Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 1)

Some of the Biblical details of the life of Isaac, as is well known, present themselves as a repetition of events that are also to be found as part of the life of Abraham.  As we consider this in the overwhelming light of the repetitive hermeneutical framework of the Scriptures, not only should we find this fact to be unsurprising, but it should re-confirm that the Bible, though this may sound redundant, can and should be understood as a revelation of God inside of and according to a repetitive hermeneutical framework.  Remembering this will aid us in that which is most important, which is the task of coming to an understanding of what is meant by the words of Jesus, along with His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, inside the understanding of Israel and its role in the world as presented by the Hebrew Scriptures that are shaped by the story of the exodus. 

We should be able to understand Jesus, and therefore able to understand those who told us about Jesus (Gospel writers), as well as those that presented the early church’s understanding of Jesus (authors of New Testament letters), because of what we know about God based on this obvious repetitive theme.  If Israel’s God is the God of exodus, and if the notion of exile is always bound up with exodus, and if this God presents Himself as a God of movement in accordance with His over-arching plans for exodus, then operating within this hermeneutic will shed a fair amount of illumination upon the God-revealing Scriptures, allowing us to avoid pointlessly spiritualized, unnecessarily existential, unfortunately de-contextualized, and often catastrophic mis-readings. 

Returning to Isaac, the first stories of him that are independent from Abraham have him experiencing a famine and considering a trek to Egypt.  This is familiar.  However, the Lord intervenes and says to Isaac: “Do not go down to Egypt” (Genesis 26:2b).  Thus, it is almost as if Abraham’s venture to Egypt is repeated in Isaac’s life.  That’s an odd things to say.  However, what we can see is that rather than Isaac actually going to Egypt, and then being sent out of Egypt as was Abraham, the inclination to Egypt, and God’s call to retrieve Isaac from such thinking, serve in place of an actual journey.  Even in this we find an exile and exodus construction.  The command that is then given to Isaac is to “settle down in the land that I will point out to you” (26:2c).  This is immediately followed by “Stay in this land” (26:3a).  Now, this is not to say that Isaac was to stay where he was, but that Isaac was to “stay in this land” that was going to be pointed out to him by the Lord.  It appears to be the case that the words of the first verse are explained by the subsequent verses, in that we have a record that “Isaac when to Abimelech king of the Philistines at Gerar” (26:1b) because of the famine in the land.  It was before going to Gerar that Isaac considered going to Egypt to escape the famine, as his father had done.  It is during this consideration that God speaks to Isaac, promising direction, which the result that “Isaac settled in Gerar” (26:6b). 

Before Isaac made his move to settle in Gerar, he receives the promise that had first been delivered to Abraham.  After directing Isaac to trust Him, the Lord speaks and says, “Then I will be with you and will bless you, for I will give all these lands to you and to your descendants, and I will fulfill the solemn promise I made to your father Abraham.  I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them all these lands.  All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants” (26:3b-4).  What we see in this is a collapsing of all of the various promises made to Abraham into one single iteration from the Lord.  We should not be surprised to find that the first instance of God’s speaking directly to Isaac so as to extend the Abrahamic covenant to him and through him, occurs in conjunction with a command to move and a demand for trust.  God first spoke and made promises to Abraham (Abram) by directing him to “go out from” the place that he was dwelling at the time (Haran, having already left Ur with his father), and evoking a need for Abram to trust Him with “to a land that I will show you” (12:1).  So also the record of Isaac’s initial personal dealing with the same God, with the Lord effectively instructing him to go out (“do not go down to Egypt; settle down in…”, while positing a need for trust with the statement in regards to “the land that I will point out to you.” 

Movement (part 3 of 3)

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

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

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

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

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

Movement (part 2 of 3)

Continuing our observation of the “movement” of Scripture, Abram is not long in the land before there is a famine.  In response, he moves south to Egypt (Genesis 12:10).  Later, he is expelled from Egypt due to deceptive acts perpetrated by he and his wife (12:20) but not before receiving “sheep and cattle, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys and camels” (12:16b).  Owing to that, and with these possessions, Abram left Egypt and “returned to the place where he had pitched his tent at the beginning… This was the place where he had first built the altar, and there Abram worshiped the Lord” (13:3b,4).  Once again, we see a foreshadowing of the great movement of the people of God, in an exit from Egypt, an altar, the worship of the Lord, and mention of a tent. 

