Posted on

Abram’s Growing Faith—Genesis 15—16

We rightly think of Abraham as our ancestor in faith, but his faith began small, just like all of ours. The faith necessary for God to count him righteous (Gen 15:6) was much less than the extraordinary faith demonstrated when he offered up Isaac years later (22:3). Abraham’s faith, like ours grew over the years. It was not something that he worked up by the strength of his will or by fertile imagination; it grew in response to witnessing God’s faithfulness over the years. He learned increasingly more deeply that God can be trusted, and he learned this because he had a relationship with God, where God spoke clearly and Abraham obeyed fully.

God had already promised Abram a seed (indeed, a “great nation,” 12:2a) and a land (12:1e). In 15:2, however, when God promises Abram a reward, Abram balks. What reward can count, since Abram is childless? He cannot pass on any of his blessings to his children; they will go instead to his leading servant (15:2-3). (In Mesopotamian custom, however, a designated heir could be displaced if the testator subsequently had a son.) Abram is not expecting a “great nation” to come from him, at least not genetically.

Yet God renews the promise, and affirms innumerable descendants for Abram (15:5). Keep in mind that Abram is now between 75 and 85 years old (12:4; 16:3, 16), Sarai is just ten years younger (17:17), and that they have had no children yet. (In fact, even when Abraham sees the promise fulfilled, there will be just one son of promise, who will also have just two sons himself.) Yet Abram believes that God will give him innumerable descendants (15:6a). This is significant faith, not unlike the act of faith Abram undertook when he left everything familiar to him in obedience to God’s call (12:4). Still, this faith has yet to be tested over time.

God counts this faith of Abram’s as righteousness (15:6); we obey (as in 12:4) because we believe God’s promise, so our most fundamental response to God, which he accepts, is trusting his Word, depending on what he says. But what immediately follows this beautiful expression of intimacy between God and Abram? God has assured Abram about his seed, and now assures Abram about the land; God’s plan is to give him the land to possess it (15:7). “How will I know that I will possess it?” Abram asks (15:8). This may not be doubting God’s word per se; he may simply wish to know how he can be sure that he will meet the conditions if the prophecy is conditional. But it seems that he is asking for a confirmation.

God grants him a visionary dream that promises him the land, although also showing the difficulties that his descendants will experience before that vision is fulfilled (15:9-16), essentially summarizing the first part of Exodus. God confirms this promise by entering into a clear covenant with Abram (15:17-21), even accommodating contemporary expectations for covenant sacrifices and meals. God comes down to Abram’s level to assure him.

But Sarai does not have children (16:1), and by Genesis’s chronology, she is roughly 75 years old (cf. 16:16; 17:17). Thus, following Mesopotamian custom among wealthy households, Sarai urges Abram to use Hagar, Sarai’s servant, as a sort of “surrogate mother” (as Renita Weems has put it) to bear a child in Sarai’s name (16:2-3). (As an Egyptian, Hagar was probably a servant given to Sarai and her family during their stay in Egypt; cf. 12:16, 20.) Childbearing and heirs were essential priorities in their milieu, and while God had promised Abram descendants, he had not specified that they would come physically through Sarai.

Why does the narrative about Hagar immediately follow God’s reaffirmation of his promises to Abram? Perhaps in part to show us the difficulty of understanding God’s purposes more fully even when he has spoken a few of the details to us; and perhaps also to illustrate that Abram’s faith in Gen 15:6 was just rudimentary faith, compared to the sort of faith Abram would exhibit in Gen 22.

The faith that it takes to be justified is rudimentary: we simply need to take God at his word that he has promised, namely, that he has provided us salvation by Jesus’s death and resurrection (Rom 4:22-25). That is, it is not difficult to exercise faith for salvation.

But as we continue to walk with God and persevere through tests of our faith, we grow to see that God is reliable and that even in the hardest times there is hope. Abraham had seen God provide him a son miraculously and believed that this same God would fulfill his promise if Abraham obeyed him fully (Heb 11:17-19). We may not always hear the details as clearly as Abraham did, but we have surely heard the message of the cross. God is trustworthy, and tests of our faith are opportunities for us to learn faith in a deeper way, beyond saving faith. We may learn, ever more deeply, that God is trustworthy; if we persevere, the hardest challenges to faith are the ones that ultimately drive home his faithfulness most deeply, because no matter what God still has a plan and purpose for us that lasts forever.

(This is part of a series of studies on Genesis; see e.g., Sodom; flood; creation; fall; God’s favor.)

Posted on

Saving a Lot: Abram fights slave traders—Genesis 14

While Christian theologians today debate whether God demands pacifism or allows just war, at least in the Old Testament we see one just war that is not explicitly noted to have been carried out at God’s command. This was a war to liberate slaves. (This differs from the battles against the Canaanites, treated elsewhere: Canaanites 1; Canaanites 2; Canaanites 3.)

Enslaving prisoners of war was common practice in antiquity, and typically Sodom’s captured citizens, such as Lot, would have remained slaves for life (Gen 14:10-12). Much of the rest of the narrative is typical. The sorts of confederations of local kings depicted in 14:1-2, 8-9 dominated the fertile crescent in this period.

Chedorlaomer and his allies also had typical reasons for sacking Sodom and its allies. Chedorlaomer had conquered them thirteen years earlier, but now they declared independence from him, withholding tribute. In exacting vengeance, Chedorlaomer strips Sodom and Gomorrah of their goods (14:11), not only compensating for lost tribute but also because warriors on expeditions expected to profit from victories (cf. 14:24). Sodom’s own surviving warriors have fled to the hills (14:10), so the captives from the town are noncombatants such as the town’s women and other residents (14:16), including Abram’s nephew Lot (14:12).

That would have been the end of the story, except for Abram. One person can sometimes make a big difference in history, at least for many people. God had already chosen Abram to make a difference, even in how he would raise his children (18:19). Abram knew that he would be a blessing to the nations (12:3), and one way that he began blessing some peoples was by liberating them from slave traders. (That is why not only the kings who had directly suffered oppression, but also another king from the region, blesses Abram and his God, 14:18-19.) We should consider what ways God might use us in many parts of the world today (not least by combatting modern slavery, including sex trafficking, debt slavery and the like; International Justice Mission is among groups providing resources in this direction).

Abram has allies (14:24), but his own army, consisting of servants or members of his tribe, has 318 men (14:14). Ancient rabbis ingeniously interpreted “318” as the numerical value of Eliezer’s name (15:2), hence claimed that Abram and his steward Eliezer single-handedly defeated the enemy. This interpretation is fanciful; 318 was in fact a good-sized army for this region in this period. Nevertheless, Abram’s army was not simply facing a rival tribe of herders or a single town; he was facing four kings who had already vanquished five other kings. Yet Abram uses a wise strategy, striking his unprepared enemy unexpectedly, at night, from different sides.

God gives Abram’s army the victory (14:14-16). Not only Abram, but also Melchizedek, king of Salem (what was later called Jerusalem), recognizes that God had given Abram the victory. He acknowledges that God “delivered” Abraham’s enemies into his hand (14:20); the cognate noun for this verb appears in the next scene, in 15:1, where God is a “shield” to Abram. The same God who kept him and gave him victory in the battle is the same God who continued to be with him to fulfill his calling and purpose.

Abram gives Melchizedek one-tenth of spoil as an offering to God Most High (14:20c), whose priest Melchizedek was (14:18). Paying a tenth, or a tithe, often to gods, was a common practice in antiquity. Melchizedek’s role in Genesis is similar to that of Jethro in Exodus—someone outside Abraham’s line who yet recognizes the true God. Note the following similarities (borrowed from my Acts commentary on Acts 7):
Melchizedek (Gen 14)// Jethro (Exod 18)
Priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18)// Priest of Midian (Exod 18:1)
Brought bread and wine (Gen 14:18)// Fellowship meal (Exod 18:12)
Blessed be God who helped you against your enemies (Gen 14:20)// Blessed be YHWH who saved you from your enemies (Exod 18:10)

Of course, Melchizedek also acts for God, and it is in that role that Abram pays the tithe to him. Canaanite kings sometimes doubled as priests, and this was certainly true of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18); Psalm 110 even depicts the enthroned heavenly Lord (110:1) as like Melchizedek, a permanent priest-king (110:4), a role ultimately fulfilled by the exalted Lord Messiah (Mark 12:36; Acts 2:34; Heb 5:6).

