leads the men of Israel in this pursuit and as he goes forth to violently raise his hand against his father, he is going into another exile.  With this exile, and with what it is going to mean for him, his father is now being rescued from subjugation and delivered from his oppressor.  By this, Absalom has reversed the exodus that he has experienced.  He has completely reversed the Moses-oriented narrative that he had created for himself.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 26)

While Matthew uses language identical to Mark, Luke, though presenting the apocalyptic words of Jesus with marked differences, makes things a bit more obvious for his audience.  There one finds, “And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth nations will be in distress, anxious over the roaring of the sea and the surging waves.  People will be fainting from fear and from the expectation of what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  Then they will see the Son of Man arriving in a cloud with power and great glory.  But when these things begin to happen, stand up and raise your heads, because you redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21:25-28).  This use of “redemption” by Luke is crucial.  Redemption, for a Jew, was equivalent to exodus.  When the Creator God delivered His people from the power of Egypt, granting them exodus, that was a redemption.  Any use of the word “redemption” would be deeply rooted in thoughts of exodus. 

When the Creator God brought the creation forth from its state of chaos, He was thought to have granted it an exodus, redeeming it from its own state of exile.  When a large contingent of the tribe of Judah was dragged off to Babylon in exile from their homeland, it was redemption for which they longed.  They looked for another exodus.  Indeed, John the Baptist built his own movement on the foundation of thoughts of exodus/redemption, as baptism in the Jordan was a re-enactment of Israel’s crossing the Jordan into their Promised Land, thus stirring thoughts of their exodus that defined a people. 

Israel in Jesus’ day, for the most part, sought redemption from Rome--- hopeful that their God would grant them another Egypt-like exodus (the Romans leaving Israel rather than Israel leaving Egypt), even though that exodus would not involve them leaving their land of promise.  A need for redemption, for exodus, implied conflict and oppression, and a situation from which the Creator God’s people needed to be delivered. 

Without going into details of the variety of situations to which Luke may have been referring, it is undeniable that the reference to Daniel, followed by mention of redemption, must be equated to the Danielic insistence that the elect holy ones of the Most High were gathered together (as Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying) to possess the kingdom, and to have a role in that kingdom that was being granted to the Son of Man.  By way of reminder, this coming to power of the Son of Man, with the gathering of the elect for redemption, takes place in concert with the fall of the Temple, which is the preface to all that Jesus has said to this point in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the thirteenth chapter of mark, and the twenty-first chapter of Luke. 

With this said, Jesus speaks about a fig tree.  There is not a pressing need to go into any great depth of detail here about the symbolism that may be at work, though certainly the previous fig tree that has figured in the Temple-related narratives of Matthew and Mark is called to mind.  This, however, would not be the case for Luke, as he makes no mention of Jesus’ words toward the fig tree and its withering away.  Regardless, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all report this mention of the fig tree as part of Jesus’ discourse about the fall of the Temple.  Through Matthew, Jesus says “Learn this parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near.  So also you, when you see all these things, know that He is near, right at the door” (24:32-33). 

What things?  Obviously, it is all the things that have been mentioned that will signal, for Matthew, the coming of Jesus (as the Son of Man) to the Ancient of Days and the end of the age (the end of the present age and the beginning of the age in which God rules through His Messiah), that would occur or be confirmed by the fall of Jerusalem’s Temple.  The “things” are messianic claims, wars, rumors of wars, nation rising against nation, famines, earthquakes, the abomination of desolation, and so on.  These things are signals that “He is near, right at the door.” 

In This Is Love (part 13)

What would Jesus do on the heels of crossing the Jordan and His forty wilderness days?  Mark reports that “Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the Gospel of God.  He said, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near.  Repent and believe the Gospel!’” (1:14b)  Jesus embarked upon His kingdom establishing mission, doing so as Israel had done, though it would take on a different appearance. 

