The Promise of a Progeny: God and Abraham Part III

The Promise of a Progeny: God and Abraham

Part III

By Dr. Dave Johnson

This is the third in a series of blogs regarding the relationship between God and Abraham.  We have already covered the stark contrast between Abraham’s monotheism and the polytheism prevalent in the tribes that surrounded him, and from which he, himself, came.  We have also covered God’s promise to Abraham that his descendents would inherit the land of Canaan. 

In this blog, we will examine Abraham’s understanding of the promise that God would give him descendents that would outnumber the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.  When God first promised his descendents, he was already seventy-five years old, and Sarah was sixty-five.  Given the life-span of the people of his time, having children at this age was quite normal.  But the promise was not fulfilled until after another twenty-five years, when they were both no longer fertile.  The Genesis record does show that on a few occasions the Lord reminded Abraham of the promise, but a quarter of a century is a long time to wait, and we may not assume that God continually repeated his promises, which is one of the reasons that the Bible accords great faith to Abraham. 

While the biblical text records only five occasions in this time period when God reminded Abraham of his promise (Genesis 12:7; 13:13-18; 15:1-6; 17:1-27, and 18:1-19), each one of them is significant.  In Genesis 12:7, God repeated the promise when Abraham first arrived in Canaan.  This is the first time that the promise of a progeny is directly tied to the land that Abraham would inherit.  In 13:13-18, the promise is repeated after Abraham divided the land with Lot.  The significance of repeating the promise here is to give Abraham the assurance that his future descendants, not Lot’s, would inherit the land.

The third occasion, recorded in Genesis 15, came after Abraham’s coalition had rescued Lot and others from the Chedorloaomer, the king of Elam, and his friends, who had raided south eastern Canaan and taken plunder and hostages, including his nephew, Lot.   In this raid, it became obvious to Abraham that the promised land was vulnerable to outsiders.  The loose federations of clans, tribal groups, which included Abraham’s household of 318 persons, and city-states that populated Canaan was not strong enough to withstand attack from the outside.  God’s reassurance here must have bolstered Abraham’s faith. 

The dialogue between God and Abraham in Genesis 15 is quite revealing.  First, God tells Abraham not to fear for God himself would be Abraham’s protector and rewarder.  Abraham responded essentially that there wasn’t much worth protecting since God had not given him an heir.  But God patiently repeated the promise, and Abraham believed. 

But believing does not mean that there are no questions.  In v. 8, Abraham simply asks “how?” God responds in a manner that seems odd to Westerners but was quite natural to Abraham.  What transpires in the following verses takes the form of a Hittite suzerainty treaty, a common type of treaty between two parties, undoubtedly quite familiar to Abraham—again reflecting God’s willingness to communicate with mankind through human cultures.

A suzerainty treaty, however, was not a treaty among equals, but one between a superior lord and a vassal.  Abraham clearly understood who played what role.  What is different from a normal suzerainty treaty here is that God not only laid out the terms of the treaty, he alone would be the one to execute it.  In the normal treaty procedure, both parties would walk between the slain animals.  But in this case, God, symbolized by the smoking pot and burning torch, walked alone, signifying that he was both the originator and the guarantor of the covenant.  Only he would be bound by it.  Abraham would do nothing to fulfill the covenant beyond having sexual relations with Sarah and rearing the child.  He could either accept or reject the terms but could not change them.  There were no negotiations. Abraham accepted.

How did Abraham and Sarah deal with this promise?  In Genesis 16:1-2, Sarah, who by now was probably nearing the end of childbearing age, reminded Abraham that she was barren.  This account must clearly be seen in conjunction with the events of chapter 15.  Sarah’s offered her maid in an honest effort to see the promise of God fulfilled.  But there may be more in view here than doing the will of God.  Cultural mandates and peer pressure cannot be ignored.  Barrenness was a major social disgrace because continuing the family tree was considered very important.  Sarah may have been desperate and was surely at least partially motivated by a desire to remove this social stigma.  Having an heir would assure Abraham’s place in history and establish his legacy. 

There were at least two ways that ancient Near Eastern cultures dealt with infertility.  One was by appealing to the gods for help by performing religious rituals, including prostitution.  (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/mandrake_harrison.pdf).  The other was by using a servant as a surrogate mother.  While the first would have been reprehensible to Abraham, the second did not present any issues of conscience for him.  We must remember here that Abraham had no knowledge of the Ten Commandments as they had not yet been given.  Consequently, while God did not condone his action, he also never rebukes Abraham for having a sexual relationship with Hagar or holds him responsible for what has happened between the descendents of Ishmael and Isaac.