Abram went on this mission to rescue Lot, not to collect spoil for himself. His servants naturally used some of the food for themselves, but Abram refuses to claim any of the loot, merely recouping that food as a cost of the mission and allowing his allies to take their share (Gen 14:24). Ancient ethics demanded reciprocity, and Sodom’s king, Bera, is happy to get back even his subjects, while allowing Abram to keep the spoil. Bera doesn’t want to be in Abram’s debt (14:21), but Abram succeeds at remaining his benefactor (14:22-24), allowing only the concessions just mentioned (14:24). Such concessions allow Sodom’s king to retain his honor, but Bera should nevertheless remain grateful to Abram, and to Lot, for whose sake Abram rescued the people. This kindness makes Sodom’s later treatment of Abram’s nephew, Lot (19:9), appear all the more heinous.

(This is part of a series of studies on Genesis; see e.g., Sodom; flood; creation; fall; God’s favor.)

Posted on

Different perspectives—Genesis 31:42-43

Depending on God for vindication

What we see sometimes depends on the lens through which we view reality. What is right in our eyes may be wrong (Prov 3:7; 12:15; 26:12, 16; 28:11; 30:12); what matters is how things appear in God’s eyes, for his standard is truth (Deut 6:18; 2 Chron 16:9; Ps 34:15; Prov 5:21; 15:3). As Proverbs 21:2 declares, “Everyone’s path looks straight and right to them, but the Lord evaluates human hearts.”

Jacob had labored hard and Laban had cheated him. In their culture, Jacob could count on their mutual relatives to value a sense of fairness (31:37). Laban, however, insists, “All that you see is mine” (31:43), as if Jacob is the one who has taken what belongs to Laban (31:1). Genesis is plainly on Jacob’s side, although not approving of everything he did. But whereas Laban emphasizes “all that you see,” Jacob appeals to what God has seen—Jacob’s affliction (31:42). Jacob’s appeal is right; in the end, it is ultimately God who vindicates Jacob.

Sometimes we are too ready to believe what others think of us, whether good or bad. People also can wrongly accuse or excuse themselves (cf. Jer 17:9; Rom 2:15). But God is the righteous judge, and we can entrust our way and our vindication to him.

(This is part of a series of posts on Genesis; see e.g., Sodom; flood; creation; fall; God’s favor.)

Posted on

Be careful whom you trust—Genesis 34:1-3

The narrator of Genesis tells the story of Jacob and the Shechemites partly to remind Israel that they had a history earlier in the land than the conquest, and partly to warn them against trusting Canaanite morality. That Jacob bought land near Shechem (33:19) reminds Israel, as had Abraham’s earlier purchase (23:16-20; repeated in 49:30; 50:13), that their people had a legal foothold in the promised land.

Canaanite morality comes to the fore, however, through the rape of Dinah. Although Jacob had other daughters (37:35), Genesis specifies only Dinah (30:31; 46:15) because only her story is narrated (34:1-26) and the twelve tribes are named for the male patriarchs. The narrator notes that Dinah was spending time with young women her age (34:1), probably to let us know that, even by the stricter standards of the ancient Middle East, she did nothing to attract the royal rapist’s attention. Rape should never be blamed on the victim, but even those inclined to cruelly blame some victims would not find reason to blame Dinah.