Shortly thereafter, we hear God saying to Abram, “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” (13:14b-16).  Not only is Abram directed to look, but God adds to this by saying “Get up and walk throughout the land, for I will give it to you” (13:17).  Yet again, just as we have seen when Noah and his family make their departure from the ark, God demands movement.  There is a more than a superficial correlation between God’s command to Noah to fill the earth, and God’s command to Abram to get up and walk throughout the land.  In both cases, there is a promise from God connected to movement.  As a result, “Abram moved his tents and went… and he built an altar to the Lord…” (13:18)  Additionally, let us not discount the importance that can be attached to “looking.”  Moses, though he is not denied the opportunity to move with the people of God into the land, is given the opportunity to look upon the land, thus enabling us to make an appropriate connection between the two men that can be thought of as bearing God’s covenant. 

When the Lord comes to Abram in a vision and gives him a promise of an heir and descendants, and the reiteration of a promise of a land to possess.  These promises are accompanied by a reminder of his being taken out of Ur of the Chaldeans (15:7), a promise that those descendants will go into subjection to a foreign nation in a foreign country (15:13), and a promise that when they come out of that foreign land that they will do so with many possessions (15:14).  This, of course, is what was supposed to have sustained Israel during their time in Egypt, as well as the evidence (many possessions---plundering the Egyptians, and thus providing an even further revelation of the tremendous symmetry of Scripture---both Abram and Israel would go down into Egypt and leave Egypt with more than they possessed when going in) that would have been purposed to increase their trust in the covenant faithfulness of their God, that He would bring them into the land that had been promised to Abram.  We note with interest that when God speaks to Abram, he reminds Abram of his own exodus, just as when God speaks to His prophets or speaks to His people through His prophets, He is almost always very quick to remind them of their exodus.  For Abram, the exodus is linked to Ur, and for Israel it is linked to Egypt.  When God speaks, He is quite often reminding His chosen ones that He is the God of exodus---the God of rescue. 

We will find Abraham (now with name changed) journeying again, settling “between Kadesh and Shur” (20:1b).  It is said that “he lived as a temporary resident in Gerar” (20:1c), which can be taken to imply that Abraham pitched his tent in that place.  It is here that Abraham will have his dealings with Abimelech, in which he again engages in deceptive acts regarding the nature of the relationship between he and his wife.  This time however, Abraham is not expelled from the land, but is told “Look, my land is before you; live wherever you please” (20:15).  It appears to be the case that it is in this place that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, gives birth to Isaac, for we later learn that “Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for quite some time” (21:34). 

The next time we find Abraham moving, it is in connection with this son that was born to him according to God’s promise, when God says to Abraham to “Take your son---your only son, whom you love, Isaac---and go to the land of Moriah!  Offer him up there as a burnt sacrifice on one of the mountains which I will indicate to you” (22:2).  The faithful movement of Abraham in response to this commandment results in an offering on an altar (but not of Isaac), and yet another reiteration of the original covenant promise to Abraham (22:17-18).  Not surprisingly then, we immediately read that Abraham “set out” (22:19).  Though this setting out was simply a return to his home, the fact that there is a  “setting out” set before us following a revelation of God should not go unnoticed.          

Movement (part 1 of 3)

The God of Israel is the God of exodus.  The Scriptural narrative is one of constant movement, not only in action but also in location.  This may aid us in discovering why, though God would allow a Temple to be built in Jerusalem and though He would fill that Temple with His glory, that He did not ask for that Temple to be constructed.  The underlying movement theme of Scripture gives us insights as to why God was satisfied to be represented by a tabernacle---dwelling in the midst of His people in a portable temple. 

If the Scriptures unfold before us a repetition of exile and exodus, then asserting that the idea of movement is an important element for the God of the Scriptures, is not unjustified.  In the Bible’s second verse, we read that “the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water” (Genesis 1:2b) preceding the restorative and ordering acts that followed and culminated with the creation of the being that would bear God’s image.  After Adam and Eve had trespassed beyond the boundary of their divine covenant, we read that they “heard the sound of the Lord moving about in the orchard” (3:8b), prompting them to hide in fear.  When judgment is pronounced upon them, they are expelled from the garden (3:23).  This expulsion is also described as their being driven out (3:24). 

