Letting Go

We ended the last post by wondering whether or not Abram would learn his lesson from Egypt; the lesson, of course, being that things don't always work out the way we have planned and God's design is often well outside of our vision.  So, let's push into the next two chapters of Genesis to find an answer to that question.

Abram makes it back "home" with his household — and a large amount of wealth he didn't have before — and begins to resume the work of tending his sheep and trying to be a blessing to those around him.  It isn't very far into the next story before we have Abram's shepherds mixing it up with Lot's shepherds.  There is much Jewish discussion that surrounds whether or not Abram and Lot were actually having a personal dispute that is then manifested in their shepherds or whether it was something that started and escalated with the shepherds themselves.

Nevertheless, we have a new problem on our hands.  As the Text puts it, "the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together…"   Hmmm.  Could it be that Abram's lack of trust in this story has caused some additional far-reaching problems as well?  His "success" in providing for his future has actually failed him with his extended family relationships.

But there is much more at stake for Abram in this squabble than just some family drama.  Why has Abram brought Lot in the first place?

When Abram set out from his father's household, God had told him that He would bless Abram and that he would become a nation that would bless the rest of the world.  But the problem is that Abram has married a barren wife.  How will he become a nation?  And so Abram acts with this reason and logic and he brings Lot along; he envelopes the orphaned nephew into his patriarchal household and brings him along for the ride, assuming that his household expansion will come through the lineage of Lot.

But now we have a problem.  Abram and Lot are having household issues.  And Abram cannot let Lot go without letting go of the only resource through which he sees God fulfilling His promise.

But has Abram come out of Egypt as a new man?  We said that Abram cannot let Lot go without letting go of the only resource that HE SEES…

Abram's statement:
"Let's not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers."

And Abram lets Lot choose which land he desires (something that Abram clearly has the patriarchal right to do), and he takes what's left. Now, that statement that Abram makes is striking for a few reasons.

First of all, the comment about "we are brothers" immediately reminds us of the first time we saw two 'brothers' in a field shepherding sheep.  Cain and Abel was a tragic injustice of the highest degree that came as a result of them not being able to trust the story.  Instead, however, Abram reverses that trajectory of humanity and once again shows that humanity — made in God's image — has the ability to make the right decision.

Second, considering the term 'brothers' is somewhat problematic.  With a cursory reading of Genesis, it seems as though Abram has a really difficult time discerning his relationships with his immediate family.  He marries his niece, calls her his sister in the next story, and now refers to his nephew as his brother.  Now, even though we've already explained the use of the Hebrew within a patriarchal culture and how this really makes cultural sense to the reader, it is almost impossible not to notice the parallel between this story and the last one.  Genesis 12 was a story about Abram calling a niece a sister who wasn't really a sister; Genesis 13 is a story where Abram calls a nephew a brother who really isn't a brother.  I even heard a rabbi teach that the stories should also be connected in tandem by the reference to "the Canaanites [and Perizzites] were living in the land at that time", what he said was an unnecessary detail (it seems like a weak link to me, but I'll let you be the judge).  It seems as though these two stories are supposed to be seen as one.  So…

Finally, what we see here is Abram learning a lesson, leaning into the story, trusting God, and pursuing what's right.  Again, Abram proves himself to be the Father of Faith, returning to his original form of building altars and pitching tents.  Again, Abram sees himself as the mobile unit and God as the steady anchor.  Rather than stand in their pastureland fighting over rights, Abram seeks to be reconciled to his 'brother' and lets him choose.  And in this act alone, Abram lets his only understanding of God's promise walk off into the eastern horizon.

This is Abram saying, "OK God, I've learned my lesson.  I know that things don't work out the way I have planned.  So, even though Lot is the only way that I understand You could come through on Your promise, I will pursue peace with my brother.  Coming through on Your promise is Your problem."

In case you're not quite as impressed by this move as I am, consider Genesis 14 in light of Genesis 12–13.  Lot falls into hard times when Sodom is captured and Abram is forced to go after Lot and rescue him.  Upon Abram's unlikely, God-aided victory, he then turns around and at the admirable request of the king of Sodom, gives back all of the people — INCLUDING LOT!  Abram continues to make a stand on his belief in God and His ability to deliver on His promises.  I know that I would have had a hard time not reclaiming Lot as my own, thinking that God had brought him back to me.

But Abram consistently decides to pursue what's right.  He builds altars and pitches tents.  He follows the way of faith and of selflessness.  He puts the future in God's hands and trusts the outcomes to Him.  Abram's job is obedience.  God's job is blessing.