In the book of Joshua, Rahab informs the reader that the inhabitants of the land---presented as the defiling usurpers in Israel’s promised territory (much like death was a defiling usurper in the Creator’s good creation)---feared Israel greatly, knowing that they had already destroyed great kings and gained decisive victories over other peoples during their post-Egypt wilderness sojourn.  To this reported of Rahab can be equated the fearfulness expressed by the unclean spirits with which Jesus is said to have dealt, who would cry out with words such as “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene!  Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24a)  Like it had also been said of Israel (son of God), Jesus (Son of God) is even referred to by these demons as “the Holy One of God” (1:24b). 

To accomplish the purpose of His mission, Jesus first went to Galilee?  Why?  Because just like Israel, who was to be a son of God that would shine as a light of the Creator God’s glory to the world, Jesus was a Son that understood that He was tasked with doing the same.  If He was indeed the Messiah, and according to His own messianic interpretation, He had to fulfill the messianic role as understood through the words of the prophets.  Matthew assists in informing the answer as to why Jesus would do this, quoting from Isaiah from a post-Resurrection-and-Jesus-mission-comprehension-position and saying “Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness  have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:15b-16, Isaiah 9:1-2). 

Moving along, it can be seen that the analogous relationship between Jesus and Solomon is straightforward, but at the same time requires a bit of thoughtful application.  As son of God, Solomon was a king, and this comes to be understood to be true for Jesus as well.  Certainly, the promises of the Davidic covenant, while applicable to Solomon, can almost all be seen through to Jesus.  Because the son of God was purposed to serve, like Israel, as a light to the nations and as a destroyer of the works of the devil (in its most basic manifestation of idolatry, from which so much evil springs), one of the interesting ways to make a comparison between Solomon and Jesus through the lens of Israel’s and the Scripture’s understanding and presentation of the son of God (which, as always, must be the basis for any and all right understanding), is to be found in the first book of the Kings. 

There it is reported that “People from all nations came to hear Solomon’s display of wisdom; they came from all the kings of the earth who heard about his wisdom” (1 Kings 4:34).  It is said that “Solomon was wiser than all the men of the east and all the sages of Egypt” (4:30), while helpfully going on to list four prominent wise men of his day.  Relating this then to Jesus, one need merely consider the crowds that were said to have routinely flocked to Him and followed Him, presumably because of His displays of wisdom (among other things).  In Solomonic tradition, these crowds were composed of Jesus’ fellow countrymen, and would also include Gentiles from within the borders of Israel and the surrounding nations.  As was said of Jesus, which could also be fittingly said of Solomon, “No one ever spoke like this man!” (John 7:46)    

In This Is Love (part 12)

The second of the two-fold consideration of Jesus’ experience of forty days in the wilderness also causes Him to be connected, quite rightly, with the nation of Israel as a whole.  Forty is an often referenced and significant number in relation to Israel and to the history of the people pre-Jacob (forty days and nights of rain for the flood in the days of Noah).  In connection with the all-important exodus event itself, Moses is on Mount Sinai for forty days and nights, where he is said to have received Israel’s covenant marker directly from the finger of Israel’s God.  This time of Moses’ absence presents itself as a test of Israel’s faithfulness to their covenant God that had just rescued His chosen people from their slavery in Egypt.  It was a test that they are said to have failed, doing so quite miserably. 

Elijah, the one looked upon as Israel’s greatest prophet, fasts for forty days as part of an experience that will take him to the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8).  Saul, David, and Solomon are each said to have ruled over a united kingdom of Israel for forty years.  Quite naturally then, within the context of His presentation as the Son of God, it is altogether logical to draw an analogy between Jesus’ forty days of wilderness testing and the story of Israel in general.  Forty days in the wilderness for Jesus after baptism in the Jordan---forty years for Israel in the wilderness after what is often referred to as their “baptism” in the waters of the sea. 

