David & The Gibeonites (part 1)

He turned them over to the Gibeonites, and they executed them on a hill before the Lord. – 2 Samuel 21:9a  (NET)

It is said that “During David’s reign there was a famine for three consecutive years.  So David inquired of the Lord.  It is recorded that the Lord said, ‘It is because of Saul and his bloodstained family, because he murdered the Gibeonites.’” (21:1)  The Gibeonites, by way of recollection, were the group of people that came to Joshua and Israel, pretending to be from a faraway land, offering terms of peace.  Joshua and Israel made a treaty with them, and upheld the treaty (though they would become woodcutters and water-carriers for Israel) even when it was discovered that they had lied and misrepresented themselves. 

The author here takes step to cause a reader to remember these things (which are obviously closely connected with the exodus and the conquering of the promised land, calling to mind the Creator God’s actions on behalf of His people), by writing “The Israelites had made a promise to them” (21:2b); “but,” he goes on to write, “Saul tried to kill them because of his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah” (21:2c).   

It is in response to this knowledge, along with the word that he is said to have received in his inquiry from the Lord, that David summons the Gibeonites and says to them, “What can I do for you, and how can I make amends so that you will bless the Lord’s inheritance?” (21:3)  Before going on, one must take note of the explicit connection to the Abrahamic covenant that David is shown to be making.  David, of course, is referring to Israel when he speaks of the “Lord’s inheritance.”  By speaking of “blessing” that inheritance, David invokes the promise to Abraham, which must have been well understood by the Gibeonites (because they lived and served among Israel, and presumably would have known the story of Israel quite well), that Israel’s God would bless those who blessed Abraham (and by extension, blessed Israel). 

Here, David appears to be seizing on an opportunity.  He is using the fact of the famine in a calculated manner for the sake of his own kingship and that of his progeny.  Additionally, he knows that the Gibeonites are motivated by revenge, so in calling to mind the blessings promised (in the Abrahamic covenant) for those that bless Israel (with the king representing Israel in such a way that by their serving the king they bless him, the nation as a whole, and themselves in turn), he is going to turn that mindset of vengeance in his own favor. 

After being asked this extraordinarily calculated question by David, “The Gibeonites said to him, ‘We have no claim to silver or gold from Saul or from his family, nor would we be justified in putting to death anyone in Israel.’” (21:4a)  Feigning ignorance of where all of this was leading, “David asked, ‘What then are you asking me to do for you?’” (21:4b)  “They replied to the king, ‘As for this man who exterminated us and who schemed against us so that we were destroyed and left without status throughout all the borders of Israel---let seven of his male descendants be turned over to us, and we will execute them before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, who was the Lord’s chosen one.’” (21:5-6a)  In what must have been a considerable exercise of self-restraint in the midst of jubilation, David says, “I will turn them over” (21:6b). 

A Tradition Of Wells (part 2)

Now, this study does not intend to go into detail concerning the story of every well, nor is it going to present an exhaustive list of the wells of Scripture---though nearly all would be instrumental in shaping the thinking of the Johannine author.  It will go into detail when doing so can provide useful interpretive background for Jesus’ time and experience at the well in John’s Gospel.  That said, the story of Hagar’s son, Ishmael, contains a well---which could also be of some interest to a Samaritan woman, especially one that references Jacob as her ancestor when speaking about the well, especially seeing as how Ishmael, the son of Abraham, is Jacob’s uncle. 

Ishmael’s well experience flows from his being sent out from his home along with his mother, at yet another request from Sarah, as she said “Banish that slave woman and her son, for the son of that slave woman will not be an heir along with my son Isaac!” (Genesis 21:10)  When their provisions ran out, Hagar becomes frantic, and is apparently convinced that her and her son are going to die.  However, the Creator God intervened on their behalf and “enabled Hagar to see a well of water.  She went over and filled the skin with water, and then gave the boy a drink” (21:19). 

In light of the reason for Hagar and Ishmael’s expulsion from the house of Abraham, how interesting that a Samaritan woman at a well, by speaking about Jacob and then speaking about the messiah, was laying claim to a tradition and to promises directed to the people of the covenant God, though she would be viewed by the descendants of Isaac (through Jacob) as an illegitimate user and usurper of such things.

Merely a few verses removed from the story of Ishmael that is connected to a well, Abraham is himself engaged in a “well” story.  Apparently there was some controversy afoot, in that “Abraham lodged a complaint against Abimelech,” the name actually being a general title of a tribal chieftain, “concerning a well that Abimelech’s servants had seized” (21:25).  Abraham offers a treaty to Abimelech in the form of a gift of seven lambs, saying “You must take these seven ewe lambs from my hand as legal proof that I dug this well” (21:30). 

So here there is a dispute concerning a well.  With that in mind, it’s not at all surprising to find a disputation in connection to the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman.  Though the dispute was not over the well, though there is an underlying dispute about true Israelite lineage implied, the well becomes the locus of the review of one of the main points of disputation between Israel and Samaria. 

Without having to traverse too many pages of Scripture in search of the next watering hole, one finds the twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis, which contains another “well” tale.  In this story, Abraham is sending his servant to his home country and to his relatives to find a wife for Isaac, his son (24:4).  When the servant reached his desired destination, “He made the camels kneel down by the well outside the city” (24:11a). 

So that he might accomplish the task that was set before him, which would be indissolubly connected to the covenant that the Creator God had made with Abraham that his descendants would be named through Isaac, “He prayed, ‘O Lord, God of my master Abraham, guide me today.  Be faithful to my master Abraham.  Here I am, standing by the spring, and the daughters of the people who live in the town are coming out to draw water.  I will say to a  young woman, “Please lower your jar that I may drink.”  May the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac reply, “Drink, and I’ll give water to you camels too.”  In this way I will know that you have been faithful to my master.’” (24:12-14)  Effectively then, the woman that provided a drink to the servant of Abraham, would be the one through whom the Creator God would continue to carry out His covenant plans. 

Seeing God (part 1)

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. – Matthew 5:8  (NET)

The fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew, commonly referred to as “The Sermon On the Mount,” begin with a programmatic declaration.  Jesus, in Moses-like fashion, has taken up a position on a mountain in order to deliver news of the Creator God’s will to the people and begins with a set of statements prefaced by “Blessed are”.  By using the term “blessed” while standing on the mountain to speak to the people, Jesus has not only conjured up thoughts of Moses, but He successfully pulls Abraham into His context as well, as the Creator God was specifically going to bless Abraham and his descendants---and through them all the world would also be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3). 

Beginning with “Blessed are,” and with what follows during the course of this particular “sermon,” Jesus offers up a new set of “laws,” if you will, to govern the way in which His covenant people will interact in and for the world that His God is redeeming through Him.  If one thinks of Jesus as offering up a new set of governing principles, such will be a helpful lens through which to view His statement of “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them” (5:17).  Of course, Jesus also immediately goes on to say “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place” (5:18). 

By speaking of “these things” (5:17) along with saying “heaven and earth pass away” (5:18), Matthew lays the groundwork for the other important and extended discourse from Jesus to be found in his Gospel, which is Jesus’ speech concerning the Temple.  There, in chapters twenty-four through twenty-six of Matthew, Jesus makes repeated use of “these things” (24:2,3,8,33,34,26:1) as well as “Heaven and earth will pass away” (24:35), with the two statements linked and quite clearly connected with the fall of the Temple (“heaven and earth” was a common way of referring to the Temple---the place where heaven and earth meet).  One cannot disconnect Jesus words from chapter five with His words from chapter twenty-four.  Doing so would probably be a mistake. 

Jesus goes on to say “So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (5:19).  One must be cognizant of the fact that He is talking about that which He has said here with His initial delivery of the “laws” upon which He is about to elaborate.  In that sense then, one could even be justified in looking at the “beatitudes” as something of a new set of “Ten Commandments,” though there are not ten, and though they aren’t really commandments in the traditional sense.  The reader is also put in the position of seeing the beatitudes as the outline of the sermon, with all that follows serving as the explanation of those beatitudes. 