And God will bless him. But it certainly won't be the way that Abram saw it coming…

A Change in Plans

So we've read that God finds a man named Abram who trusts God's good story.  He understands that he is loved, valued, and accepted by God and this realization allows him to lay down his life for another.  Such an act is not fair (in the Western sense) and it is most certainly counter-intuitive, but only this selfless giving of oneself allows for the biblical sense of justice (we'll unpack this more later, but justice in the biblical world would be a distributive term; it restores things back to their original [do you hear Genesis 1?] intent).  It takes selflessness in order to restore the world.

It is because of this that God immediately extends the invitation of covenant to Abram upon seeing his willingness to look beyond himself and trust the story.  It is this kind of individual that can partner with God in helping Him restore all of creation.

But it's not just an individual that God is looking for.  He's also looking for a nation that can impact the world around them.  And so he extends the offer of covenant to Abram.  God invites him to leave his household and come to a land that God will show him; if he does this, God will make him into a nation and bless them.  But it's not the blessing that God is speaking of in His covenant.  It always has been about the missional partnership.  God is looking to build a nation that will bless "all people on earth".

So Abram moves on and demonstrates even more understanding of God's story.  Where his predecessors took God's blessing and built a tower for themselves, Abram takes God's blessing and builds a different kind of tower.  Abram builds an altar.

Abram understands that the story is about honoring God and what God is up to and not about honoring himself.  There is a stark contrast between the people of Babel and Abram.  Do you remember how the center of the chiasm was about how bad it would be if the people settle down?  Well, Abram builds his altar and then pitches his tents.  What is a tent?  A mobile home.  For Abram, the altar is constant.  For Abram, God is the thing that doesn't move, but he is always mobile.  God will fulfill His promises in His timing and His way, but Abram is always going to need to be mobile to walk in obedience.

But blessing is always marked by testing.
And so, one of Abram's first tests comes (we'll talk more about "testing" later; suffice it to say it's not as we often think of it).  There is a famine in the land.

And so what will Abram do?  The thing that everyone does in Abram's day is travel to Egypt.  No matter the drought, the land of Egypt is always blessed by the flooding of the Nile and a surplus of food.  So this is the no-brainer move, right?  Is there a message about which story you are putting your trust in?  It appears as though Abram is still needing to learn how to trust the story.  God has promised Abram a future and yet Abram hightails it down to Egypt in a pursuit of his own security.

Now, I'm certainly not throwing Abram under the bus.  I'm not trying to suggest that he is being blatantly disobedient by heading to Egypt.  You or I would do the exact same thing in our world.  There is this constant tension between being a person of faith and a person of responsibility.  I believe there is no "right" answer to this tension, but it is always a wrestling match about where the trust in your heart lies.  As an example, I purchase health insurance for my family.  I do this because it is responsible, but there is a very short leap between that and putting my trust in my own ability to provide versus God's provision in my life.

I think God is wanting to see what is in Abram's heart and teach him a lesson.

And so Abram heads to Egypt in order to make a responsible investment in his family's security and survival.   Now, at this point, everyone else seems to gang up on Abram and make him a horrible villain.  They claim that he lies about Sarai and puts her in danger, all to save his own skin.  This criticism certainly makes sense from a cursory reading of the passage, but a little historical context will go a long way. 

Abram never truly lies.  He says the Sarai is his sister, the daughter of his father.  The qualifying statement "daughter of his father" makes it clear that he is not claiming that she is his direct sister.  All of the familial terms used — sister, daughter, father — are Hebrew words used to speak of general extended kin.  What Abram is saying is that Sarai is under his patriarchal leadership.  Now, while he is leaving out the part of her being his wife (a significant deception, I agree), he is not lying.  He certainly is not doing it simply to selfishly protect himself.  There is more going on here.

Abram is trying to provoke the courtship of Sarai.  Abram, knowing that his wife is an attractive woman (she must have been a smoking hot 40-60 year old woman!), knows that the people of Egypt will be interested in courting Sarai as a potential wife.  In the ancient Middle East, this will involve showering the patriarch with gifts and wealth in order to win his approval and lead to the granting of his virgin in marriage to you.  Abram is attempting to shrewdly and deceptively work the cards so that he will be showered with wealth and than leave Egypt with the provision he needs to survive.  This is the key to this story.  It is not that Abram is a jerk.  It's that Abram isn't trusting in God to provide; he's not doing it God's way.

Abram's plan backfires.  The whole courtship rituals are based on the leverage of the parties involved.  The patriarch is the one who holds the power in the arrangement.  It is the patriarch that is the greater party.  Unless, of course, it's Pharaoh who sees your virgin.  Pharaoh is NEVER the lesser party.  Where most everyone else will be required to shower you with gifts and take a wife later, Pharaoh takes a wife and then showers you with gifts.  This is a turn that Abram did not see coming.