Noah was sent by God into an ark to escape the flood (an exile of sorts).  Later on, he and his family went forth from the ark (an exodus).  After this departure from the ark, God’s command to them was to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (9:1b).  This filling of the earth seems to imply a demand to move and to spread out across the lands of the world.  This process appeared to be underway, which we see as we reach the eleventh chapter of Genesis.  There we find “When the people moved eastward, they found a plan in Shinar and settled there” (11:2).  This, in and of itself, is not a problem, because in order for the earth to be filled, there will have to be some settling.  However, this settling apparently took a form that was contrary to God’s clear intentions, and must have involved a great number of people.  There, it was said “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens,” presumably so that it would be too high to be overtaken by another flood, “so that we may make a name for ourselves” (11:4a).  This is a problem because man is meant to bear God’s image in the world and to gain Him the glory that is due to Him.  As we bear in mind that God never asked for a temple such as the one that David desired to build, is there a possibility that we can ascribe such thinking to King David? 

Furthermore, part of the justification for the construction of this tower is found in the statement of “Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the earth” (11:4b).  Obviously, this stands in stark contrast to that which God had demanded of Noah and his family, which we can imagine had been well communicated to and through their descendants (thus accounting for the continued movement recorded in the second verse of this chapter).  Scattering and movement was what God desired.  Pointing up the motif of movement, and the contrast provided by man’s new desire to become stationary, “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building” (11:5).  In response, the Lord said, “Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other” (11:7).  When the people failed to move, the Lord moved.  What was the result?  The result was movement, as “the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth” (11:8a).

When we first meet Abram (Abraham), he is moving.  We find that “Terah took his son Abram,” along with other family members, “and with them he set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan” (11:30a).  However, Terah did not reach Canaan, instead he settled in Haran.  It is in Haran, according to the record of Genesis, that Abram receives his calling from the Lord.  What are the first words that the Lord is said to have spoken to Abram?  They are “Go out.”  God tells Abram to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you” (12:1).  How did Abram respond?  “Abram left… for the land of Canaan.  They entered the land of Canaan” (12:4a,5b).  So Abram had left Ur, he had left Haran, and he had entered Canaan.  What is that we find Abram doing in subsequent verses?  He builds altars.  Also, upon reaching Bethel, which is translated as “house of God,” Abram “pitched his tent” (12:8).  This is not at all unlike what we will find in the book of Exodus.  Shortly after Israel leaves Egypt, they are given instructions regarding altars and a tent.  The God of exodus shows Himself as such early and often.      

Raising A Temple (part 2 of 2)

Why go through all of this analysis of Paul’s sermon in Acts?  We did so because we needed to be able to have some perspective on David, and the fact that David is not there held up as a model for emulation, as we examine his desire to build the Temple.  After expressing his desire to the prophet Nathan, David hears it said to him by that same prophet: “You should go and do whatever you have in mind, for the Lord is with you” (2 Samuel 7:3).  However, it so happens that “That night the Lord told Nathan, ‘Go, tell My servant David: “This is what the Lord says: Do you really intend to build a house for me to live in?  I have not lived in a house from the time I brought the Israelites up from Egypt to the present day.  Instead, I was traveling with them and living in a tent.  Wherever I moved among all the Israelites, I did not say to any of the leaders whom I appointed to care for My people Israel, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”’” (7:4-7) 

This now allows us to return to the issue of motivation, as it is incumbent upon us not to place men like David on a super-spiritual level, but to remember that they were people like us, with fears and insecurities, prone to mistakes, and subject to the corrupting forces that shape any and all interaction with this world.  What’s more is that it is perfectly okay and legitimate to do this, as in the end it gives us an even more amazing picture of a faithful God---which seems to be one of the points of the Bible. 