As is known, Jesus begins by saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them” (5:3).  Beginning in this manner fits perfectly with what is heard from Matthew prior to this.  First, Matthew introduces John the Baptist and his message, which is “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (3:2).  Then, the first report that is received about that message that comes from Jesus, as He insists on the need to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (4:17b).  Matthew follows this up by informing his audience that “Jesus went throughout all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom” (4:23a).  So Jesus beginning the message in which He outlines His vision of the kingdom of heaven with a mention of the kingdom of heaven makes perfect sense.  He is quite consistent in this regard. 

Compassionate Brother (part 11)

It is as soon as Laban departs from him that Jacob’s thoughts turn to his brother.  He knows that he has a serious problem on his hands.  He knows that he has wronged his brother, and that he has dishonored his brother and his entire family.  He devises a plan.  Indeed, “Jacob sent messengers on ahead to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the region of Edom.  He commanded them, ‘This is what you must say to my lord Esau: “This is what your servant Jacob says: I have been staying with Laban until now.  I have oxen, donkeys, sheep, and male and female servants.  I have sent this message to inform my lord, so that I may find favor in your sight.”’” (Genesis 32:3-5)

Jacob is quite right to be concerned.  This concern, and the reasons for the concern (which are culturally dependent) will be well understood and top of mind by those that would hear this story independently as part of the oral tradition being shared amongst the Israelites, or as those that would hear/read this story as a post-exodus people, doing so after the stories have been codified and taken the shape in which they have been passed through history.  Though all will already know the outcome (much like the initial church communities that were the hearers of the Gospels hear those stories with knowledge of their outcome), they can still share in the building tension by which the story is shaped. 

Having made this initial effort at what Jacob believes to be necessary for the assuaging of Esau, “The messengers returned to Jacob and said, ‘We went to your brother Esau.  He is coming to meet you and has four hundred men with him.’” (32:6)  Understandably, and with full cognizance of what he had done to his brother, “Jacob was very afraid and upset” (32:7a).  Owing to this, he took some precautions.  Knowing that the dishonor to which he has subjected his brother could be satisfied with a certain level of vengeance, and undoubtedly expecting the worst from Esau, Jacob “divided the people who were with him into two camps, as well as the flocks, herds, and camels” (32:7b). 

Jacob’s reasoning process, as it is steeped in an honor and shame culture (as the stories are being circulated within communities that also function in the dialectic of honor and shame), is on display as he thinks “If Esau attacks one camp… then the other camp will be able to escape” (32:8).  In hope, Jacob reasons that the dishonor which he has foisted upon his brother (really to his own shame) will be satisfied by Esau’s slaughter of half of Jacob’s people and possessions. 

After devising this plan, Jacob is said to have prayed to the Lord, saying “Rescue me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, as well as the mothers with their children” (32:11).  He then repeats the promise that has been conveyed to him, reminding his Lord of His words in which He had said “I will certainly make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand on the seashore, too numerous to count” (32:12). 

Having offered up this prayer, and perhaps gaining a bit of confidence in light of this recollection and of all that has happened to him to this point, Jacob makes a change to his plans.  “He sent as a gift to his brother Esau” (32:13b) a sizable number of animals, in the obvious hope that doing so would make up for what Jacob had stolen from him, and as something of a symbolic (and tangible) transfer of honor.  Is this a semblance of humility here on Jacob’s part?  Perhaps. 

It is recorded that “He entrusted them to his servants” (32:16a), telling them to “’Pass over before me, and keep some distance between one herd and the next.’  He instructed the servant leading the first herd, ‘When my brother Esau meets you and asks, “To whom do you belong?  Where are you going?  Whose herds are you driving?” then you must say, “They belong to your servant Jacob.  They have been sent as a gift to my lord Esau.  In fact Jacob himself is behind us.”’” (32:16b-18)  There is an element here, however faint it may seen, of Jacob attempting to shame himself (and so acknowledge his own shameful actions) as he approaches Esau.

Compassionate Brother (part 2)

In the thirteenth chapter of Genesis, after instructing Abram to “Look from the place where you stand to the north, south, east, and west” (13:14b), the Creator God is said to have informed Abram that “I will give all the land that you see to you and your descendants forever.  And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone is able to count the dust of the earth, then your descendants also can be counted” (13:15-16).  In chapter fifteen, Abram is told to “Gaze into the sky and count the stars---if you are able to count them… So will your descendants be” (15:5b).  In chapter eighteen, allusion is made to the previously offered covenant, and it is said that “Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations on the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using his name” (18:18). 

Finally, in the twenty-second chapter, the Creator God reiterates His covenantal promise to Abraham in the wake of the willingness to sacrifice his son (in light of the promises related to his son and therefore demonstrating what would appear to be Abraham’s hope in a resurrection), saying “I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore.  Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies.  Because you have obeyed Me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants” (22:17-18).

So in the course of this study, why make mention of the tower of Babel?  Why rehearse the compilation of statements related to the Abrahamic covenant?  Well, apart from the obvious connection between the words of the story about the tower that would reach to the heavens (followed by the introduction of Abram and the Creator God’s covenant) and the Jacobin stairway “with its top reaching to the heavens,” what can be found immediately following this vision of the stairway (or ladder as it is sometimes translated), while bearing in mind that Genesis is presented in a narratival format, is really quite interesting. 

In the eleventh chapter, the reader finds that “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building” (11:5), and that the story ends by reporting that “the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth… and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth” (11:8a,9b).  Twice, for emphasis, the story reports that the very thing against which the tower was meant to guard against is what took place.  

The contrast could not be more stark, as with Jacob’s stairway the story reports that “the Lord stood at its top.  He said, “I am the Lord, the God of your grandfather Abraham and the God of your father Isaac” (28:13).  Echoing the breadth of the Abrahamic covenant, the Lord goes on to say “I will give you and your descendants the ground you are lying on.  Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west, east, north, and south.  All the families of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using your name and that of your descendants” (28:14).  Whereas the builders of the tower that was intended to reach into the heaven were scattered, the Creator God, speaking from the top of the stairway that did indeed reach into heaven, informs Jacob that “I am with you!  I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land.  I will not leave you until I have done what I promised you!” (28:15)       

Only Son (part 1)

For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. – John 3:16  (NET)

Jesus is said to have spoken these words to a man named Nicodemus, referring to this man as a “teacher of Israel” (3:10).  With such words, the reader of the Gospel of John is reminded that Israel had a story, and that its teachers communicated a vast, vitally important, and powerful story to the group of people that rightly thought of themselves as the chosen people of the one true Creator God.  That story of a special people charged with covenant responsibilities (together with the blessings and curses thereby implied) took root in the tale of the exodus.  This is partly evidenced by the fact that, within his communications to Nicodemus, Jesus makes it a point to specifically mention Moses, saying that “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (3:14). 

According to Israel’s historical narrative (by which they defined and understood themselves and their place in the world), the lifting up of the serpent took place while the nation made its way to its land of promise, following their Egyptian exodus.  They were operating on the understanding that this land had been promised to them in the promise that their God had made to Abraham.  In all of the talk of the importance and significance of the very land of Israel, one can be sure that the reported word of the Creator God to Abraham had a prominent place: “The Lord said to him, ‘I am the Lord Who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess’.” (Genesis 15:7)  Therefore, though the story of Israel was deeply rooted in exodus, the exodus story is defined by, and would have very little meaning apart from, the story of Abraham and of the promises that were understood to have been made to him by the covenant, creative, and providential God of Israel. 

Yes, the exodus gains a great deal of its meaning from the story of Abraham, as it was believed that Abraham received word from the Lord that the promise being made to him would ultimately be confirmed by another promise.   The book of Genesis reports that Abraham (then still Abram) had said to the Lord, “O sovereign Lord, by what can I know that I am to possess it?” (15:8)  In the record of this exchange, the Lord’s response was the aforementioned promise, as He is said to have replied to this query by saying “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country.  They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.  But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve.  Afterward they will come out with many possessions” (15:13b-14). 