But God is looking out for the family and, through the circumstances surrounding the situation, Pharaoh becomes aware of the deception and sends Abram away — with all of the gifts and wealth that had been showered upon him.  And so Abram takes the pieces of the broken situation and pitches his tents in the land of Canaan.

Did that last line sound familiar?
Abram pitched his tents in the beginning of the story.

And what would the Eastern reader immediately think upon hearing this?
This might be a chiasm.

If you go back and check, you'll find the chiasm yourself.

Abram's altar and calling on the name of the LORD.  (12:7)
    Pitched his tents east of Bethel, between Ai and Bethel. (12:8)
        Abram in the Negev. (12:9)
            Went into Egypt.  (12:10)
                "Say you are my sister" and Abram will be blessed [with wealth].  (12:13)
                "Why did you say 'She is my sister'?" and Abram is blessed [with wealth]  (12:19-20)
            Went out of Egypt. (13:1a)
        Abram in the Negev.  (13:1b)
    Pitched his tents east of Bethel, between Ai and Bethel.  (13:3)
Abram's altar and calling on the name of the LORD.  (13:4)

This makes the center of the chiasm Genesis 12:14-16.  The whole point of the story is where Abram's plan backfires and Pharaoh ends up with his wife.  Abram is being invited to learn a very important (and very trying) lesson.  Things don't always work out the way we plan; our plan is rarely what God has in mind.  It is so much better to do things God's way.  We may pursue our own security and may even find it, but it will come at great cost. 

God's message to Abram:  Remember to trust the story — I am for you.

This is why a person can sometimes make all the right decisions and be incredibly "responsible" and follow God with all their heart — and still experience hardship.  Sometimes — many times — God's way is different.  He will say later through Isaiah, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways..."  (Isaiah 55:8)

I know some close personal friends who love Jesus with everything that they have.  They have made all the right decisions and have been incredibly generous AND responsible.  And yet, he lost his job of twelve years.  But he would be the first to tell you that he's experienced the goodness of God more in that "famine" than any other time of his life.  Because sometimes, despite all of our attempts to secure our own future, God has different plans — better plans — for us.

God's message to us:  Remember to trust the story — I am for you.

Let's see if Abram will learn from his testing in Egypt.

Ministry Update — Summer 2013

We interrupt this blog series to give you our regularly scheduled ministry update.  Blog series to resume next week!

Click here to view our latest newsletter.

Buried in a Genealogy

The twelfth chapter of Genesis will introduce us to one of the most significant characters in the story of God's narrative.  A man by the name of Abram is approached by God and called to leave his father's household.  Such a call is much deeper in nature than simply changing locations and moving away from family.  In ancient eastern patriarchal cultures, your father's household is where you have your entire sense of identity.  Your father's household is your security and your inheritance.  It is your provision for the future, as well as your communal and relational infrastructure.  Your father's household is what helps you define your vocation, your religious identity, and your socio-economic reality.

Abram is being asked to leave it all behind.  Leave his identity behind.  Leave his understanding of the gods and of security and of ethics behind and start a new journey with this new and mysterious Creator who calls with His voice.

And most of us have a basic understanding of where this story is headed.  Abram will set out to follow the call of God and his faith will lead him to father the great nation that will become God's chosen priesthood.

But the Jews asked a question that, for them, demanded an answer.
WHY did God choose Abram?

For the western Christian, this question is futile.  The Text doesn't tell us and besides (our Sovereignty friends tell us), God gets to do what God wants.  If God wants to choose Abram and have no reason, He gets to.

But for the Jewish reader, you are not allowed to lay arbitrary statements like that on the Text in order to answer a good question.

If there is a good question, than the answer must lie in the Text.

"Well," the westerner responds, "too bad.  We meet Abram in Genesis 12 and we're not told.  Case closed."

But the easterner responds, "Ah, but we don't meet Abram in Genesis 12.  We meet Abram in the genealogy of Genesis 11."

You see, for the Jewish reader, the answer to the question lies in four verses — Genesis 11:27-30.

"This is the account of Terah.

Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.  And Haran became the father of Lot.  While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth.  Abram and Nahor both married.  The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah.  Now Sarai was barren; she had no children."

As usual, the early readers noted that there were a number of things amiss in this passage.  For one, why is verse 30 at the end of the passage?  That makes no sense, it should be located up where the passage speaks of Sarai in the first place.  Secondly, this passage breaks a cardinal rule of genealogical record: You don't mention women unless absolutely necessary and relevant to the genealogy.  In light of this, why is Iscah mentioned?  She has absolutely no relevance to the story.

And so the rabbis argued and argued and wrestled and wrestled.  Eventually, they told a story — a midrash — in which Abram takes a wife; but it is not Sarai that Abram marries, but Iscah.