That Jacob came “in peace” to Shechem (33:18) may mean that God had protected him on his way (from both Laban and Esau); “peace” often appears with leaving unharmed (e.g., 26:29, 31; 28:21; 44:17). Conversely, it might emphasize that he initially settled in Shechem peacefully; conflict began there only with Shechem’s rape of his daughter. But once violated, such peace became elusive. Hamor and his son Shechem supposed that all of Jacob’s people were at peace with them (34:21)—unaware of the plans of Simeon and Levi against them.

Rape was a serious issue in antiquity as it is today (e.g., Deut 28:30; Judg 19:25; 2 Sam 13:14), so much so that the law of Moses treated it specifically (Deut 22:25-29), comparing a rape victim to a murder victim (22:26) and presuming her innocence in the absence of reasons to the contrary (22:27).

While the narrative evokes horror with its depiction of this rape, however (cf. Gen 34:7, 31), the narrator may be less interested in warning about just one gender than warning about the sexual values of some non-Israelites. A non-Israelite wickedly rapes Jacob’s daughter (34:2), just as later a non-Israelite tries to exploit the enslaved Joseph sexually and then falsely accuses him of raping her (39:7-18). (The writer seems keenly aware that usually society’s power dynamics favor men, but Genesis also depicts women’s influence, sometimes behind the scenes. Thus Rebekah works behind the scenes in favor of Jacob; Sarah urges Abraham to sleep with her servant and later demands the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, backed by God; Leah cuts a deal with Rachel so that Jacob must sleep with her that night; and so forth.)

Shechem, the local prince who also bore the city’s name, was the most honored member of his father’s household—yet he raped Jacob’s unsuspecting daughter. Shechem’s evil behavior (34:2) suggests the depraved sexual standards of most of Canaan’s inhabitants, as did potential Philistine threats to Rebecca in 26:10. Not only were Canaanite men not to be trusted sexually; Canaanite women were likewise dangerous (26:34-35; 27:46; 28:1, 8).

Stereotypes are dangerous, but members of societies often do reflect their societies’ prevailing values. Out of concerns for such values, then, Genesis warns Israelites against liaisons with non-Israelites. For ancient hearers of the Torah, intermarriage with Canaan’s residents was the greatest danger posed by their presence (Deut 7:3). This was not, however, a matter of ethnicity in any genetic sense, but stemmed from the danger of such unions enticing God’s consecrated people to worship other, false gods (Deut 7:4). (Thus Ruth, although a Moabitess, becomes part of Israel as she embraces the Israelite people and their God [Ruth 1:16], despite Deut 23:3.)

The principle today would be avoiding intermarriage with those who reject the values of one’s faith, such as fear of the LORD and the honoring of sexual purity. Because Jesus is the most important person in a genuine believer’s life, the deepest connection comes on the level of our faith. To digress for a moment on a pastoral level, I believe we should show grace and understanding in some settings I have witnessed, where Christian women outnumber Christian men two to one, or men believers outnumber Christian women two to one. But there are definite reasons for these biblical warnings (cf. 1 Cor 7:39). There are people who do not share our faith who nevertheless do share many of our values and can be respectful toward our faith; these people are a far cry from characters such as Shechem or Joseph’s accuser. Some are better spouses than those professed Christians who prove abusive, unfaithful, or the like; those who are respectful to faith are often open to it as well, given good reasons and experiences. But spiritual companionship is also an important element of marriage. Marriage is not the only place where it can be found, but as the most intimate of relationships marriage offers a unique opportunity for developing spiritual intimacy. In pastoral situations I have known some who regretted their marriages outside the faith; once the marriage exists, however, the believer in Christ is obligated to seek to make it work (barring circumstances such as abuse, etc.); spiritual incompatibility is not grounds for a Christian to dissolve his or her marriage (1 Cor 7:12-14).

But—leaving the digression—what would happen if some Canaanites were prepared to embrace Israel’s faith and values? In Genesis 34, Jacob’s family almost had the chance to find out. Some of Jacob’s sons, however, squander this opportunity, leaving it to Joseph, later in Genesis, to honor Israel’s God among the Gentiles.

(This is part of a series of studies on Genesis; see e.g., Sodom; flood; creation; fall; God’s favor.)