Jesus had entered the waters of the Jordan to be baptized at the hands of his cousin, John the Baptist.  For a messiah-like figure, this baptism in the Jordan, at the hands of one who presented himself as the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord (with heavy tones of expectation concerning the coming of Israel’s God), would have been taken to be emblematic of a new exodus movement in anticipation of the Creator God’s working through His messiah on behalf of His oppressed people.  Israel had entered the waters of the divided sea (though they did not get wet) as part of their God’s working on behalf of His oppressed people, with this resulting in the crushing defeat of those that had oppressed them, in the movement that would forever define “exodus,” Israel as the people of exodus, and their God as a God of exodus. 

Of course, there is a major difference between Jesus and Israel, in that Jesus’ wilderness experience was on the heels of having been declared as being pleasing to the Creator God, whereas Israel’s forty year wilderness experience was for the opposite reason.  Though the covenant God had previously shown forth Israel as His elect people (son) by bringing them out of Egypt, much like this God shows forth Jesus as His elect Son (who had also been brought out of Egypt, though that is for a different time), His displeasure was evident. 

Needless to say, Israel had its share of problems during their forty years, but it did serve to strengthen their trust in their delivering, covenant God, as the faithless generation that doubted at the foot of Sinai and at the edge of Canaan is said to have died off in the desert.  Owing to this, the people were prepared to enter into their land of promise, and therefore prepared to enter into the mission that their God had established for them.  Israel would cross through the waters of the Jordan (inviting a direct comparison between Jesus and Israel) into their promised land and to their mission, to carry out the work of their God, to establish a kingdom that would allow them to experience their God’s blessing, to become a light for the surrounding peoples, and thereby elicit praise for and acknowledgment of their God as the true and only God.  Israel was to leave the wilderness and enter their land for the purpose of their God’s glory.  

Token Of Submission (part 2 of 2)

Baptism, as is well known, was not something introduced to the world by the followers of Jesus.  Jesus Himself was baptized, presumably into his cousin’s exodus movement, as he stood by the Jordan and called his countrymen to a conversion of heart and mind in their considerations of the role of the covenant people of the Creator God.  Beyond that, it must be remembered that baptism has been a part of a number of religious and cultural traditions, pre- and post-Christ.  Baptism has been generally understood to represent a period of transition, and entrance upon a wholly different part of one’s life. 

When the believer participates in baptism subsequent to and as a representation of a trusting allegiance to Jesus and His claims, it is, among other things, with its place in the New Testament defined, structured by, and provided its depth of meaning by its relation to Israel’s historical narrative, a re-enactment of the exodus of the Creator God’s people from slavery and exile, in the trust that there has been and will be an experience of the redemptive power of the covenant God, and in full confession that Jesus is King of all.  This stands opposed too all other claims of absolute power and claims upon one’s allegiance.  

At the communion table, among a host of other things, with the tangible symbols of bread and wine (though it seems that the elements could be pretty much anything, with the action and that which stands behind the actions seemingly more significant), the believer and the believing community proclaims the fact of Jesus’ bodily death and bodily Resurrection, doing so in submission to the truths that are thereby claimed.  Therefore, the Gospel is preached in the very act of participating in the version of the messianic banquet meal that was reported to have been given to His followers by Jesus Himself.  With these tokens of submission and surrender, the believer confirm a place in the kingdom of God that was brought to bear and activated in this world with Jesus’ Resurrection. 

Returning then to the second book of the Kings and to the words of the king of Assyria, one finds that their participation in the kingdom of God, and in the restoration and renewal of this creation that began with Jesus’ conquering of death and the grave, fits very well with the reason given to the people of Judah for their continued submission.  Following the statement concerning eating and drinking from their own fig trees and cisterns, the king gives them a further reason for submission, as we read, “until I come and take you to a land just like your own---a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey.  Then you will live and not die” (18:32a). 