So what was the motivation to build a Temple?  Through Nathan, God asks David as much, when He says, “Do you really intend to build a house for Me to live in?”  It’s almost as if God was saying, “Is this for Me or for you?”  To answer that, we cannot separate David’s desire to build a Temple from the relief from enemies that the Lord had given to His people and their king, and it is unlikely that the God of Israel separated these things from each other.  What was it that was signified by the temple of a god?  Power.  Prestige.  Authority.  Domination.  This was what Israel now had in their land.  They claimed that their God had given them these things.  However, if other nations and other peoples were to begin to look to Israel and to Israel’s God, which is precisely what the Lord desired, where would they find Him?  In a temple?  No.  They would find Him (in a manner of speaking) in a lowly tent.  This, of course, was not troubling for God.  However, in contact with many nations, Israel knew that such was not the house of a powerful god.  So not only would this invite scorn upon Israel, but with the lack of a glorious display of their God by a beautifully adorned temple, Israel’s position in the land could come to be looked upon as something of a fluke.  This would invite attack.  The tabernacle alone as the place of God’s dwelling could be understood as a source of embarrassment for Israel, as well as an undermining of their security. 

Apart from all of this, one had to consider the items that were to be found in the tabernacle.  There were a number of precious articles that were composed of gold and bronze, and yet, here they were housed in a simple tent.  This position, for a number of reasons, could be understood as untenable, and we can sympathize with David thinking that it needed to be addressed.  Therefore, to rectify the shortcomings of the house of their God, David proposed the construction of a Temple that would more adequately convey, at least in His mind, the power of Israel’s God.  It would seem that the prophet Nathan even succumbed to this idea for a brief period of time before God intervened to dissuade him, and David through him, of what he had encouraged David to do. 

As an aside, we here note that in the ancient world, the temple of a god was understood to be the resting place of that god.  The God of Israel, the Creator of all things, did not need to dwell in an elaborate temple, for the whole of creation was His Temple; and that was the Temple in which He rested on the seventh day, according to the record of Genesis.  Ultimately, God would take up His dwelling in human flesh, and call that His Temple. 

When Solomon would take up the task of building the Temple, it was not strictly because of a stated desire to do so.  He was simply following the instructions given to him by his father, as we find in the first book of the Chronicles (22:7-10).  There, we find David informing Solomon about his desire to build a temple, God’s denial of that desire, the reasons provided for that denial (David was a man of blood and war), and God’s insistence that it would be Solomon himself that would build the Temple to honor God (though this is never explicitly communicated in 2 Samuel---only that David’s son would build a “house” for the name of the Lord).  It is still of great interest to note that, even there in the Chronicles, it is not God that is demanding a temple to be built, but still only David. 

The Scriptural record is clear, in that it is David’s wish to build the Temple in Jerusalem, and this is probably due in large part to David’s desire to consolidate power and increase Israel’s relative security in its land, with an elaborate temple also serving as a witness of the divine sanction of his rule before the people.  So though this was not necessarily God’s doing, God made sure that when His Temple was built---even though David provided much of the supply, the building process would be carried out by a man of peace, wisdom, understanding, and justice (though this last term may be a pit problematic for Solomon in some cases).  These are epithets that are not given to David.  We cannot help but elaborate on this point, and say that the Temple of God that would come to be called the Church of Christ is built by the one known as the Prince of Peace.  It is in such a Temple that God will dwell.      

Raising A Temple (part 1 of 2)

Why did Solomon undertake the building of a Temple?  Was it his idea?  No, but rather, it was his father’s idea.  In a communication to King Hiram of Tyre, whose assistance Solomon was going to enlist in obtaining the materials for the Temple, Solomon wrote, “You know that my father David was unable to build a temple to honor the Lord his God, for he was busy fighting battles on all fronts while the Lord subdued his enemies.  But now the Lord my God has made me secure on all fronts; there is no adversary or dangerous threat.  So I have decided to build a temple to honor the Lord my God, as the Lord instructed my father David, ‘Your son, whom I will put on your throne in your place, is the one who will build a temple to honor Me.’” (1 Kings 5:3-5).  It was the security that was provided by God’s putting down of all of Israel’s enemies that provided the impetus to build the Temple. 

The security provided by God, which would be seen as part and parcel of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, is only part of the answer as to why Solomon would build a Temple.  The Temple was established after Israel had finally, after so many years within its promised land, been rescued from foreign subjugation.  However, it was not an original idea.  In fact, it wasn’t even the first Temple.  Solomon was simply following a pattern that had already been established, and which had been established on what was essentially the same basis.  The Temple, of course, was simply a more glorious version of the tabernacle, and it was constructed for the same reasons that we can find for the construction of the tabernacle. 