This promise is dramatically fulfilled in the events of the exodus (that are set forth in the book of the same name), as the Creator God’s powerful judgments are said to have veritably rained down on those that dared to oppress His people.  Exodus reports that following the tenth and final blow of judgment to fall upon Egypt (the death of the firstborn), Israel was quickly ushered out of Egypt.  Tying the narrative tightly to the Abraham promise concerning possessions, the author reports that before leaving Egypt, “they had requested from the Egyptians silver and gold items and clothing” (Exodus 12:35b).  In response, “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and they gave them whatever they wants, and so they plundered Egypt” (12:36).  Again, the exodus story gathers meaning from the Abraham story.  

However, a “teacher of Israel” would not only teach a story of Israel that had the exodus as its foundation, which also looked to the story of Abraham as the foundation of the exodus, but he would also look further back, to the story that provided context for their God’s choosing of Abraham (and ultimately his descendant(s)) as His personal representative(s) in this world.  To be sure, Abraham had been called out of Ur and promised a land and given promises in association with that land, but why was it that this had occurred in the first place?  

Joshua's Battles (part 5)

It is said that when the kings of the people that were occupying the promised land came out to do battle against Joshua and Israel, that their armies “were as numerous as the sand on the seashore” (11:4b).  Quite naturally, the use of this language would have been meant to evoke thoughts of the Creator God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  To each of those individuals, the covenant God promised to give them descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore, so the fact that kings and armies were coming out against Israel, in great numbers and with those numbers reported in this way (imagining that the word would have spread among the people of Israel in this same way), should not have been a cause for panic. 

Rather, it would have been a reminder of the promises of their faithful and powerful God.  Because He is reported to have not failed, up to that point, to bring any of His great promises to pass, there would thus be no reason to be faithless in the face of this multitudinous enemy.  Yes, the words of the Divine catalog, as the whole of the narrative is crafted to hang together, are carefully chosen to remind and reveal and demonstrate the covenant faithfulness of the Creator God. 

In the midst of that reliance upon their God’s faithful power, as it had been demonstrated through plagues, deliverance from Egypt, the splitting of a sea, pillars of cloud and manna from heaven, water from a rock, and more, there was the ongoing realization that the campaign would be long and the battles would be numerous.  Eventually however, there was another realization that the land would eventually be handed over and given to the saints of God, Israel, His covenant people, with His power exercised through His people.  Indeed, as one reaches the end of the book of Joshua, one reads that “the Lord gave Israel all the land He had solemnly promised to their ancestors, and they conquered it and lived in it” (21:43). 

Again, the opportunity is taken to point to the Creator God’s promises and His power to perform according to His promises in order to bring about His own purposes.  Such is the constant refrain of the Scriptures, always pointing to the actions of the God of Israel, which should prompt praise and worship of the gracious, righteous, and redeeming God on the part of the believer, along with a desire to be fitted into His plans by the working of His Spirit within, rather than causing those that call upon His name to turn inward in consideration of what things to avoid so as to be able to live as one ought to live.  The life of the Christian is an outward spirituality---always expressing itself in action that shows that Jesus indeed is Lord and that the land indeed has been conquered.  It is much more than a personal, private matter of faith and conscience.  

Continuing on in Joshua, the reader finds that “The Lord made them secure” (21:44a).  Why is it that He did this?  It is said that He did so “in fulfillment of all He had solemnly promised their ancestors” (21:44b).  Here is yet another signpost that directs the believer to further realize the basis upon which he or she lives and serves, which is the power and faithfulness of the God that is revealed in Scripture and in the person of Jesus, that has and will bring all of His promises to pass, with the Resurrection the evidence of and great seal upon those promises  It is a constant looking away from self, with that gaze directed towards the Creator God for the purpose of fitting within His purposes for the renewal and redemption of His creation.  

Covenant Promises (part 1)

The people of Judah and Israel were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore; they had plenty to eat and drink and were happy. – 1 Kings 4:20  (NET)

These words served and serve as an implicit and overt reminder of the faithfulness of the Creator God of Israel.  They are offered here in the midst of the recounting of what was taken to be the glorious reign of King Solomon.  Significantly, they function as the report of a time in which Israel, as a nation, was presumably largely fulfilling its covenant obligations.  By the author’s making mention of the sand on the seashore, this particular portion of Israel’s story fits neatly into the continuous narrative of the redemptive plan that is presented within Scripture. 

Specifically, it forces the listener/reader to consider the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham.  In Genesis, after the reported encounter with the angel of the Lord in the region of Moriah, in which the God of Abraham is said to have intervened in the issue of the sacrifice of Isaac, the text reads “I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore” (22:17a).  Naturally, these words in the Kings would be tied directly to the words in Genesis.   

Additionally, the fact that Israel is said to have had plenty to eat and drink, and this along with their being happy, ties the words of the Kings neatly with the list of blessings to be found in Deuteronomy.  Now, there is some debate as to the time of the composition of the final version of Deuteronomy (though oral tradition would play a vital role throughout Israel’s history regardless of the time in which Deuteronomy reached its final form), in which Israel’s God tells His covenant people that He will bless “the produce of your soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs of your flocks.” 

Further, it is insisted that “Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed… The Lord will greatly multiply your children, the offspring of your livestock, and the produce of your soil in the land which He promised your ancestors He would give you” (28:4b-5,11).   It is not at all a stretch to hear the fulfillment of this type of blessing, with such thoughts in mind, when the Kings author reports that Israel had plenty to eat and drink, and that they were happy.  Experiencing these types of blessings of livestock, herds, flocks, baskets, and bowls would certainly lead to contentment, which has always been understood to be a vital component of happiness.

Moving forward in the Kings, one is able to find that “Solomon ruled all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt.”  Furthermore, it is said that “These kingdoms paid tribute as Solomon’s subjects throughout his lifetime” (4:21).  As one remains ever mindful of the over-arching Scriptural narrative and that previously mentioned story of redemption that is the presumed terminus of the story, this reading forces another return to Genesis and the Abrahamic covenant.  Doing so, one finds that “the Lord made a covenant with Abraham,” saying “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River” (15:18). 

God's Covenant

They did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to His law. – Psalm 78:10  (ESV)

That’s quite an indictment.  As if that was not bad enough, we go on to hear that “They forgot His works and the wonders that He had shown them” (78:11) as well.  Who did not keep the covenant?  Who refused to walk according to His law?  Who forgot His works and His wonders?  Well, that would be God’s people, of course.  The Psalmist is referencing the people that God had declared to be His treasured possession, the children of Israel, the descendants of Abraham.  Whenever we find that word covenant, we will do well to hearken back to Abraham, and the covenant that God entered into with Abraham, because that is the story that a member of Israel would have in mind when “covenant” is mentioned.  At the same time that the effort to remember that is made, it is also to be remembered that all that become children of Abraham through the faith that shows itself forth through and as belief in Jesus, also stand in the line of that covenant and should always be cognizant of that fact. 

The covenant to Abraham can be found in Genesis, and in it, God promises to bless those who bless Abraham, and also to bless all the families of the earth through Abraham.  This use of “Abraham” must be understood as incorporating, and makes reference to the family of Abraham.  As the Scriptural narrative goes, this covenant is passed along to Isaac, who was the son and evidence of God’s promise to Abraham, to Jacob (Israel), and to the renewed Israel, those who are sons and daughters of Abraham by faith.   

The Psalmist says that they, meaning Israel, did not keep God’s covenant, as evidenced by the fact that they refused to walk according to His law.  This is interesting, as Abraham kept God’s covenant though Scripture indicates that he was never given any specific law by which to walk.  His call was to represent the Creator God (to bear the divine image) by being a blessing to those with whom he came into contact.  So why the seemingly greater burden on Abraham’s descendants?  This goes to the purpose of the law.  God gave His people the law for numerous reasons, one of which, to be sure, was to mark them out as a people set apart for Himself. 

God promised His people, when He gave them His law, that through its keeping they would be blessed.  It appears that Israel is supposed to operate according to the understanding that through their keeping of the law, and the subsequent blessings that God would rain down upon them, that all the families of the earth would be blessed.  How so?  At least partially because the nations of the world---those that were nearby Israel and those that were far off---would hear of and experience the blessings upon this particular nation and would come to find out why they had been made so prosperous. 