Is this not what the Creator God promises to those that are His covenant people that are in union with Christ (believing in Him as King)?   If they are in submission to their God through their believing and trusting allegiance to His Son (by faith),  then the expectation is that He will come and take them to a land just like their own.  This is not a land not precisely like their own at present, but a land as it was intended to be, which is a restored creation, un-corrupted and un-marred by sin and death, which means it will most assuredly be a land of grain and new wine, bread and vineyards, olive trees and honey.  Yes, one day, the Creator God will consummate the redemption of His people and His once good creation. 

Following that, as the believer contemplates the consummated kingdom of God on earth, it is appropriate to seize upon and consider that which were the king’s empty words---as they attempted to communicate something that no man can effectively promise---and say that because death has been finally put down, having been defeated by the Resurrection of Jesus, there in that land like their own, the gift of eternal life that is to be had in union with the Lord Christ Jesus will be completed, so that the covenant people will in fact live and not die.     

Wide & Narrow Ways (part 1 of 2)

Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there who are many who enter through it.  But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it. – Matthew 7:13-14  (NET)

These words are drawn from Jesus’ famous “Sermon On the Mount”.  Though there can be little doubt that Jesus spoke these words on more than one occasion and in various places, the setting in which Matthew sets them forth, as Matthew goes to great lengths to make the point that Jesus is a new Moses, has Jesus sitting on a mountain and teaching His disciples (5:1)---offering a different set of commandments from a different mountain (the implicit reference to Moses and Sinai).  At this point, the record of Matthew shows that Jesus has only called to Himself four of His chosen twelve, but that “large crowds followed Him” (4:25).  Additionally, we find that the crowds, which seem to be referred to as His disciples, would be “amazed by His teaching, because He taught them like One Who had authority” (7:28b-29a). 

It is important for us to remember that the words of our text are presented in the context of a continuous series of thoughts that make up chapter five through seven of Matthew.  Now, there is a reason that it is generally referred to as a “sermon,” and that is because it presents a series of ideas that press towards a conclusion.  We find that conclusion as the seventh chapter comes to a close, when Jesus says, “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock.  The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock.  Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.  The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!” (7:24-27) 

Jesus’ entire discourse built to that point, as in His teaching, as He farmed the fallow grounds of the Galilee (from whence revolutions in Israel sprang) to form His new and revolutionary group (though a different sort of revolution) He began to set Himself apart from those that had come before Him.  There had been numerous people before the time of Jesus (including numerous messianic claimants) that had drawn crowds to themselves, with John the Baptist being one of those that had drawn significant audiences (without any messianic claims, though it is possible that there were those who looked to John as a messianic figure as he proposed a new exodus movement as symbolized by his baptizing in the Jordan); but inevitably, they pointed to the prophets or to Moses or to some person of renown in order to lend them credibility and legitimacy.  Jesus, on the contrary, seems only to point to Himself and His words, providing His own credibility.  This was unique.  Obviously, with such poignant words, undoubtedly offered over and over, we can surmise that Jesus intended His teachings to be taken seriously and to be accurately understood and applied by His hearers.    

When we hear a sermon, or a speech of any kind for that matter, we do not expect the speaker to flit about from topic to topic, offering up disconnected thoughts that have nothing to do with what comes before or after; but rather, to present, with minor digressions useful for making or elaborating points, a unified system of thoughts and ideas.  However, for some reason, when we come to these words of Jesus concerning wide and narrow gates and ways, and the destruction and life attendant upon those ways, we have a strange tendency to disconnect it from its larger context.  Doing that, we put these words into Jesus’ mouth as some type of amorphous and ambiguous statement, lacking in substance, that is just sitting there waiting for us to fill it with the content of our subjective musings concerning what it is that constitutes sin.  How ridiculous, presumptuous, and short-sighted.  Rather than look for what it is that Jesus is communicating, we project on to Jesus’ statement nothing more than our own opinions about what actions should be described as “wide gate” actions that lead to destruction, and “narrow gate” actions that lead to life.