The Temple, for all practical purposes, was a reiteration of the tabernacle.  Though God was certainly pleased with the Temple, and though He would come to fill it with His presence, it never came about as the result of any demand on His part.  We would probably be quite safe in saying that the desire to build a Temple was closely connected to the steps that Israel, primarily under David, had taken to gain control of their land.  To reach such a conclusion, we need only look at the circumstances surrounding the first record of an expressed desire to build a Temple. 

In the seventh chapter of the second book of Samuel, we read that “The king,” that being David, “settled into his palace, for the Lord gave him relief from all his enemies on all sides.  The king said to Nathan the prophet, ‘Look!  I am living in a palace made from cedar, while the ark of God sits in the middle of a tent.’” (7:1-2)  Now, we can examine this in one of two ways.  We can take the approach that has us holding David up as some type of super-spiritual figure that is primarily concerned with honoring the God in which he trusted, and determine that such was the motivating factor behind his desire to build a Temple, or we can infuse our assessment with elements of the realistic portrayal of David that is provided to us within the Scriptures.  We shall take the latter approach, which would seem to be altogether appropriate, bearing in mind that the Scriptures routinely lay bare before us, in quite unflattering ways, the lives of the men presented therein.  There are only three men in Scripture that seemingly escape any and all criticism (Joseph, Daniel, Jesus), so we will not tread a path that has us holding King David in what might be an unwarranted ultra-high regard. 

There are reasons why David is held in such high regard within the traditions and history of Israel, and given the history of Israel as a regularly oppressed people, David’s status as a conquering, warring, domineering and powerful king unlike any other ruler of Israel would be the primary reason for him to top the list of those that are so revered.  Of all of the reasons why David is a revered figure for Israel, perceptions of his righteousness and his moral integrity do not exactly top the list.  Yes, when Paul stands before the congregants of the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, in the process of recounting the history of Israel (beginning, of course, with the Egyptian exodus as that which always and primarily defined Israel as a people), he does say that “After removing” Saul, “God raised up David their king” (Acts 13:22a).  He continues and says that God “testified about Him,” saying “I have found David the son of Jesse to be a man after My heart, who will accomplish everything I want him to do” (13:22b).  Later in the same speech Paul would add that David “served God’s purpose in his own generation” (13:36a). 

So while these things are said of David, we need to put things in perspective.  Firstly, Paul is not, by any means, attempting to here give praise to David.  He is simply undertaking a common re-telling of the history of Israel, and doing so in a way that is going to be rather pleasing to and expected by his hearers.  If he leaves out mention of their greatest king, which he would have no reason to do, he would not be faithful to the story with which the community will be quite familiar, he’ll find his words being parsed, and the greater point that he is making will go unheard.  Secondly, he is moving to the climax of the “sermon,” (yes, it’s a sermon, which should inform us of the value of historical underpinnings within a grand narrative in all of our sermons), which is the Resurrection of Jesus, which proves the fact that He was the Messiah and therefore the inheritor of the promises made to David.  Unfortunately, we tend to extract individual elements from Paul’s presentation and use those individual elements as a means to honor David.  In all honesty, this is a rather odd practice.  Thirdly, we need to remember that David is spoken of as being a man after God’s own heart before he is anointed as king.  We do not find a repetition of such words after he takes the throne.  This is not to say that he was not such a man, but that the words that Paul quotes were words spoken to Samuel by God before we ever meet David, so we do well to keep things in order.  After we take in the full scope of the record of David that is provided to us by the Scriptures, we see a man, regularly broken, and completely reliant upon God.  It is in that sense that we can refer to him as a man after God’s own heart. 

Lastly, the fact that it is said that he served God’s purpose in his own generation should not necessarily be construed as a point of vindication that stands against his many failings.  The history of Israel, in both the writings and the prophets, clearly present an understanding that God will even use Gentile nations, such as the Assyrians and the Babylonians, to carry out His purposes.  In no way was there any intimation that serving God’s purpose at a given time in history was necessarily a badge of righteousness, apart from the fact that such things (being conquered by Assyria and Babylon) pointed to God’s righteousness (His faithfulness to His covenants).  Again, these words by Paul were not meant to exalt David, but rather to honor David’s God; and Paul’s second mention of David in the course of his speech functions as a bridge that allows Paul to cross over to the fact of Jesus’ Resurrection.  David served God’s purpose and is dead.  Jesus served God’s purpose and is alive. 