The people of Israel would be able to respond that they were blessed for one reason only, which was because they were, in grateful response to the obvious provision of His hand, following the law that their God had given them, and that Israel’s God alone possessed the power to deliver such prosperity and blessing.  In this, the God of Israel would be glorified, and knowledge of Him would be extended beyond Israel, to others of earth’s families.  By this, God’s great blessings would be made manifest. 

Israel, however, had forgotten their God’s works and wonders.  According to the Psalmist, who would always have the long story of Israel in mind, they sinned against Him (78:17) by not trusting that He could provide for them in the wilderness, according to His promises.  They challenged His power by speaking against Him (78:19).  From the beginning, almost immediately after their exodus from Egypt and the receiving of God’s laws, it was made clear that Israel was going to be unable to walk according to that law and so be a blessing according to God’s covenant, because “they did not believe in God and did not trust His saving power” (78:22).  This was quite the contrast from that which we find in the original recipient of the covenant, that being Abraham, of whom it is said that He simply believed God, and trusted in His power to perform according to His promises. 

Like those that believe in the Gospel message that Jesus is the resurrected Lord of all, in spite of His shameful execution, Abraham trusted God even when the promise seemed ridiculous, such as having a son with his wife, when they were both approaching one hundred years old, and believing even though he did not see the massive displays of God’s power, as would Israel, both before and after their escape from Egypt.  Unlike Israel, Abraham not only believed in God’s promise, but also trusted in His saving power, when he took Isaac to the mountain to offer him as a sacrifice, seemingly believing that God would raise his son from the dead if necessary.

The thirty-seventh verse of this chapter says that “Their heart was not steadfast toward Him; they were not faithful to His covenant” (78:37).  Naturally, this is where believers can often be found as well.  Not being faithful, Israel stood outside of God’s covenant, deserving no more than the cursing detailed in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  However, we go on to read “Yet He, being compassionate, atoned for their iniquity and did not destroy them; He restrained His anger often and did not stir up all His wrath” (78:38). 

In the Christ and the Christ-event, God did this for the entirety of His desired covenant family as well.  It was these, having had their iniquity atoned for and the decree of destruction set aside, through whom He would bless the world and all of creation.  This blessing would be manifested through the eternal life (the presence of the life of the age to come) that they would have in union with Christ (calling Jesus Lord and living accordingly), being renewed creations in Him and harbingers of the new creation, and would be executed as a result of the faith that believes in Him, through which God would carry out His plans and purposes for His creation, because He is faithful.             

Humanity (part 1 of 2)

Paul operates with a fellowship-driven mentality, as Israel’s history, defined by God’s covenant dealings with them, looms large in his thinking.  So as we see him, because of God’s justifying activity, incorporating Gentiles into the stories of Adam and Moses to go along with their being incorporated into the story of Abraham, with each story marking the creation of a covenant people (which is also taking place in the church, through the covenant that is marked by belief in Jesus), a demand is placed upon us to allow these thoughts to resonate as we examine part of the fifth chapter of Romans. 

The boundlessness of the covenant and of the grace of God (with that boundlessness not being undefinable or unobservable, but substantively demonstrated through the inclusion of Gentiles within that covenant) is set forth as Paul writes “But the gracious gift is not like the transgression” (5:15a).  Remember, because Adam and Israel (Moses) are in view, “transgression” can be understood on multiple levels.  Those multiple transgressions are overcome, however, “For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!” (5:15b).  We can point out that Paul believed Jesus, as Messiah (King/Christ), embodied Israel (it was a common understanding that the King stood in for the people), which allows for the transition from Adam to Jesus, encompassing Moses (who was standing in for Israel in this construct) in the process.  Thus, we can see the movement from Adam, through Jesus, to the many---the Gentile nations. 

Effectively, the covenant had been provided to all people through Adam, who represents all of humanity.  Though this is probably an uncommon way of looking at God’s covenant dealings, and though it seems somewhat counter-intuitive on its surface, we can actually insist that God’s original covenant had been made with the whole of humanity, with Adam representing the whole.  That covenant was eventually localized to Abraham and his descendants.  This includes a number of nations, as we consider the very basic fact that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, both of which had a number of descendants. 

The covenant with Israel represents a further localizing, as the descendants of Jacob, one of the numerous grandsons of Abraham, are chosen as God’s covenant people.  According to the historical narrative on offer in Scripture, we see an ongoing narrowing of the covenant.  What at first looks like an expansion, from Adam, to Abraham’s household, to Israel, is actually an ongoing process of restriction.  The intentions always remained the same, however, which was to reflect God’s glory into the world and to gather up the praises of God’s creation and return them back to Him. 

With the Assyrian conquest of Israel, and the dispersion of the northern ten tribes of the twelve tribes of Israel and their being scattered to the four winds, Judah remains on the playing field as the carriers of the covenant.  This is yet another restriction.  As we get closer to the time of Jesus, there is an even further narrowing of covenant participants, with groups within the land of Israel creating lines of demarcation that will determine which members of God’s historical covenant people are actually continuing to participate in God’s covenant.  

Kingdom Of Peace (part 3 of 3)

Based on the scope of his analysis of what has been and is being wrought in and for the world through God’s faithful action, which will continue to be made manifest by His covenant people, we can surmise that the “grace in which we stand” is a way that Paul uses to refer to covenant standing.  This could be taken to refer to the gracious extension of the covenant to those previously excluded, which would fit nicely with what appears to be Paul’s identification of himself with Gentiles, but it can also just as easily be applicable to members of Israel, who are to be cognizant of the fact that, beginning with Abraham, they were also specially chosen by God through no effort or causation of their own (with this made explicit based on the words of God delivered to Israel through Moses).   

Regardless of applicability, the recognition of God’s grace rightly leads one to “rejoice in the hope of God’s glory” (5:2b).  This rejoicing in hope points us forward to the hope that is so profoundly expressed in the eighth chapter of Romans (which will fall outside of the scope of this study), while mention of God’s glory should call to mind the words of the third chapter and Paul’s insistence that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23).  We cannot overlook the importance of the “all” there, along with the continued use of “all,” as the statement is provided its context by the context of Gentile justification (gaining of covenant standing) through belief in Jesus. 

Jesus, having revealed the glory of God by being the first to rightly bear the divine image, not only reminds us of where and how we fall short of living up to what was intended by God for humanity, He also points the way and displays the means by which we too can be truly human and so reflect the glory of God into the world.  At the same time, as Paul draws conclusions from which he can build as he moves on to the next period of thoughtful reflection, these words from the beginning of chapter five draw on the fourth chapter, as Paul continues to root his talk of righteousness, peace, faith, and grace in Abrahamic sensibilities. 

It is Abraham’s loyalty to God that serves as the model, along with that of Jesus (which first mimics that of Abraham) of the believer’s loyalty to God, which we are able to demonstrate through loyalty to the words and ways of Jesus, as He has taken up His throne of all power and all authority.  More specific to Abraham and the fourth chapter, talk of “hope” and “God’s glory” remind us that Abraham believed with hope, against hope (4:18).  Can we not say that belief in a crucified and resurrected Lord, through which one enters into covenant with God, is also a hopeful belief against hope?  Abraham’s hope concerning the promise that had been spoken to him, which runs parallel with our belief in the Resurrection and the hope of resurrection in the same manner as that which was experienced by Jesus, redounds to God’s glory, just as was the case for Abraham, who “did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God” (4:20). 

While we can certainly imagine Abraham glorifying God, we can just as easily make the case that it was Abraham’s lack of wavering, continuing in belief, that gave glory to God.  Regardless of what he saw, regardless of his age, regardless of his wife’s age, and regardless of all those things that could militate against his trusting in the promises of God concerning descendants, Abraham believed.  How can we make this application in the here and now?  As we believe in the Resurrection, so believing in Jesus (standing in covenant with God in the process and so standing in the line of descendants of Abraham and being positioned to share in the blessings promised to him), we believe that He was the first of those to be raised from the dead.  We believe that this portends another Resurrection. 

Regardless of that which we see around us, as evil seems to make its way in the world without fetters or restraints (though this is patently false), we believe that the kingdom of God has come, that Jesus is ruling, and that we participate in that kingdom, in its peace, and in its life.  We stand by faith and “rejoice in the hope of God’s glory,” trusting that, working through His loyal servants, He is bringing and going to bring His kingdom to full consummation and restore His creation as was promised and for which was hoped and expected by the prophets of old (with Jesus and the earliest believers operating with the same hope), such that “we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope” (5:3-4).  By this, we are allowed to imitate our Lord, so learning how to represent Him in the world.         

Covenant Of Belief (part 3 of 3)

A moment of reflection causes us to consider that we would not be reaching in the least to suggest that there are multiple levels of thought upon which Paul is operating, with multiple layers of application being suggested as he continues to work out the implications of the Resurrection of Jesus.  Certainly, if we are to take the Resurrection seriously, recognizing it as the dynamic event that it so obviously is as it causes us to recognize said dynamism, having sent and continuing to send ripples into the world, we see that it meets and greets us at every turn of our daily lives, demanding a Resurrection-shaped response (the Resurrection reminding us of the life of Jesus) to even the most mundane situations we find presented to us. 

If a continual assessment of the implications of the Resurrection (and the whole of the Christ-event) is going on with what Paul is offering, as it incorporates concerns about the God that was manifest in the Christ and His own faithfulness as it relates to Abraham and the people of the covenant that both physically and metaphorically spring from his loins, then it would be foolhardy and a bit shortsighted if we did not also suggest and accept that his hearers were able to hear him at multiple levels and from multiple positions of acculturation, while assessing the multiple layers of implication that are on offer.  This can be taken as an indication, humbly suggested, that there can never, nor should there ever be a final word about what Paul thinks, means, believes, is attempting to accomplish, or desiring to see from this congregation.

Joining the family of God in Christ together, Paul goes on to write “He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed” (4:17b).  There’s that mark of covenant again.  Taking the time to identify an attribute of that God, and doing so as a reminder of the Resurrection, Paul adds “the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do” (4:17c).  Though Paul quickly moves to make this Abraham-specific, adding “Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, ‘so will your descendants be,’’ along with “Without being weak in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb” (4:18-19), thus providing a historical context to making the dead alive and summoning things that do not yet exist as they do, and in the process highlighting belief and faith, thoughts of Jesus and His Resurrection and the covenant family that will be culled from all nations surely lurk within the attribution that has this God summoning the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.  Indeed, a worldwide covenant family is almost immediately suggested to Abraham upon God’s first speaking to him, and this comes to fruition when that God makes the dead alive.      

Continuing to speak of Abraham in a way that could just as easily be contributed to Jesus and what He perceived as His vocation and His role as the Messiah through whom God would extend Himself and His covenant to all nations (if we want to consider the faithfulness of Jesus as significant in this whole issue of justification), Paul adds “He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God” (4:20).  If Jesus is also in mind, perhaps a consideration here of the human responsibility to rightly bearing the divine image, Paul’s understanding of the connection with doing so to the glory of God (as demonstrated in chapter three), and Paul’s opinion (voiced in the Colossian letter) that Jesus exactly bore the image of God, is appropriate?  Regardless, Paul goes on to say of Abraham that “He was fully convinced that what God promised He was also able to do” (4:21).  That said, with the words that follow, he breaks away from a dual application to Abraham and Jesus, and once again elevates belief as that which confers right standing in relation to the covenant (justification), completely independent and prior to circumcision, writing “So indeed it was credited to Abraham as righteousness” (4:22).  By faith, Abraham was enfolded into the covenant, in right standing with the Creator God.     

Covenant Of Belief (part 1 of 3)

Any approach to the fourth chapter of Romans begs to be dictated by the communal conception and remembrance of Abraham.  As it is, it is crucial to consider that the doing of good works, which is so often confused with the keeping of the law as a means of attaining salvation, is nowhere in sight.  It is not only not in sight in the sense of being the antithesis of the message of justification by faith, it is also nowhere in sight in terms of it being a recognizable category for Paul.  We cannot foist the dichotomy of faith versus works on to what Paul sees as the crucial issues of justification, which are the inclusion of Gentiles, the basis of their inclusion, the transformation of the recognized covenant markers because of the cross and the Resurrection, and the fulfillment and extension of God’s covenant through what took place in and with Jesus as the Messiah. 

With that said, we look to the thirteenth verse and Paul’s insistence that “the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith” (4:13).  When we hear this, and as we attempt to let the letter speak to us as a first century church gathered around the meal table to hear a letter from the Apostle, mental habits that have been constructed over extended periods of time must be resisted, with this best achieved by constant reminders concerning the terminology with which Paul operates.  We must resist the tendency to allow ourselves to mentally regress to thinking of “law” as “the doing of good works,” rather than properly thinking of “law” as shorthand for the covenant markers of Judaism (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and dietary laws---with circumcision often also functioning as shorthand for the three) that identified someone as being a covenant member, with the ongoing recognition of the value of these things lying in the fact that they are reminders of belief in the faithfulness of God in general and His faithfulness to His covenants with Israel in particular. 

Though it seems to require significant mental exertion, and though it certainly requires us to hold together different ideas, right understanding dictates a realization that the performance of these covenant markers did not cause one to be in covenant (saved, if you will), just as it was not the confession of Jesus as Lord that caused one to be in covenant.  The performance of the covenant markers (be it the Jewish covenant markers that served to isolate the people of God and wall off the covenant, or the confession of Jesus’ Lordship in the world and over one’s life), as was the case with Abraham and his circumcision, is the reminder of the belief in a faithful God. 

It may be the case that this understanding had become blurred, in that there was a conception, perhaps held by some Gentiles (though it may be the case for Jews as well), that it was the performance of the covenant markers themselves, rather than the belief that stood behind that performance, that actually produced and induced an individual’s justification.  This runs back to what was said in verse twelve, which was “he is also the father of the circumcised… who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised.”  Belief, whether under the old covenant markers or the new covenant marker, was and is the means of entry into the covenant. 

The point that Paul is making, which is that from which he builds while also being that to which he is heads, is that the presence of the Creator God in the Christ, with all that has attended that grand event, has generated a massive change, and that the new reminder of belief that creates covenant (justifies, saves), the declaration of which also appears to possess the power to generate belief on the part of those that hear the declaration, is the confession of the Lordship of Jesus, with this being inseparable from the realization that the kingdom of God has come upon earth (as announced by Jesus), that this kingdom was truly inaugurated at the Resurrection (introducing the renewal of creation into the world), and that it will be fully consummated at some point in the future (a course of events that was completely unexpected). 

Mark Of Righteousness (part 2 of 3)

With that, we reach the point of the Abraham narrative in which circumcision, as a covenant marker, is introduced.  As we listen to the words of God to come, we can think back through the Abraham story, and realize just how long it has been (both in terms of the text of Scripture and the passage of time) since God has first called Abraham to Himself and for Himself, to be His light to the nations (chapter 12).  In verse nine of the seventeenth chapter of Genesis we read “Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep the covenantal requirement I am imposing on you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.  This is My requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: Every male among you must be circumcised.  You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins.’” (17:9-11a) 

Well this pretty much clinches the argument for those that insist that circumcision must be undergone for entrance upon the covenant (for justification), so Gentile believers need to line-up to undergo the procedure as did Abraham.  Putting aside that Paul does speak of the circumcision of the heart (with a reminder that he is not the one that comes up with that idea – that would be the Hebrew prophets), we need to take into account the fact that this is the point at which circumcision is finally introduced to Abraham.  Are we to presume that Abraham, up until this point (actually, shortly thereafter, when the circumcision is performed) Abraham has, in fact, not been in covenant with God (not righteous, not justified, not in right standing, not “saved”)?  Of course not.  Such a proposition would be ludicrous.  We could not suggest such a thing for even a moment.

However, with what follows, this idea gains traction.  We read “Throughout your generations every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not one of your descendants.  They must indeed be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money… Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people---he has failed to carry out My requirement” (17:12-13a,14).  Clearly, this is difficult to square with Paul’s position.  The language has not changed.  We are still hearing about descendants.  This includes the “nations” of which we have heard so much.  It seems rather straightforward, and if we are listening to Paul with the story of Abraham in mind, as this story is crucial for the comprehension of the extension of God’s covenant and its associated justifying, then those that insist on circumcision as crucial for entrance upon the covenant must win the day. 

Is that what is being presented?  Well, in a word, no.  We are not looking at circumcision as that which allows Abraham, or anyone else for that matter, to be counted among those justified (those looked upon as being righteous).  For Abraham, the circumcision is the mark of God’s covenant.  It did not bring Abraham into covenant.  Naturally, at that time, there is no Jesus.  There has been no crucifixion.  More importantly, there has been no Resurrection.  That’s significant, because the Resurrection changed everything.  For Paul, it marked the beginning of the new creation.  For Paul, it is the Resurrection that allows for the circumcision of the heart.  It is the Resurrection (as the culmination and summation of the Christ-event) that marks the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham concerning the multitude of nations (that have filled the earth) that are his descendants. 

Conversely then, not only does the Resurrection begin the process of truly encompassing all nations under the covenant tent (thinking of Isaiah and the lengthening of stakes), but it is the Resurrection and its associated proclamation of Jesus as Lord that begins to create a people and a kingdom that subsumes distinct peoples and nations, creating a new nation of covenant people whose features, in imitation of Christ as the quintessential human being, supersedes all other heretofore recognized distinctions.  This is yet another reason that, for Paul, circumcision and its related covenant markers fall by the wayside.  Besides, if we, from our point of view on Paul, looking at the situation from a position thousands of years removed, entertain the necessity of circumcision because of what is to be found in Genesis seventeen, then we must jettison Paul and deny the influence of God’s Spirit upon him as he took the message of the Gospel into the Gentile world.  We are probably not going to be willing to do such a thing, though there were many in his day that were happy to do precisely that. 

At the same time, the astute reader would have noticed that, in the recounting of the selected passage from Genesis seventeen that has to do with circumcision and its requirement, some statements were omitted.  Those statements were “This will be a reminder of the covenant between Me and you” (17:11b) and “The sign of My covenant will be visible in your flesh as a permanent reminder” (17:13b).  The mark of the covenant was to be a reminder of the covenant standing.  It did not provide the standing.  What provided the covenant standing (righteousness, justification, salvation) was belief.  True for Abraham, true for all.  Circumcision did not convey righteousness (justification, covenant inclusion) upon Abraham.  Similarly, simply uttering the words “Jesus is Lord” (if there has been no circumcision of the heart, and putting aside any plucking of out of context proof-texts from a letter to Corinth), if there is no belief in the God that is at work in Jesus, does not convey righteousness (covenant standing, justification, salvation).  However, considering that, historically, saying “Jesus is Lord” did and does not exactly earn one any special favors or privileges, with this being ever so true in Paul’s day, Paul would find it hard to believe that anyone would say “Jesus is Lord” without it being a core belief.  For this reason then, the words, as they belie a believing response of faith and loyalty, serve as the covenant marker, standing in for circumcision and all that eventually accompanied that particular rite.        

Mark Of Righteousness (part 1 of 3)

Without necessarily using the word that is reported to have been spoken to Adam and Noah, God promises Abraham that he will be made “fruitful”.  To that promise of fruitfulness is added “I will make nations of you, and kings will descend from you” (17:6b).  Thus, in Abraham and through the family that will spring from him, the earth will be filled, as Abraham, and God working through Abraham and his descendants, serves to fulfill that to which the original human pair had been purposed, and the divine image is rightly borne throughout all of God’s creation. 

In the seventh verse of Genesis seventeen, the Creator God of Israel takes up the language that is determinative of righteousness, justification, and right standing, saying “I will confirm My covenant as a perpetual covenant between Me and you.  It will extend to your descendants after you throughout their generations” (17:7a).  These descendants, as we would know if we are familiar with the Abraham story, are composed of “nations.”  This is more than one nation.  This is many nations.  As it echoes and intends to fulfill the Adam and Noah stories, and as it reverses what took place at Babel, this promise concerning the covenant extends to the whole of the earth and all of its peoples.  As circumcision is not yet on the table, though it will be in short order, it would be extraordinarily difficult for the honest and forthright teller of the Abraham story, or physical descendant of Abraham, or one who has adopted the mark of circumcision so as to join the family of Abraham and so position themselves to experience the blessings of the covenant of the Creator God, to insist that this covenant and its promises are ultimately limited to one people bearing one mark, that being Israel. 

Further speech continues to reveal the heart of God, and we can imagine the Apostle Paul, in his use of the Abraham narrative, embracing the words of Genesis as vital to his mission and his Gospel, as we hear “I will be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (17:7b).  Again, these descendants, whom God counts as His own, and from whom God expects recognition, are composed of a multitude of nations.  There is to be no limitation here.  On what basis might these people groups engage in a relationship with the God of Abraham?  Naturally, it will be through believing the Lord, trusting in the terms and ends of His covenant, and so responding in faith so as to prove genuine loyalty to that God and His purposes for His image-bearers and for the whole of His creation. 

Is this not what is proposed in the New Testament?  Is there not a demand to believe in the Gospel (Jesus as Messiah/King) as that which brings righteousness (justification-covenant inclusion)?  It is loyalty to Jesus’ claims about Himself, and the claims made about Him by His followers, that He was and is the Messiah/King of Israel and therefore worshiped as God-manifest, that the New Testament demands.  This response of faith puts those that believe in Jesus in the same category as Abraham, with God creating His covenant with Abraham (Abraham entering into a covenant relationship with the Creator God) based on a response of faith.  It would be much later that Abraham bears any mark of this covenant, which will be circumcision.  Until that time comes, Abraham’s belief in God, and in His power to bring His promises to pass, more than suffices. 

Consequently, it seems worthwhile to make mention of the fact for those that believe in Jesus, the ongoing mark of the loyal response to Jesus will be the verbal and non-verbal confession that “Jesus is Lord,” with a life of love, mercy, and compassion in imitation of that Lord following the confession.  For those that would insist that circumcision is necessary to be in covenant, Paul will grip on to the words of the prophets and looks upon the continued confession of Jesus, in both word and deed, as the circumcision of the heart. 

Having made it clear that God intends for the nations that fill the earth to be the beneficiaries of His promise and to be encompassed by His covenant, He adds: “I will give the whole land of Canaan---the land where you are now residing---to you and your descendants after you as a permanent possession.  I will be their God” (17:8).  Now how does this fit with the world-encompassing scope of the covenant and its promises?  This seems like a draw-down of substantial proportions.  God has been talking about descendants and nations, with this provided its context by the filling of the earth with His glory (His divine image bearers inhabiting the creation in such a way that they reflect the glory of God in all creation), but now seems to limit the scope of the promise and Abraham’s descendants to one piece of land and one group of people that will come to inhabit that one piece of land. 

Without being dogmatic (though we can certainly offer propositions in the utmost of confidence), it could be reasonably suggested that Canaan, because of the obvious connection between Abraham’s and Adam’s stories, is something of a new Eden.  As Eden was for the entire human family, given the context of descendants and nations and kings that will flourish from Abraham, so too would be Canaan.  It seems that Paul, in his conception of the covenant and the results of the Christ-event, most certainly enlarges Canaan.  Through the lenses offered by the crucified and risen Christ, magnified by the words of the prophets of old, Paul comes to see Canaan (the promised land) as a microcosm of what God intends to do for His entire creation, celebrating that promise in the eighth chapter of Romans.    