Deeds Of Love & Faithfulness (part 1 of 2)

I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. – Genesis 32:10  (ESV)

The words of this text are spoken by Jacob.  In them, he makes reference to the steadfast love of the God of Abraham that has been shown to him as covenant faithfulness.  He speaks of the fact that, when he first crossed the Jordan, when he was escaping the sure wrath of his brother Esau, that he crossed over the river with nothing but his staff in his hand, and presumably, the clothes on his back.  The point was, he had nothing.  Now, however, Jacob has become rich.  He had so much that he was able to divide his people and property into two camps.  He “divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herd and camels, into two camps, thinking, ‘If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape’.” (32:7)  It seems that his riches and possessions were the evidence, in his mind, of the covenant blessings of God, which is why he prefaces his statement of the tenth verse, by saying “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord Who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good’.” (32:9)

The preface to this story has Jacob leaving the house of his uncle Laban, for whom he has labored many years.  He is returning to his home, the place he had left years prior, fleeing from Esau, having secured the blessing that would rightfully have fallen to Esau as the firstborn.  As he returns, he is fearful of how his brother will react, and whether or not Esau is still angry with him.  In order to appease him, he is willing to give him “oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants” (32:5a).  Jacob sends some of his servants on ahead of him, to ascertain his brother’s mindset, and they returned to Jacob, telling him that Esau “is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him” (32:6b).  Naturally, Jacob thinks the worst, and finds himself “greatly afraid and distressed” (32:7a). 

In the midst of his fear and distress, Jacob is sure to remind the Creator God of the covenant that had been made with Jacob.  This was the extension and continuation of the covenant that this God had originally made with Abraham, and which had been passed along to Isaac.  When Jacob is blessed by Isaac, Isaac references the covenant that we first find God making with Abraham in chapter twelve of Genesis, saying “Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you” (Genesis 27:29b).  This, in both narrative structure and in historical understanding, is designed to reflect God’s words to Abraham, when he was told “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (12:3). 

Returning to Jacob, the blessing from his father was obviously something nice to receive, but the Scriptural record indicates to us that it was not precisely in Isaac’s power to transfer the Creator God’s covenant on from himself.  It seems that this was something that is left to God alone.  Abraham had not passed along the covenant to Isaac.  Rather, Isaac had received the call of the covenant in the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis, when the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am the God of Abraham your father.  Fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your offspring for My servant Abraham’s sake” (26:24b).  Abraham is not reported to have taken steps to pass along the covenant to Isaac through customary and traditional means.  So as Isaac is reported to have received the covenant directly from the covenant maker (as did Abraham), so too should the same type of scenario be expected for Jacob, rather than the passing on of the covenant from father to son, though this is something that Isaac is shown to have apparently attempted.   

God Of The Gentiles

When we gather around the meal table of the Roman church and hear “But they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24), we are forced to hear Paul within the contextual realm of both Jews and Gentiles being encompassed by the covenant through the same means.  They are justified in connection with Jesus, as God graciously expands the reach of His covenant---stretching out the curtains of the grand, covenant tent, as expressed so beautifully by Isaiah.  Furthermore, Gentiles, without Judaizing (becoming Jews by adopting the covenant markers of Judaism – circumcision, Sabbath keeping, dietary restrictions), also experience the redemption that has long been cherished by Israel, which, when this term is employed by a member of Israel, is a reference to the experience of exodus-ing from out of a state of exile, with this exodus always being a movement that includes a journey towards, a return to, or a restoration of sovereignty in, a land of promise. 