Now why would the midrash say such a thing when the Text clearly teaches it differently?  Well, as the teachers dug into the story, they realized something.  Sarai in the Hebrew means "my princess".  If Iscah were a Chaldean (Mesopotamian) name, it would also translate "my princess".  Could it be possible that Sarai and Iscah were actually, in fact, the same person?

If this was true, then the passage all of a sudden begins to make sense.  The odd placement of verse 30 is because the entire story is actually trying to get you to realize that it's actually about Sarai/Iscah.  It also explains why the genealogy includes the name of a woman who appeared to be irrelevant to the record.

But we still haven't explained why God chose Abram.

Well, as the rabbis continued to study the passage, they also noticed how their translation had recorded the Hebrew.  The phrase, "Abram and Nahor took wives" was grammatically incorrect.  The phrase had plural subjects ("Abram and Nahor"), but a singular verb.  In other words, the Hebrew phrase read: "Abram and Nahor he took wives."

Now this wouldn't always be a call for alarm, except that we had seen this once already.  Back in the story of Noah and the vineyard, when Japheth and Shem go to cover their naked father, the same grammatical issue is seen.  "Shem and Japheth he took a garment and they laid it over their shoulders…"  So the teachers taught that when you see this grammatical "mishap", it is the author letting you know that the subjects are performing a benevolent, altruistic act and they are of one mind together as they do it.  They also noted that the first name listed gets credit for the idea.  So, in the case of Shem and Japheth, it was Shem's idea to cover Noah and the two brothers were of one mind and agreement to do this together.

If this principle applies to Genesis 11, what it would mean is that the act of taking wives for Abram and Nahor was a benevolent, altruistic act.  This immediately made sense.  Haran, the father, has died.  It is his job to provide for and marry off his daughters.  If someone does not take care of their (Abram and Nahor's) nieces, they will struggle and eventually die without legacy, community and dignity.

It is Abram's idea to marry the nieces (in their culture, this is not as weird as it sounds to us) and Nahor agrees.  They are of one mind when they do this.  What is also stunning about this teaching is that if it is Abram's idea, that means that he chooses the barren niece.

(I always have people argue with me that Abram doesn't know she is barren.  Not only do I believe that the Text implies otherwise, but the assumption would be at best an argument from silence.  Not only this, but the details in the story let us know that Sarah is as old as 60 and no younger than 40 when they marry.  In the ancient eastern world, a woman marries as soon as she menstruates.  If Sarah has not married at her age, what is the problem?  Has she not menstruated?  No matter the answer, Sarah would have been given in marriage the moment that she was believed to be fertile.  If she has not been married, she would be considered "barren".  In short, they know.)

Now, let this sink in.  We just wrapped up what I called the "preface" of the story where we began to wonder if humanity was hopeless.  We continued to demonstrate an inability to trust God's story and believe that we are OK.  It appeared that there was no hope for our depraved state.

But Abram is the first person in God's narrative to trust the story.  Because Abram believes that he has everything that he needs, he is willing to give up his own life — to lay his life down — on behalf of another.  Because Abram trusts that God is for him, he is able to leave his father's household and let God redefine his identity.  Because Abram trusts that he has inherent value, he is able to consistently walk in faith and teach his children to do the same.

God chooses Abram because he trusts the story and looks to the needs of others, not his own. 

And if people will do that, God can use them to put the world back together.  So immediately upon Abram's act of faith (or trust in a Jewish mind), God extends the call to partner with Him in putting all of creation back together.  God will use this trust time and time again to pursue wholeness in the world.

If we will trust that we have what we need and that God is for us and has given us inherent value…
If we will hear God's words to Cain in the midst of our mistakes and failures, "Why are you angry?  If you do what's right, won't you be accepted…?"
If we will trust that God has created the world good and believes that truth so much that He stopped creating and decided to rest and then invited YOU to join Him in this eternal resting and trusting...

God is still looking for partners.


*  As stated before, most of my Genesis material (this post included) is guided by the teaching of Rabbi David Fohrman; I have also tried to link some additional information in this post to show the validity of the midrashic conversation.

**  As a side note, it should be mentioned that I am not the expert for this discussion.  My information is the result of an immense amount of personal study.  I'm sure that many people would like me to link more sources, however, I do not have enough letters after my name to pose as an authority on the subject.  My purpose with this blog series is not to try to claim to be the source, but instead to simply turn people onto to the things that they can look for from the people who ARE the experts.  This is a place to learn where to start, not the source with which to finish.  I feel as though that disclaimer is important.  I believe that this wonderful "Information Age" we live in provides you with plenty of tools to check into the validity of my work and I encourage you to do so.

the PREFACE

For the next blog post, I wanted to try and visually encapsulate and show the summary of the discussion we've been having to this point: