Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 3)

With this examination of Abraham and Isaac, let’s not use this as a reason to get too down on them.  They were, after all, human.  They were not demi-gods, though for some reason we tend to think of them in that way.  No, they were simply two of those that God chose so as to make manifest His will and to carry forward His purposes of human and cosmic redemption.  They were also men of faith.  In what was important in God’s eyes, which was trusting Him in going out to the lands and places that God had for them, they seemed to have attained.  The bottom line was that they trusted in the God of exodus, who would lead them to the places and the situations in which He could best demonstrate, through them and their blessed lives, His covenant faithfulness.  He could do this in spite of their shortcomings. 

Returning to the story of Isaac, we find that “After Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines happened to look out a window and observed Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah” (Genesis 26:8).  It seems that Isaac had gotten a little careless, perhaps forgetful of their ruse in that moment.  Abimelech was distressed at this situation, and with what appears to possibly be a knowledge of what happened to Pharaoh’s house when Abraham’s wife was taken in to his harem, said “What in the world have you done to us?  One of the men might easily have had an sexual relations with your wife, and you would have brought guilt on us!” (26:10b)  Here again we see a sense of honor, which is further demonstrated by Abimelech’s subsequent command that “Whoever touches this man or his wife will surely be put to death” (26:11b).  So contrary to Isaac’s “fear” that he would be killed so that the men of the land could get to Rebekah, we see the opposite established, in that anybody that so much as lifted a finger in the direction of Isaac and Rebekah would invite death upon themselves. 

There is an element here that causes use to hearken back to an earlier event in the life of Isaac, which was his near-sacrifice at the hands of his father.  In that event, Abraham expected to have to slaughter his son.  However, he had a promise that he would have countless descendants through that son.  The fact that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son in the face of that promise, along with his words to his servants that both he and the boy would return from the mountain of sacrifice, is an indication that Abraham expected his covenant God to raise his son up from the dead.  Abraham’s faith was vindicated.  As the author of Hebrews would come to write, Abraham “reasoned that God could even raise him from the dead, and in a sense he received him back from there” (11:19).  This event was looked upon in the history of Israel as something like a movement from death to resurrection.  It was conceived of as an instance of suffering to vindication.  This means that we can view it as a movement from exile to exodus. 

So likewise, Isaac’s fear of being killed by the Philistines (regardless of whether it was true fear or a strategic ploy by which to gain wealth), coupled with his “rescue” from death by Abimelech, can be viewed according to the same pattern, as it points not primarily to the actions of Isaac, but to the exodus-ing, vindicating God of Scripture.  With such thoughts in place, the same can then be said of Abraham, in that there is a recurring theme of death to resurrection (suffering to vindication, exile to exodus) in relation to the situations with he and his wife.  For Abraham, both of those situations resulted in his being tremendously blessed with material wealth by the very men that he had defrauded.  As we have said, it is possible that Isaac was hoping for the same outcome.  However, it did not happen in this way for Isaac.  Nobody took his wife from him, so he received no bride price (as did Abraham in Egypt).  Nobody took his wife from him, so he did not receive payments for his and his wife’s vindication (as did Abraham with Abimelech).  However, we do go on to find out that “When Isaac planted in that land, he reaped in the same year a hundred times what he had sown, because the Lord blessed him.  The man became wealthy.  His influence continued to grow until he became very prominent” (26:12-13).               

Solomon's Early Struggles (part 2 of 2)

Effectively, Abishag becomes one of David’s concubines, and this is the woman that is being requested by Adonijah.  Bathsheba sees no harm in this, so she passes the request on to her son.  Solomon, somewhat surprisingly, responds by saying “Why just request Abishag the Shunamite for him?  Since he is my older brother, you should also request the kingdom for him” (2:22a).  Solomon goes on to say, “May God judge me severely, if Adonijah does not pay for this request with his life!  Now as certainly as the Lord lives… Adonijah will be executed today!” (2:24a,c)  This can be looked at in at least two ways.  The first way is to see it as Adonijah’s attempt to again partially emulate Absalom (who had sex with ten of his father’s concubines as part of his securing himself as king and reminding the people of his father’s shameful act and the prophecy of Nathan that Absalom fulfilled by this act), as part of his ongoing schemes to gain the throne.  Such thinking is supported by Adonijah’s prefacing his request with “You know that the kingdom was mine and all Israel considered me king.  But then the kingdom was given to my brother, for the Lord decided it should be his” (2:15).  Taking Abishag for himself could possibly give the appearance of Davidic sanction of kingship for Adonijah. 

On the other hand, this can be looked at as a bit of a black mark on Solomon’s early reign, with him following in the not-so-glorious footsteps of his father, and not initially trusting in the faithful and exodus-providing (rescue and deliverance from enemies, both real and potential) God, by seizing upon a relatively harmless request (the request for a beautiful, young virgin that was part of David’s royal harem) as the grounds to carry out a politically calculated execution that would remove a potential challenger to the throne and serve as a warning to the rest of David’s sons that any uprising would not be tolerated, and would be punished severely. 

For good measure, Solomon takes the additional steps of removing Abiathar as priest, while also having Joab executed.  This is another overtly political calculation, as both had supported Adonijah, and because Joab commanded the allegiance of the army.  In his dealings with Joab, Solomon is merely carrying out the dying wishes of his father, who justifies the need to execute Joab by recounting that “he murdered two commanders of the Israelite armies” (2:5b).  David told Solomon that Joab, during peacetime, “struck them down like he would in battle; when he shed their blood as if in battle,” and that by this, “he stained his own belt and the sandals on his feet” (2:5c).  Owing to this, therefore, Solomon is instructed to “Do to him what you think is appropriate, but don’t let him live long and die a peaceful death” (2:6).  How terribly ironic these words must be seen to be as they come from David, who had used Joab as his instrument to murder Uriah, and had used the Gibeonites, during a time of peace and under the pretext of a famine, to murder seven sons and grandsons of Saul.  Solomon is commencing his exodus (entrance into God’s purposes for him) by delivering exile to those that could be perceived as able to thwart those purposes.  He is eliminating potentially subjugating powers.        

Now, we do not want to be too down on Solomon, just as we do not want to be too down on David.  Both were men prone to corruption and failures, as evidenced by the Biblical record that is unflinching and unswerving in its criticism of those that find themselves deserving of such.  We can however, lay bare the lives of both, but the faithful God of Israel is not diminished in the least.  With our first look into the life of Solomon, we find him following what would seem to be the less-than-noble path that had been previously traveled by his father.  Any examination of Solomon would, of necessity, include an examination of the idolatrous, exile generating practices into which he would fall.  However, what we will also find is that Israel’s God, viewed through the life of Solomon, continues to stand undiminished.  To quote the Apostle Paul, albeit slightly out of context as we consider the lives of men that God raised up and anointed, but who often failed and fell, we say “What then?  If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?  Absolutely not!” (Romans 3:3-4a)  God’s redemptive plan, of rescue and deliverance for His image-bearers and His creation, will continue its inexorable and indefatigable march towards its consummating eschatological climax! 

So quickly looking again at Solomon, so as to “rescue” him from consignment to the realm of politically calculating tyrants, we can revisit our analysis of what Solomon had actually undertaken in the executions that he had ordered near the commencement of his reign.  We decided that Solomon began his journey on to the exodus path of God’s purposes for him, and for Israel through his leadership, by bringing about a state of exile (death) for those that might be able to thwart the purposes that had been determined by God; and that he took it upon himself to eliminate those that were potential rivals to his power that could either subjugate him, or alternately, lead God’s people down a path not purposed by the Lord, which could then lead to their subjugation.  Solomon’s “rescue” is accomplished by our acknowledging that in this area, Solomon becomes something of a mimicking forerunner of Jesus.  No, Jesus did not put his political opponents to death, but rather, dealt with the power that stood behind any and all opposition to His purposes (and the purposes of God---recognizing that Jesus, as Messiah, was the embodiment of the Creator God).  That power to which Jesus delivered exile, to which He stood up to eliminate, to which He would not be subject, to which He would ultimately not allow God’s people to be subject, was death itself.