The redemption of exodus, which is tightly connected to the Red Sea and also symbolized by baptism (especially that of John the Baptist, as he was recognized to be leading a new exodus movement, recapitulating the entrance of the people into the promised land through baptism in the Jordan River, which was doubly symbolic, serving also as a reminder of the Red Sea crossing), was a defining portion of Israel’s story.  Part of the story that Israel told about itself was that of the Egyptian exodus, and rightly so.  It was a dramatic story of the intervention of the Creator God on their behalf, and is intimately tied to the story of their election as the special, covenant people of that Creator God.  It is important to also note that Paul locates the story of Jesus in continuity with Israel’s history, and sees it as the climax of their story.  Of course, we know that it is impossible to understand the story of Jesus, or to attach any significance to His ministry, death, or Resurrection, apart from its being set within the story of Israel and its covenant relationship with their God, as the story stretched back to Adam.  That said, because Israel identified itself as an exodus people, who had experienced God’s redeeming activity on their behalf numerous times, the fact that Gentiles are now included in talk of those that experience redemption, with redemption being used by an Israelite and therefore carrying the freight of Israelite sensibilities, becomes yet another mark of their being adopted into the ranks of the people of God’s election.  Gentiles are now free to attach themselves to Israel’s story and tell it as their own.

When we detach verses twenty-three and twenty-four from out of their context, to read and hear Paul’s statements from within our individualistic, historically disconnected concern with a personal salvation experience, they sound nice, but we miss so very much.  Truly, when we read “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” we can take some comfort.  Unfortunately, if we tear these words from their historical and cultural context, without allowing the history of Israel and its covenant to define them (instead, we define them based on our own conceptions, which might actually have no connection with Paul’s conceptions or those of his audience), we miss out on the full spectrum of meaning contained by “all,” “sin,” “glory,” “justified,” and “redemption.”  Ultimately, we do ourselves a tremendous disservice when utilizing or proffering constructs such as the “Romans road to salvation,” as this tends to lead people away from the Gospel message of “Jesus is Lord,” with the range of kingdom and covenant concerns therein entailed, and toward a selfish concern with the eternal destiny and situation of one’s personal soul.

Having provided his “thesis” concerning the nature of justification, and having done so within the parameters of Jew and Gentile concern, as we move along to the twenty-eighth verse, we should not be surprised to hear Paul return to explicit mentions of Jew and Gentile.  Paul writes “For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law” (3:28).  That statement, of course, demands to be heard as a component of the narrative that Paul has structured, so, as elsewhere, this verse is not to be lifted and applied in isolation.  Therefore, it is worthwhile to reiterate and expand what is being said.  The statement of verse twenty-eight, more fully unpacked, is “we consider that a person is said to be a part of the covenant people of God through the confession of a trusting loyalty to Jesus as Lord and King, with this loyalty extended to the Creator God via the loyalty to Jesus; and it is no longer necessary for any person to demonstrate this loyalty by circumcision, Sabbath keeping, or food laws, which is currently being utilized as the identifier of the people of the covenant, but no longer.”  To drive home the point that, through his talk of justification, Paul has been concerned with Gentile inclusion and the elimination of the barriers that have been used to keep the covenant exclusive to Jews and to prevent Gentile participation unless they were willing to Judaize, he goes on to write “Or is God the God of the Jews only?  Is He not the God of the Gentiles too?  Yes, of the Gentiles too!  Since God is one, He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (3:29-30). 

Movement (part 3 of 3)

In the twenty-third chapter of Genesis, we have the record of the death of Sarah, wife of Abraham.  She dies in Hebron, and it is there that Abraham desires to bury her.  So the man that bears the covenant promise of the Creator God---the one that is to exemplify divine blessing---speaks to the men of the area, and in the process of asking for a place in which he can bury his departed wife, says “I am a temporary settler among you” (23:4a).  Though he considered himself to be a temporary settler, the response of the men reveals that they considered him to be so much more---“a mighty prince among us!” (23:6a)  Abraham, the man that God tasked for the purpose of bringing Him glory, did not need anything remotely resembling a permanent dwelling place to gain this reputation and this honor.  Does this tell us anything in relation to David and Solomon and the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem?  Does this shed any light on God’s words to David about building a temple for Him: “Do you really intend to build a house for Me to live in?  I have not lived in a house from the time I brought the Israelites up from Egypt to the present day.  Instead, I was traveling with them and living in a tent.  Wherever I moved among all the Israelites, I did not say to any of the leaders whom I appointed to care for My people Israel, ‘Why have you not built Me a house made from cedar?’” (2 Samuel 7:5b-7)  We go on.   

In the following chapter, Abraham is concerned with finding a wife for his son, Isaac.  To accomplish this, he sends his chief servant to “my country and to my relatives to find a wife for my son” (24:4).  Abraham does not go there himself.  Is this because he is “old, well advanced in years” (24:1a)?  Not likely.  Rather, it is more likely the case that he himself is not going to go there because Abraham is not going to return to the place from where he had been exodus-ed by the Lord.  Because it seems that we are asked to understand and view the Bible (that by which we are led into the knowledge of God) through the prism of Israel’s Egyptian exodus and the events by which the exodus is surrounded (as Israel was constantly asked to understand their God’s dealings with them through the same prism), there is an equation to be made. 

In the wilderness, before they achieved the fulfillment of the blessing of their land of promise, the desire to return to Egypt was a sign of Israel’s distrust in the covenant faithfulness of the God Who had provided their miraculous deliverance.  So a return by Abraham to his homeland could be construed, in that light, as a breach of trust in the Lord.  This is especially so as the story of Abraham is told as part of the story of Israel---a story dominated by the history of their exodus and of a God that consistently defines Himself by that series of events.  When it came to the issue of whether or not Isaac should go to Abraham’s homeland, Abraham is even more adamant, saying “Be careful never to take my son back there… you must not take my son back there!” (24:6a,8b)  This probably takes us a bit off track, and it may be stretching the analogy a bit, but much later in the history of Israel, during the period of time that saw Judah threatened by the Babylonians (as God delivered the curses that He promised in connection with His people’s idolatry---Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), there was a movement amongst some of the people to take refuge in Egypt.  How did the Lord respond to this?  What was God’s reaction to the idea that His people could somehow save themselves by running to the land in which their God had put His power on display, so as to find protection and refuge there?  The Lord says, “I will see to it that all the Judean remnant that was determined to go and live in the land of Egypt will be destroyed” (Jeremiah 44:12a). 

Why such a strong response?  There were a number of reasons, not the least of which was their engagement in idolatry both before and during their time in Egypt, but because Israel (and Judah) defined themselves by their deliverance from Egypt and the power of their covenant God in connection with that deliverance from Egypt, does not their running to Egypt so as to gain protection from Babylon not make a mockery of that same God?  It was not as if they were going down into Egypt so that they could groan out to God and implore God to re-enact the events of the exodus.  There, they sought the favor of the gods of Egypt, turning their backs on their God of covenant. 

Naturally, when it comes to the Gospel record of Jesus’ flight into Egypt in the arms of His parents, we have an entirely different situation.  For Jesus, it actually does become something of a re-enactment of Israel’s exodus---He goes into Egypt, exits that land to return to Israel, is baptized in the Jordan (equivalent to Israel’s sea crossing), goes into the wilderness for a period of time, and then embarks on His mission of establishing the kingdom of God.  As it relates to Isaac, and according to the Scriptural pattern (remembering that Genesis is presumed to have been at least partially composed by Moses following the exodus) we can understand Abraham’s emphatic insistence that he not be allowed to go to Abraham’s homeland.  Perhaps more importantly, what we see take place is God bringing a wife to Isaac from out of that place to which Isaac was not allowed to go.  Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, experiences her own exodus.  The one that will give birth to Esau and Jacob (Israel) is moved out and moved along (fitting the Scriptural pattern), wooed by the riches that have come to Abraham (and by inheritance to Isaac) according to the covenant promises of the Lord of heaven and earth.