Abraham's Family (part 3 of 3)

The sovereign God continues speaking, saying “As for Me, this is My covenant with you” (17:4a).  He does not follow this with “you will be circumcised, observe Sabbaths, and maintain these dietary restrictions.”  Rather, He says “You will be the father of a multitude of nations” (17:4b).  This covenant into which one enters, and therefore enters into a covenantal relationship with the Creator God, and does so in the manner of Abraham (belief), involves a “multitude of nations.”  This is God’s intention from the outset.  God speaks about a multitude of nations, then says words that should be taken to make reference to a multitude of nations rather than a single nation.  Of course, if we are paying close attention to the telling of this story, and if the story is being told as it is supposed to be told (in a single setting, spoken aloud to a group of people that form an oral/aural community), then it has not been too long since the telling of the scattering of the peoples across the face of the entire earth (11:9), which is what, if we remove the genealogy of Shem and the record of Terah, is what immediately precedes the call of Abraham.  One could reach the conclusion that the call of Abraham partially occurs so as to remedy the scattering of peoples across the face of the earth, and that this provides greater import to talk of the blessings and promises made to Abraham reaching a “multitude of nations.”

Because of what we are attempting to observe with Paul in Romans, specifically in chapter four, which demands a thorough working knowledge of the Abraham story, we must notice the progression of the promise.  It begins with Abraham being made into a great nation (12:2), and this includes the promise that “all of the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:3b).  Though this clearly, at the outset, removes the promise from any type of isolation to Abraham alone, it can also be easily construed as a promise in which the families of the earth become subservient to Abraham. 

In the fifteenth chapter, there is talk of Abraham’s descendants as a specific group of people that will be oppressed and enslaved by a specific nation that will receive specific judgment, with this specific group of formerly oppressed and enslaved descendants coming out from that situation and receiving a specific piece of land as proof of God’s faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham. 

On to chapter seventeen, the re-confirmation of the covenant and its recurring talk of multitudinous descendants now includes talk of a “multitude of nations.”  With this talk of Abraham now being the father of a multitude of nations, any notion that the blessings to be experienced by the families of the earth will stem from their subservience to Abraham’s descendants, who may be looked upon as a family separated from and set against other groups of people, falls away.  Not only will Abraham be made into a great nation, but he will be a father of nations, which means that, as the head of the household of nations, all nations will share equally in the blessings.  All nations will participate equally in the covenant and its promises.  At this point, all of this is still predicated on Abraham’s belief, his response of faith, and the genuine loyalty entailed thereby. 

Just in case the reader or the listener missed it the first time that talk of nations is directed to Abraham, to the words of verse four is added “No longer will your name be Abram.  Instead, your name will be Abraham because I will make you the father of a multitude of nations” (17:5).  Also, just in case one is tempted to think that “multitude of nations” includes only a portion of the nations of the world rather than implying that God intends to extend His covenant to all the nations and peoples of the world via the descendant(s) of Abraham, the sixth verse disabuses us of any such notion, as we read “I will make you extremely fruitful” (17:6a).  This is an unmistakable reference to God’s words to the first of humankind, which were “Be fruitful and multiply” (1:28b).  Of course, these words are also spoken to Noah in the ninth chapter, following the flood, where we hear “Be fruitful and multiply” (9:1b).  This directive is attended by “fill the earth,” which could certainly be appended to the words spoken to Abraham, with the nations now standing in for the filling of the earth. 

God speaks to the first family (Adam and Eve, though it is not explicit in the text) following the creation and says “Be fruitful and multiply.”  God speaks to the second family (Noah and his sons) following what could be termed the second creation and says “Be fruitful and multiply.”  God speaks to the third family (Abraham and his descendants) at something like a third creation and says, essentially, “Be fruitful and multiply.”  This, of course, is basically what Jesus says to His disciples following His Resurrection that marked the renewal of creation and the beginning of the new creation (at the time of the letter to the Romans there would be no Gospel of Matthew and no written version of “the great commission,” so this would fall under the heading, at that point, of “oral Jesus tradition”).  This is the charge that is taken up by Paul, who will incorporate talk of creation and new creation in his letters, with this understanding concerning nations and multiplication essential to his comprehension of the Gospel and its presentation in the letter to the congregation in Rome.     

Abraham's Family (part 2 of 3)

After Abraham’s response of faith, which proved his genuine loyalty, God continues to speak to Abraham, saying “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess” (15:7b).  Having responded in faith, Abraham has accepted that this can be made to happen, even if his situation and circumstances seemed to militate against the possibility; but he does ask “O Sovereign Lord, by what can I know that I am to possess it?” (15:8)  The Lord responded with directions concerning some animals, which would lead to a covenant ritual.  As it relates to what Paul is attempting to prove in Romans four, given the opportunity to here enshrine circumcision as the proof of God’s covenant promise to Abraham, the proof comes in the form of yet one more thing for which Abraham will have to trust is going to come about under the ultimate control of this sovereign God. 

Strangely, Abraham is told “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country.  They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.  But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve.  Afterward they will come out with many possessions.  But as for you, you will go to your ancestors in peace a be buried at a good old age.  In the fourth generation your descendants will return here” (15:13b-16b).  The eighteenth verse stresses what it is that God is doing, as we read “That day the Lord made a covenant with Abram: ‘To your descendants I give this land” (15:18a).  So here we have explicit language of covenant, and a specific promise related to Abraham’s descendants, with this following Abraham’s belief, which has induced the continued communication between God and Abraham, and there is still no circumcision (or any other visible or physical covenant marker besides loyalty).  Though he does not offer any outward signs, can it be doubted that Abraham is operating under the auspices of God’s covenant with him?  Of course not.

At least thirteen years later, as we press forward to chapter seventeen to hear God again speaking to Abraham, we hear Him say “I am the sovereign God.  Walk before Me and be blameless.  Then I will confirm My covenant between Me and you, and I will give you a multitude of descendants” (17:1b-2).  We bear usefully in mind that it has been quite some time since Abraham has heard “a son who comes from your own body will be your heir” (15:4b).  In the meantime, and according to his belief in God and his response of faith, Abraham has produced an heir, from his own body, with that heir being his son, Ishmael.  In fact, those hearing the story would also have heard God speaking to Ishmael’s mother and saying to her (using language that is heavy with Abrahamic covenant implications ) “I will greatly multiply your descendants… so that they will be too numerous to count” (16:10). 

This sounds quite similar to the words that have been spoken to Abraham in regards to his descendants.  Assuredly, these words of promise, though offered to Hagar, would not go unheard by Abraham, and would be evidence, to him, of the faithfulness of his God.  We simply cannot imagine Hagar keeping this experience from him.  As one of Abraham’s wives, and as one who, as a servant in his household prior to gaining status as a wife, would have learned about the God that is said to have revealed Himself to Abraham, we can only imagine her excitedly sharing the good news with her husband, as it would have been received as yet another confirmation of the words of promise that had been previously directed only to Abraham himself.  Hagar would not have heard them as an independent promise to her.  She would have heard them in the context of the promise to Abraham, especially since she had been taken as his wife specifically in relation to Abraham’s belief in God that he would have countless descendants.  For Abraham, Hagar and the son to be born through Hagar were integral components of the fulfillment of promise.    

When Abraham hears God speaking again in the words that open the seventeenth chapter, and when those that hear the story of Abraham again here the voice of God, what is heard is renewed talk of a multitude of descendants that follows hard upon nearly identical words spoken to Hagar.  Surely this of interest to someone like Paul, who has as his mission to throw wide the gate of entry into the fold of the covenant people of God, firmly believing that, in Christ, this covenant encompasses all peoples (and hence all creation as the land of promise), not being limited to the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac or to those that take up covenant markers that the Abraham story clearly reveals to be of a secondary concern.  To this point in the Abraham story, it has been well demonstrated that belief in God is the primary concern and the basis for a covenantal relationship.

Abraham's Family (part 1 of 3)

If one is going to attempt to examine Paul’s use, in Romans, of the Abraham story, then one must do so in relation to God’s covenant with Abraham and covenant speeches made to him.  This must be done so that, as would be the case for the Jewish part of Paul’s hearers in Rome (because it partially defined them), and also the Gentile portion of Paul’s hearers (because they were being grafted into the family of Abraham and so defining themselves and their purpose in the world accordingly), the story of Abraham is fresh in our minds and we are able to hear Paul within the appropriate Abrahamic context.  We cannot fail to take into account how crucial the Abraham story was to the way in which the Jews would have understood themselves and the way in which they related to the world.

All of the covenant speeches to Abraham are conditioned by God’s original and familiar covenant speech that is on offer in Genesis twelve.  There, the Creator God promises Abraham (then Abram) that he will be blessed and be a blessing.  Likewise, every covenant speech, with its covenant promises and obligations, must be recognized to be conditioned by God’s covenant speeches to both Adam and Noah, as those speeches convey God’s original intentions for His creation and His divine-image bearers, with those intentions being implied in the words to Abraham as they are heard within the narrative that begins with Genesis one. 

The second time God speaks to Abraham is recorded in Genesis thirteen.  There, the Creator God says to Abraham, “Look from the place where you stand to the north, south, east, and west.  I will give all the land that you see to you and your descendants forever.  And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone is able to count the dust of the earth, then your descendants also can be counted.  Get up and walk throughout the land, for I will give it to you” (13:14b-17).  Israel treasured this promise.  In times of exodus and exile, of displacement and restoration (which occur regularly throughout Israel’s history, both in and outside of their promised land), it echoes through their history and it is clung to in hopefulness and as a sign of God’s covenant faithfulness.

In the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, “the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision” (15:1a).  With that vision, the voice of God is heard saying “Fear not, Abram!  I am your shield and the one who will reward you in great abundance” (15:1b).  Abraham, who well understands the previous promises in regards to descendants and what is implied by abundance, while remaining childless (in his day, there could be no abundance without children), responds to the Lord with “O sovereign Lord, what will You give me since I continue to be childless, and my heir is Eliezer of Damascus?...  Since you have not given me a descendant,” as promised, “then look, one born in my house will be my heir!” (15:2)  Interestingly, Abraham, unlike his descendants of Jesus’ and Paul’s day, understood that physical descent was not of the utmost importance.  Abraham well knew that, according to the custom of his own day (and that of subsequent eras), that being a member of a man’s household, if adopted as his son with full rights of sonship, made the adopted one equal to a born son.  Surely Paul has this in mind as he speaks of Gentiles joining the house of God that began with Abraham. 

However, “the word of the Lord came to him, ‘This man will not be your heir, but instead a son who comes from your own body will be your heir” (15:4).  Though an heir through adoption would have been perfectly legitimate, God has chosen to go the route of natural sonship, with the added benefit that, because of the advanced age of both he and his wife, trusting in this promise will be difficult for Abraham, while it also proves up the power of this covenant-making God.  Reiterating His previous words of promise and adding another metaphor of immeasurability, “the Lord took him outside and said, ‘Gaze into the sky and count the stars---if you are able to count them!’  Then He said, ‘So will your descendants be” (15:5).  To this the author of Genesis adds, quite happily for the man who has been given the responsibility of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles (that being Paul), “Abram believed the Lord, and the Lord considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty” (15:6). 

Because the Gospel of Jesus demands a response of loyalty to the proclaimed King, just as the gospel of Caesar demanded a response of loyalty to the proclaimed king, Abraham’s response to the assertion of God’s power and faithfulness, which was belief, is directly analogous to the situation of Gentiles.  Luckily for Paul, he does not need to proof-text, as the story of Abraham is ingrained and well-rehearsed.  Those who may oppose his works-of-the-law-free justification message (no need to adopt Israel’s covenant markers in order to be grafted into the covenant people of the Creator God of Israel) are going to have difficulty responding to this all-important point of Abraham’s story.  For all practical purposes, Abraham is ensconced in the language and state of justification (righteousness), with circumcision nowhere in sight (still two chapters and at least thirteen years away), and Sabbath-keeping and dietary laws (according to Israel’s narrative) hundreds of years away.     

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 6 of 6)

So as has been said, this quarreling over wells that went on between the herdsmen of Gerar and Isaac’s herdsmen are a reminder of a quarrel that took place in the life of Abraham.  In the thirteenth chapter of Genesis, we read that “Lot, who was traveling with Abram, also had flocks, herds, and tents” (13:5).  Lot could be said to be “riding the coattails of Abraham’s blessings.  However, this created a problem, in that “the land could not support them while they were living side by side.  Because their possessions were so great, they were not able to live alongside one another” (13:6).  As a result, “there were quarrels between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s herdsmen” (13:7a).  Isaac’s solution, as we saw, was to continue his movements until there was no reason for quarreling; and if there was strife over wells and water, then it is likely that this was one of the sources of the strife between the servants of Abram and Lot as well. 

Isaac’s solution was certainly predicated on that which had been taken up by his father.  “Abram said to Lot, ‘Let there be no quarreling between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are close relatives.  Is not the whole land before you?  Separate yourself now from me.  If you go to the left, then I’ll go to the right, but if you go to the right, then I’ll go to the left’” (13:8-9).  So the decision is made, lands are chosen, and “the relatives separated from each other” (13:11b); and as we have previously noted, Isaac marks his movement of separation by saying, “For now the Lord has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land” (26:22b). 

From there, the Scriptural record has Isaac moving again, this time to Beer Sheba.  While there, “The Lord appeared to him… and said, ‘I am the God of your father Abraham.  Do not be afraid, for I am with you, I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of My servant Abraham” (26:24).  We note that Beer Sheba is also mentioned in connection with Abraham, as one of the places where he had settled.  Just before we learn that little fact, we have a record of God speaking to Abraham and saying, “I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore.  Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies.  Because you have obeyed Me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants” (22:17-18).  For sake of a chronological reminder, this word from the Lord comes in the wake of the near sacrifice of Isaac. 

Returning to the separation of Abram and Lot, we have the Lord speaking to Abram and saying, “Look from the place where you stand to the north, south, east, and west.  I will give all the land that you see to you and your descendants forever.  And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone is able to count the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be counted.  Get up and walk throughout the land, for I will give it to you” (13:14b-17).  As for Abraham, so for Isaac, in that the words that he heard from the Lord, following his time of quarreling and separation (like that experienced by Abram), are a communication of the Lord’s covenant to him.  Isaac, quite rightly, reacts to this second hearing of the divine covenant, and does so in a way that reflects the knowledge of the covenant God that has been passed on to him by his father.  We read, that “Isaac built an altar there and worshiped the Lord.  He pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well” (26:25).  The one that was now the bearer of the covenant and the representative of God in the world, built an altar and pitched a tent.  This is also the pattern that would be followed by Israel after exodus-ing Egypt. 

The nation that bore the divine covenant to represent God in the world and to be a blessing, pitched a tent (the tabernacle).  This tent would contain both an altar, as well as the ark that represented the covenant God.  It could be said that this took place following a quarrel with the Egyptians.  Though the relationship between the Egyptians and the Israelites started off well, with Joseph, Jacob and his brothers receiving honor and welcome in the land of Egypt, it deteriorated with the growth in the numbers and power (and presumably wealth) of the growing nation of Israel in Egypt, much like as happened with Abraham (in Egypt and the land of the Philistines) and Isaac (in the land of the Philistines).  In that case, the quarreling did not result in the stopping of wells, but rather, took an entirely different form, in that the Egyptians “put foremen over the Israelites to oppress them with hard labor… But the more the Egyptians oppressed them, the more they multiplied and spread.  As a result the Egyptians loathed the Israelites, and they made the Israelites serve rigorously” (Exodus 1:11a,12-13). 

Eventually a separation would come.  The separation that came, which resulted in the construction of a tent, as well as an altar (along with detailed instructions as to how to go about utilizing that altar in proper worship), followed the pattern of Isaac, which, not unexpectedly, followed the pattern of Abraham.  Yes, when Abram and Lot went their separate ways, and when Abram was reminded of the covenant promise that had already been given to him (as Isaac would be reminded, and as Israel would be reminded), “Abram moved his tents and went to live by the oaks of Mamre in Hebron, and he built an altar to the Lord there” (13:18).  It seems that wherever we find mention being made of covenant, it is connection with some type of exodus movement, and we find the covenant bearers connected to a tent.  Truly, this God of exodus is a God of tents.