Sand On The Seashore

The Biblical descriptions that are given to Solomon’s reign paint a picture of a people living the life of exodus, with God’s will for His people solidly in place, and those people operating in the midst of that will.  It is a time in which Israel is firmly in control of the land that had been promised to Abraham, with no threatening enemies on any side.  They are living in a state of permanent rescue.  In fact, it is recorded that “Solomon ruled all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt,” and that “These kingdoms paid tribute as Solomon’s subjects throughout his lifetime”  (1 Kings 4:21).  At this point, Israel is far removed from being subject to any foreign powers, and instead, finds itself in the subjecting position.  Exile, which is represented by the Levitical and Deuteronomic curses, is not a concern, as Israel is, for what seems like the first time, living out the Abrahamic covenant. 

Israel, through and because of Solomon’s “discerning mind” for “judicial decisions” (3:9), is executing justice in their land and for the surrounding nations.  According to God’s promise to Abraham, they have been made into a great nation that is being a blessing, as well as being exemplary of divine blessing (Genesis 12:2).  When details of the life of Solomon would be shared within the oral community, and when the author writes that “The people of Judah and Israel were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore” (4:20a), such would be designed to draw attention to the Abrahamic covenant and the totality of its promised blessings, along with the God that stands behind it as supremely faithful to all His covenants. 

Before recalling the Abrahamic covenant in connection with Solomon, the author first calls attention to the Davidic covenant, as Solomon, with God appearing to him in a dream, saying “You demonstrated great loyalty to your servant, my father David, as he served you faithfully, properly, and sincerely.  You have maintained this great loyalty to this day by allowing his son to sit on his throne” (3:6).  A consistent reference to the Davidic promises, with a movement on to the Abrahamic promises, would be an ongoing reminder of the divine sanction that has been accorded to Solomon’s rule. 

Now, not only has it been said that the people of Judah and Israel were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore, but we go on to read of Solomon that “the breadth of his understanding was as infinite as the sand on the seashore” (4:29b).  The two uses of this phrase would be designed as a reference to the two uses of this phrase in the book of Genesis.  In the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, Abraham, after demonstrating his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, is told by God that “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).  This same promise is made to Jacob, as he returns from his self-imposed exile so as to face his brother Esau.  Jacob pleads before the Lord to remember the covenant that he knows belongs to him because of Isaac’s blessing on him (“May those who curse you be cursed, and those who bless you be blessed” – 27:29b), and to rescue (exodus) him from his brother’s hand, which Jacob was certain would be against him.  With this pleading, Jacob reminds the Lord of the portion of the promise that said “I will certainly make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand on the seashore, too numerous to count” (32:12). 

The promise of a vast number of descendants, of course, would be closely linked with the possession of land, and it is under Solomon that Israel is finally able to truly enjoy their land.  Therefore, there appears to be a widely-held understanding that the Abrahamic covenant, to some extent, was fulfilled in Solomon’s day.  Of course, any mention or discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, and the promised land attached to it, would be incomplete without a reference to the promise to Abraham that his descendants would make their way into Egypt and there find oppression before being exodus-ed to the land of promise.  So the “grains of sand” references would, as a result, serve as yet another reminder that Israel’s covenant, Creator God was also the powerful, delivering God of the exodus, which would then color the whole of the narrative, as the hearers and readers would reflect on what had been accomplished for them by their God, as He redeemed a chosen people for Himself to be a light to the nations and to reflect His glory into the world. 

Finally, we must remind ourselves of the fact that specific references to Mosaic passages would not limit themselves to drawing attention to only the words referenced, but that they would call attention to the wider narrative in which those words appeared.  So in making a return visit to the first mention of grains of sand in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, we find that it is immediately followed by “Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies” (22:17b).  This is not a singular statement, as the family of Isaac’s chosen wife is later positioned within the Genesis record as having knowledge of God’s covenant with Abraham, and they send her off by saying “Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands of ten thousands!  May your descendants possess the strongholds of their enemies” (24:60b).  The very fact that Israel’s former enemies were now subject to them during the reign of Solomon, with peace on all sides, would have been looked upon as further evidence that Abraham’s blessings had reached Israel, which would have been the author’s (whether contemporary with Solomon or coming later) clear and obvious intention.