For thirteen years Abraham and Sarah thought that God’s covenant would be fulfilled through Ishmael.  In Genesis 17, God again appeared to Abraham and revealed that, in her old age, Sarah herself would indeed bear a child.  At this point, God did two things.  First, he changes their names from Abram and Sarai to the plural forms Abraham and Sarah, conveying the promise that they would be the progenitors of a multitude—even though, as yet, they had no child between them.  Why God did this now and not before is not explained, but it may have been to give Abraham and Sarah confidence that he would enact his will and fulfill his promise through Sarah, not Hagar.  Since names were given to describe a person’s character, the neighbors likely mocked them, reminding them that the “father of a multitude” had only one son, and that by a concubine.

The second thing that God did here was to institute the sign of the covenant, circumcision, as the seal of his agreement that the descendents of Abraham’s coming child would be God’s forever.  Circumcision was commonly practiced among the nations of Canaan, although the Philistines were an exception.  While the exact purpose of circumcision among other groups cannot be established for certain, it was most likely religious since marking one’s body was common in Canaanite religious practices.  It should be noted that while Ishmael was required to be circumcised and God would bless him because of Abraham, Ishmael was not considered a son of the covenant (17:19-20) and would not participate in the covenant blessings. What set Abraham apart from his neighbors was the intent of the circumcision as a sign of his special relationship with God.  By becoming circumcised, Abraham signified his ratification of the covenant.

Genesis 21:1-21 records both a blessing and a tragedy.  The blessing was that God finally kept his promise and gave Isaac to Abraham and Sarah.  What a joy his birth must have been to their old hearts.  In his birth, they saw the beginning of the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises.  But the arrival of Isaac also drove the final nail in the coffin of Sarah’s relationship with Hagar and Ishmael, and she demanded that Abraham throw them out.  Reluctantly, he did so, with a promise from God that he would also bless Ishmael.

Blessings from God also come with tests, and the blessing of a son from a covenant keeping God was no exception (Genesis 22:1-19).  One day God called Abraham to take his son to Mount Moriah.  While some scholars hold that the land Moriah was the same as Mt. Gerizim, in northern Israel, most hold that it was within the area of Mt. Zion, which was in Jerusalem, the site where David later pitched his tabernacle and placed the Ark of the Covenant, and the place where Solomon’s temple was later built.  At the time, Abraham was living in Beersheba on the southern border of modern Israel, so the necessity of a three day journey is not surprising.       

We are not told why God chose the land of Moriah.  Its, choice, moreover, does not appear to have surprised Abraham.  From time immemorial and the world over, mankind has seen mountains as viable places of worship.  While Abraham was surely appalled at the idea of sacrificing his son, human sacrifice in general, though rare, was known in Mesopotamia and possibly Egypt at the time.  In most cases it appears to have had religious connotations or some connection to the afterlife.  That God would ask Abraham to sacrifice any human, and especially the son through whom the covenant would be fulfilled, is revolting.  While the Bible is filled with God executing his justice through war and destruction, there is no other record in Scripture of God ever calling anyone to sacrifice a human life, save for giving his own Son on the cross.  Whatever Abraham may have felt, the point is that he responded in obedience, apparently without hesitation.

Why God would test Abraham is not clear from the text, but why God would test him in this manner can be easily discerned.  Isaac was not just any child, he was the one through whom God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled.  Abraham and Sarah had waited all of their married lives for this boy.  If he honored God’s command to kill the promised son, how would God fulfill his promise?  Was Abraham strong enough in his faith in God to withstand the test?  Was his allegiance to the one, true God whole and complete? The writer to the Hebrews answers the first question by stating that Abraham believed that Isaac would be resurrected (Hebrews 11:19).  Abraham’s confidence that he would not have to go through with the dastardly deed is hinted at in Genesis 22:9-10, although he may simply have answered Isaac in this manner in order to avoid telling him the truth as long as possible.  Thank God that Abraham passed the test and, after he had done so, God again reiterated the covenant (vv.15-19).   

There are several lessons that we might learn from Abraham’s life as he awaited the fulfillment of God’s promise.  First, God honors his promise on his timetable, not ours, and he does so for his own glory.  Had Sarah given birth to Isaac during her childbearing years, it would have seemed less than a miracle.  As it was, God’s hand giving her a child at the age of ninety was unmistakable.  Second, we should see Abraham as a great example of a godly man who waited patiently for God to fulfill his word.

Third, God keeps his promises in his own manner.  Again, it is tempting to say that Abraham and Sarah took matters into their own hands when Abraham had sex with Hagar, but the text gives no hint of this.  God never condemned them for what they did because they did not have the Ten Commandments.  At the same time, however, God made it clear that Isaac, not Ishmael (Genesis 17:17-21) was the son of the promise, even though Ishmael was required to be circumcised since he was a male member of Abraham’s household.  The achievement of God’s purposes was neither derailed nor delayed by what Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar did.

Fourth, living out God’s promises may not be understood by those around us, as when God changed the names of Abraham and Sarah prior to Isaac’s birth, and may lead to ridicule and even persecution.   In such cases, we are called to choose whether we prefer the honor of God or that of men.

Fifth, our faith in God will be tested. While this is not a new idea to anyone in Christ, we tend to ascribe the blame for our trials and temptations on the Devil.  Scripture, however, does not allow for such a narrow view.  In this passage, the trial is clearly from God.  When the trials from God come our way, the proper response is to seek to understand what message he is trying to give us or what he is trying to do in our lives.  Debbie and I recently passed through a major time of testing from the Lord that caused us much private pain but has led to much inner healing and liberation from a number of things that were holding back our spiritual growth.  These times can be richly rewarding if we will go through them trusting in God for the outcome.  Again, Abraham is a great example.  He may not have known what the outcome of his trip to the land of Moriah would bring, but he acted in obedience, trusting in God that all would be well in the end.       

Sixth, the fruit of Abraham’s life continues to this day.  Indeed, the number of his descendents, both literally and spiritually, cannot be counted.  Three major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam honor his name.  If we will be faithful to walk out the will of God for our lives, both being the people he has called us to be and doing what he has called us to do, he will bless us and we will leave a great legacy to those who follow in our footsteps. 

In looking at every text where God restated his promise to Abraham regarding a progeny, we can now see his hand at work because we are seeing it in hindsight.  Abraham had no such vantage point, making his faith truly admirable.  But while Abraham did not live to see the number of his descendents become a multitude, he did live to see Jacob and Esau, who were fifteen years old when he died.   He may have also seen Ishmael’s descendents as they apparently lived nearby and became traders with merchants of Egypt, which required passing through Canaan.  He had a number of children with his second wife, Keturah, and may have seen their offspring.  One of his descendents, whose parentage came from the line of Isaac, was the seed who would bless the nations.  How Abraham would have understood that part of the promise and its fulfillment is the subject of the next blog. 

PLEASE NOTE: Permission is hereby given to forward, print, and post this blog as long as it is done as a complete blog and its authorship is acknowledged. Thank you for your cooperation.  For automatic notification of future blogs please visit, www.drdavejohnson.blogspot.com and click on “follow.”

Copyright 2011 Dr. Dave Johnson  

God and Abraham Part II

God and Abraham

Part II

This is the second in a series of blogs that deals with God and his relationship with Abraham, focusing on how Abraham would have understood God and his ways within his own cultural context.  In the first blog, we explored Abraham’s monotheism in contrast to the polytheism of the ethnic groups around him.    In this blog, we will begin to look at how Abraham would likely have understood his call, as recorded in Genesis 12:1-3. Abraham’s call had three components.  God promised to give him land, make him a great nation, and that through him all of the nations of the earth would be blessed.  Here, we will focus on the promise of land.

Understanding Abraham’s call within his context requires a closer look at both Genesis 11:27-12:4 and Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7:3-4.  Stephen clearly states that God’s call came to Abraham when he was still in Ur.  But the command to leave his father’s relatives apparently did not necessitate leaving all of his family behind, at least at first, as it is clear that his nuclear family of origin, along with Lot, his nephew, were part of the party who traveled as far as Haran (Genesis 11:29-32), which was located in northern Mesopotamia (part of modern Turkey, not Lebanon as I erroneously suggested in the last blog).  This passage also denotes that Terah, not Abraham, was the leader of the group since he was the head of the clan.  There is no need to assume that this in any way contradicted God’s will.  Rather, it demonstrates God’s willingness to enact his will within human cultures.  Life in ancient Mesopotamia, like most non-Western cultures today, was heavily centered on the extended family led by a patriarch.  What matters here is that Abraham packed his tent and responded to God’s call.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Abram moved outside of the current social movements of the time.  Many scholars date the life of Abraham at around 2,000 BC.  Around that time, there was a migration of people from southern Mesopotamia into Canaan, and Abraham’s family may have been part of that migration.  Both Haran and Canaan were along the major trade route between Ur and ancient Egypt, but Abraham did not know that Canaan was where God was leading him until he actually arrived there (Genesis 13:7). 

Terah’s goal was to move the family to Canaan but stopped when he got to Haran and put down roots there.  Jewish tradition holds that Terah was an idol maker and, in light of Joshua 24:2, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this tradition.  Since sons normally followed in the footsteps of their fathers, this may also have been Abraham’s occupation before he encountered the one, true God.  We are not told why Terah did not continue with his plan to migrate to Canaan.  Since Haran was a local center of trade and commerce and had contact with other ancient trading centers such as Tyre, Terah may have thought his trade could be more lucratively practiced there (Haran, Wikipedia, accessed January 17, 2011).

How long Abraham lived in Haran is not clear but his stay may have been lengthy.  Since he did not know at this point that God was leading him to Canaan, he may have even perceived that Haran was the place to where God wanted him to be until God repeated the call in Genesis 12:1-3.  Here, God adds that he will give Abraham the land to which he is sending him, along with a posterity, and that his seed will bless the whole world.  When Abraham received this word from the Lord, he folded his tent and moved.  At this point, the Genesis narrative and the Acts passage conflict.  Stephen asserts that Abraham did not move from Haran until after Terah died, but a careful reading of the Genesis account indicates that Abraham left Haran while his father was still alive.  The issue of the Bible’s infallibility is not an issue here since the doctrine of infallibility would only insist that it was Stephen who made the statement in Acts 7:4.  Whatever the case may have been, at this point, Abraham severed ties with all of his family, except for Lot.

Abraham’s first stop was in Shechem in Genesis 12:6-7.  This city would come to have great significance to Abraham’s descendents.  It was located between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, where the children of Israel would gather to re-ratify their covenant with God right after entering the Promised Land.  It later became a Levitical city of refuge and served at Israel’s first capital (Genesis 34:2-26; Joshua 8:32-35; 21:21; 24:1). It was also the scene of Levi and Simeon’s notorious avenging of their sister, Dinah’s, rape.

For Abraham, too, Shechem was a place of great significance.   Here, God revealed for the first time that, at long last, he had arrived in the land to which God had called him.  Abraham’s response was to build an altar and worship, which must be seen as an act of gratitude.  Building an altar for worship would not have seemed strange to his Canaanite neighbors as they did the same.  What set him apart from the others was that his altar had no images of God, and it was not used for appeasing sacrifices as their’s were.  The Canaanites appeased the gods to get them to do their will.  Abraham worshiped the Lord, accepting the promise of HIS will. 

From Shechem, he went down into Egypt to avoid famine.  After his unfortunate escapade in Pharoah’s court, which led to his being kicked out of the country, he returned to Canaan and called upon the name of the Lord (Genesis 13:1-3).  From this point onward, while he continued in a semi-nomadic lifestyle, he never again left the land of Canaan.  Genesis 13:3 is the first reference to Abraham’s livelihood and social stature.  We are not told how he gained his wealth.  How and when an urban dweller from Ur became a shepherd we do not know.  It is possible that he had always had herds that were kept in the pasture while he himself lived in the city.  What we can know directly from the text is that Abraham was extremely wealthy, which accorded him high social status among his neighbors.  This wealth and that of his nephew Lot’s, however, created some logistical problems between them and necessitated their separation.              

After he separated from Lot, he moved to an area near Hebron.  Here, God again appeared to him and restated his covenant (Genesis 13:14-18).  By this time, Abraham was already at least 75 years of age and still had no children.  The situation looked impossible, but he believed that God would keep his promises.  Abraham had the assurance that no matter where Lot went, it would Abraham’s, not Lot’s, descendents who would inherit the land of Canaan.  It is interesting to note that both after he separated from his father and then again from his nephew, God appeared to him to assure him of his covenant promises.  To separate completely from one’s kindred would have been rare in Abraham’s time when closely knit clan relationships ruled the day.  This assurance from God must have given him great peace. 

Abraham never tried to conquer Canaan by force; he merely planted roots where God told him to stay and trusted God to keep his promises.  At the time, land in Canaan, at least the pastureland needed for his flocks, appears to have been communal—open to anyone. There were no complaints recorded that he ever treaded on someone else’s property nor is there evidence that Abraham ever owned any of the land upon which he dwelt, except the family burial plot at the cave at Machpelah, just outside of Hebron (Genesis 23). 

What lessons might we draw from Abraham’s example here?  First, Abraham responded to God’s call, as he understood it, while still in Ur, and began to follow it.  Later, while he was in Haran, God repeated the call, giving greater detail and clarification.  Again, Abraham responded in obedience.  He followed God’s call, in faith, to the best of his ability.  Like Abraham, God’s entire plan may not be obvious to us in the beginning.  But as we walk in obedience, God gives further guidance, direction, and sometimes, promises of blessing.  Our challenge, then, is follow Abraham’s example of obedience.

Second, Abraham’s obedience resulted in God’s blessing.  Had Abraham remained in either Ur or Haran, there is no assurance that God would have blessed him with land and posterity.  Because he obeyed, God kept his promises and, throughout history, Abraham’s name has been revered the world over not only by followers of Jesus, but also by Jews and Muslims.  The fact that Abraham did not live to see the fulfillment of the promises mattered little.  He received the promises of God by faith (Hebrews 11: 8-13).  While we may never be famous, obedience to God’s word does bring us his blessing and leads to a contented life.  If we do not live to see all of the promises of God fulfilled, we can be rest assured that the One who kept his promises to Abraham will also keep his promises to us—in God’s time. 

Third, Abraham’s response to God’s blessing was to worship (Genesis 13:7).  After four thousand years there has still never been a better way to respond to a word from the Lord.  Let gratitude and adoration also be our response to his blessing, and let us always seek to honor and glorify him.  As the old Christmas carol expresses it, “O come us adore him, Christ the Lord!”

In the passages mentioned above, there is a direct connection between God’s promise of land and his promise to make Abraham a great nation. The promise of the land could not be fulfilled until Abraham had a sufficient number of descendents to fill the land that God had promised.  This aspect of God’s promise will be the subject of the next blog.

[To receive personal notification of my blogs, please go to www.drdavejohnson.blogspot.com and click on “follow.”]  

 

God and Abraham Part I

God and Abraham

Part I

This is the first in a series of blogs that attempts to describe Abraham’s relationship with God within Abraham’s own cultural setting.  This blog will focus specifically on Abraham’s monotheism in contrast to the polytheism of the ethnic groups that surrounded him.  Future blogs will deal with issues such as his relationship to Hagar, his use of the Hittite covenant in Genesis 15, the implications of God’s promises to him in his own time, and the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah, etc.  Each blog will draw some lessons that can be learned in our daily lives in the 21^st century.

Abraham was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldees, which was located in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, between what is now the modern city of Baghdad and the head of the Persian Gulf (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/ur.html, accessed January 4, 2011). It was the most developed and sophisticated city of ancient Mesopotamia. Ur was also a pagan city where many deities were worshiped.  The ruins of the main altar, known as a ziggurat, still stand today.  One writer, citing the Jewish Talmud, says that Terah, Abraham’s father, worshiped at least twelve gods, which is consistent with Joshua 24:2 (www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view, accessed January 4, 2011).

How and when Abraham became aware of the one, true God, and worshiped only him, is not recorded in the Genesis account.  What is clear is that Abraham’s monotheism was in stark contrast with the polytheism and animistic practices of his day.              

When he arrived in Canaan, Abraham found a number of tribes or ethnic groups living there, each with their own gods or goddesses.  Some practiced a form of polytheism known as henotheism, the belief the one god was the supreme ruler of all the lesser gods and goddesses.  Not many specifics are known about the Canaanite religious practices in the time of Abraham, but the practices of Baalism and worship of the Asherahs in period of the monarchies give some strong hints.

Generally speaking, Canaanite religions gave allegiance to the gods who were believed to control the land, rain, crops, and human fertility.  Religious rituals involving fertility rites were heavily sensual, involving both prostitution and homosexuality, giving an early indication that there is a connection between idolatry and sexual immorality.  Sacrifices were offered to appease the gods, not worship them in biblical sense of the term.  The guiding philosophy behind the sacrifices was to get the gods to do what humans wanted them to do, bless the crops and the fruit of the womb, keep disaster and disease at bay, curse one’s enemies, and keep the universe in balance.  In other words, the practices were done for the benefit of people, not for the glory of the gods.

As at Ur and Haran, Abraham’s relationship to the one true God, who allowed no image of him to be made and who required no rituals to be performed, was unique.  The focus was also radically different.  Everywhere he went Abraham built an altar to the Lord except in Beersheba, where he planted a tree in God’s honor—a common practice of the time.  While we are not told what his altars looked like, it is reasonable to assume that the altars may have been ziggurats, such as he would have known in Ur, or they may have resembled the altars of the Canaanites, minus the images.  What is significant is that it was dedicated to the Lord, the true Creator of heaven and earth.  Abraham’s focus on worshiping one God, whom he believed to be the creator and controller of everything, rather than on the local gods who were held to be territorial deities, was part of what set him apart from his neighbors.  While his neighbors worshiped the gods because of what they could get from him, Abraham worshiped the Lord in order to honor and glorify him. 

On at least one point, however, Abraham reflects at least some commonality with the Canaanites.  The rite of circumcision, which God gave to Abraham in Genesis 17:10-14, was a well known practice in the ancient Near East, although the Philistines were an exception.  The origins and intent of the practice among Abraham’s neighbors is not certain, but marking the body was often a part of their religious rituals.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that circumcision had religious connotations even for pagans.  What separated Abraham from his neighbors was God’s intent.  The Genesis passage is clear that God intended it as a sign of his covenant relationship with Abraham and his posterity.  From then on, Abraham was a marked man!

What lessons might be drawn from Abraham’s life?  First, in order to follow the Lord, Abraham had to reject the false ideas about God.  Namely, God is one, not many.  Also, he requires no images and, at least in Abraham’s day, required no rituals.  To follow him was to be counter cultural.  How might this apply to us?  False ideas about God abound in today’s world.  The New Age Movement and the teachings of moral relativism are but a couple of glaring examples.  Some are subtle and some are blatant.  All are deceptive.  In addition to false religious ideologies, the gods of money, sex, and power vie for our patronage on a daily basis.    Abraham’s response to the temptations of his day was to built altars and worship the Lord, focusing on the beauty and glory of God, and following only him.  We would do well to follow his example, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2)—knowing his will for our lives and, like Abraham leaving Ur and Haran, following Christ with reckless abandon.    

[To receive automatic notification of future blogs, please go to www.drdavejohnson.blogspot.com and click on “followers.”]

Remembering Mom

Sunday morning, December 5, 1999, was a day I will never forget.  At 3am that morning, the lady who ran the missionary boarding house in Manila where Debbie and I were living pounded on our bedroom door, “Dave, your dad is on the phone!”  That call changed my life.  As I went to take the call, I vaguely remembered that dad said he was taking Mom back to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, for more medical tests.  On the way, they decided to stop and visit my younger brother, Tom, and his family.  Dad’s troubled voice pierced my sleep addled mind, “Dave, Mom has had a stroke.  The doctors don’t expect her to live.”  Nine agonizing hours later he called back to say that she had gone to be with Jesus, and we flew home for the funeral.

Eleven years have passed and the grieving process, while much easier, continues.  Since Mom died during the holiday season, this time of year provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on her legacy.  My mom taught me a lot about God and life. 

By her example, she taught me to love God above all else.  Mom loved God, her husband, her children, her church, and her fellow man, in that order.  The Psalms were her favorite part of the Bible, and I learned to cherish them as well.  Mom taught me that the greatest truth I could ever learn was that “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”  She played the piano by ear and loved the great hymns of the church.  Her piano still sits in my dad and stepmother’s house, a now mostly mute but beautiful memorial of her.  Her love for playing the piano never caught hold with any of us kids, but the hymns resonate deeply in my spirit today.    

She was a devoted wife and mother, working hard daily in the home to care for us.  Mom taught me to respect my father and to see his working to provide for our needs as an expression of love for us.  She also taught us to respect others, especially our elders.  The little things in life were important to mom.  She constantly reminded us to say please and thank you and to wipe our feet off on the doormat when entering the house.  She also made me button my shirt, comb my hair, and brush my teeth, which was never important until I discovered girls!  She also taught me to love my brothers, Steve, who was older, and Tom, the youngest of the clan.  It seems that I needed to be reminded often because whenever there was a fight between us, I was almost always involved and usually the instigator!  She insisted that I share the rocking horse with Steve, and that I be nice to Tom.  Apparently I wasn’t perfect! 

Mom also taught me to love reading, a real asset when I entered Bible college and then seminary.  I am a passionate reader and this has contributed to my commitment to being a lifelong learner.  In this regard, I will always be in school!

Like Dad, Mom believed that sparing the rod would only spoil the child.  In our house, the line between right and wrong was clearly drawn, and I crossed it often!  On the other hand, she modeled the idea that the rod of judgment could occasionally be meted out with mercy and sometimes not meted out at all.  Once in awhile we could even get away with bribing her with promises to behave better the next time in order to escape the impending doom of imminent judgment! 

But life was hardly perfect.  Mom also dealt with a bi-polar disorder known today as manic-depressive and was hospitalized for it at least fifty times, from anywhere from two weeks to ten months at a stretch.  The unintended effect was that it destabilized our family—although Dad’s faithfulness and heroic efforts went a long way towards mitigating the loss.  We dealt with it as best we could, although, while I’m not sure I was totally conscious aware of it at that time, I had to deal with feelings of abandonment—which have had consequences in my own search for significance and contributed to my own battle with depression.  Like Mom, I, too, have found grace and healing in Christ—a healing that is still in process to this day.

The positive fruit of her struggle was that Mom learned to care deeply for others and touched many lives in a way that perhaps not many others could have done.  During her hospitalizations, she met several women who became lifelong friends—and they knew that she loved them dearly.  During this time, she learned the powerful value of a kind or encouraging word, and she used that lesson to minister to others who were hurting.  Throughout the course of her life, she sent hundreds, if not thousands, of cards to people when she thought they needed an emotional lift or to celebrate a birthday, anniversary, or for no particular reason at all.  Hallmark loved my mom!  In short, she taught me that people matter.      

In reflecting on my mother’s legacy, I have learned many lessons. But the greatest lesson I have learned is that unconditional loving with all of one’s heart is what truly matters in life.  I can only hope that I have learned that lesson well.

[To receive automatic notification of future blogs, please and click on "following" above.]    

A Missionary's Perspective of the Incarnation (Galatians 4:4-5)

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ.  God in human flesh.  What a marvel!  We know the story of Christmas well.  My purpose here is to give a cross cultural perspective of the Incarnation, to describe the birth and life of Christ through the eyes of a missionary.

To do this, the terms of missionary and culture must be defined.  First, what do we mean by culture?  One online dictionary describes culture as “a shared, learned, symbolic system of values, beliefs and attitudes that shapes and influences perception and behavior” (www2.eou.edu/kdahl/cultdef.html December 16, 2010).  The culture in which we are raised is like a pair of eyeglasses through which we see the world.  The challenge is that since these eyeglasses begin to form on our face the moment we are born, most people go through life without even being aware of them.  Furthermore, both the missionary and the person from the other culture are wearing different prescriptions in their cultural glasses.

The second term to be defined is missionary.  While numerous definitions of the term abound, the classical definition of a missionary, which will be used here, is one who crosses cultural and sometimes linguistic boundaries in order to proclaim the gospel, just as Jesus himself did.  The first missionary was God himself.

The compelling basis of missions is that God sent his Son, for the purpose of redemption, across a number of boundaries.  The first one was cultural.  Think about it.  The Bible doesn’t tell us much about heaven, but one can be sure that no one who has ever been there would want to leave, even if they could.  Yet Jesus left the splendor of God’s presence and entered the squalor of sin.  He swapped the throne room for manger and ultimately a Roman cross.  He traded the care of angels for the nurture of a woman.  He said goodbye his heavenly Father to come under the tutelage of an earthly man.  This particular cultural chasm was so large only God could cross it.

Galatians 4:4 says that he was “born under the law.” What does this mean?  Every society has a matrix of laws, customs, traditions, and behaviors that serve as a framework for everyday life.  When God put on human flesh, he became a first century Jew and was subject to its laws and traditions.  Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem in obedience to Caesar’s degree that they register for the purpose of taxation.  Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and participated in the Jewish feasts in accordance with Jewish law and custom.  His itinerant teaching style with disciples following was common in his day.  In every sense of the word, both in his personal life and the way in which he ministered, Jesus was a Jew. 

In similar manner, missionaries are called by God to leave their home cultures and enter cultures that are strange to them in order to be Christ’s ambassador.  Crossing cultural boundaries as a child is relatively easy since children easily adapt to changing circumstances.  For an adult, however, the situation can be quite different.  For many new missionaries, culture shock is a common result.  Culture shock can be defined as “a condition of disorientation affecting someone who is suddenly exposed to an unfamiliar culture or way of life or set of attitudes” (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, December 10, 2010).  Culture shock is normally experienced in several stages.  In the first stage, everything about the new culture looks great, perhaps even better than home.  Going deeper into the new culture, the newly inducted discover that not everything is perfect and suddenly the home culture looks better.  In time, one learns a more balanced approach, recognizing that there is good and bad in both the new and home cultures, and they learn to roll with the punches.

When I first moved to the Philippines in 1994, I took the submarine approach to the new culture and language and dove right in.  Single at the time, I lived with a Filipino family, ate what they ate, and went to work on learning the language and culture.  At first, it was an odd fit—about as easy as pounding a square peg in a round hole.  From driving in Manila’s traffic jams, which are among the worst in Asia, to learning the ways Filipinos that relate to each other, I had to stretch and grow—complete with all of the exhilaration and frustration that this entailed. 

For example, I noticed that pastors would not approach me directly when they needed to discuss a problem.  They preferred to talk to my assistant or some other mutually trusted individual, who would bring the problem to me.  This made me angry, since I was raised with the idea that problems should be confronted.  This approach was supported by the Matthew 18:15 principle.  But I eventually reasoned that since I was a guest in the country and that Filipinos had a right to be different, and that being different does not mean being wrong.  As I began to adjust my attitude and use the same mediator to send my response back to the pastors, both my stress and conflict levels decreased.  Later on, I recognized that when God wanted to resolve the greatest conflict in history, the one between man and God, he did not use the Matthew 18:15 principle!  He used a mediator—the same one I was preaching to the Filipinos!        

But not only did God send his son across cultural boundaries, he also sent him across linguistic and boundaries.  Think about it, when Jesus came to earth, did he come speaking the language of heaven, whatever that may be, or did he communicate in the languages of his day—Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?  The answer is obvious from the fact that people understood him.  In many countries missionaries have to learn the language to communicate with the people, so the case for learning the language is easy to make.  In the Philippines, however, the situation is not so easy because English is widely spoken.  Debbie and I have many friends that speak English quite well but, in spite of this, prefer to speak to us in Tagalog, the national language.  The reasons are quite simple.  First, they are more fluent in Tagalog and so are more at ease with it.  Second, language is the window of the soul.  When it comes to talking about spiritual things and sharing what is on their hearts, Tagalog is normally their language of choice.

 Language learning comes easy for a child, but adults tend to struggle. Mistakes are common and sometimes hilarious.  One time, I wanted to tell a lady she was honest but instead I told her she was fat!  I was deeply embarrassed and apologized profusely.  But she wasn’t offended because fat is seen as a sign of health and wealth.   And besides, she really was fat!  On another occasion, Debbie failed to make the distinction between the Tagalog word for heart, puso, and the word for cat, pusa, and preached a whole sermon about having Jesus in your cat!  Her listeners still remember that message in which, fortunately, they discerned the correct message.  But practice led to proficiency and, over the years, by the grace of God, we have preached hundreds of times in Tagalog, prayed with thousands of people to receive Christ and raised up men and women to pastor them.

Not only is learning the language critical to communicating God’s message, so is understanding the thought processes of the culture we are called to serve.  The ancient Greeks, like most Americans and other Westerners, for example, were linear thinkers.  Paul’s message to the philosophers on Mar’s Hill in Acts 17 is an excellent example of using the principles of Western logic to preach the gospel.  The outline of this article follows much the same line of thought.

On the other hand, the first century Jews, like a majority of the world’s population today, could be described as concrete-relational thinkers.  In short, they thought in terms of narratives or stories.  The ancient Hebrews were master storytellers, as one can easily see from the written accounts of the patriarchs and Joseph in Genesis and Moses’ own autobiography in Exodus.  As much as seventy percent of the Bible uses narrative for teaching doctrine.  Jesus embodied this tradition well, as the stories of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), the Prodigal son (Luke 15), and his penchant for teaching in parables clearly reveal.  Jesus also used simple methods to teach large contents of truth.  He used things they did understand, like his analogy of the mustard seed, to explain abstract ideas that they didn’t readily grasp, like the Kingdom of God.  He also normally taught in small words, no more than two to three syllables, to teach major theological doctrines—an example that today’s theologians often do not follow!  In other words, when God put on human flesh, he communicated not only in the languages of his hearers, he also conveyed God’s revelation of redemption in thought forms and concepts that his hearers could understand.

Missionaries and, for that matter, anyone teaching the Bible, need to follow Christ’s example.  Filipinos, like the hearers of Jesus, are concrete relational thinkers.  They think in terms of concrete images, like stories, rather than in abstract ideas.  This means that preaching through storytelling is much more powerful.  In Bible school, I was taught that stories or illustrations should be used to support the points of my message, which reflects the Western tradition in which I was raised.  But among Filipinos, I am much more effective when I reverse the process and preach the story and extract biblical principles from it.  A good example, and one of my personal favorites, is the account of Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel in I Kings 18.   Since many, perhaps most, Filipinos are involved in witchcraft at some point in their lives, this story of the power of God over the Old Testament witchcraft practitioners, the prophets of Baal being only one of a number of examples, presents the biblical message in a potent, relevant, and vividly clear manner.  Also, like Jesus, I need to make sure I express these truths clearly and simply, not an easy task for a man with three academic degrees in theology and missions!

Motivated by indescribable love, God sent his son across cultural, linguistic, and thought process boundaries.  But to what purpose?  Galatians 4:5 explains that God’s reason was redemption.  From the manger to the resurrection God was in Christ, reconciling this world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).  In order to provide for our forgiveness, God had to become man, and he did so gladly, crossing the boundary of heaven and earth, following Jewish custom and law, speaking the languages of the day, and teaching God’s redemptive message in concepts and thought patterns familiar to his audience.  Missionaries are commanded to do likewise.

[To receive automatic notification of my blogs, please click on the link above to become a follower.  Thanks.]

       

The Process of Discipleship

Not long ago, I was in a convenience store and saw a woman who was wearing a beautiful Christian T-shirt that described the reality and necessity of Christ’s death on the Cross.  Both the theology it expressed and the artwork truly glorified God.  I thought about complimenting her on it but, before I could do so, she stepped up to the cashier, bought lottery tickets, and left the store.  I stood there wondering if she had any idea that the message she wore on her body totally contradicted the one she held in her hand.  

What does it mean to be a follower of Jesus Christ—a true disciple worthy of being called by his name?  The apostle Paul, in 2 Corinthians 5:17 calls for a change of allegiance, renouncing the past in terms of its worldview, which lies at the core of our being as well as our values, attitudes, and actions, and a full embrace of the new life that Christ offers.  This new life calls for a total and drastic change of allegiance and embraces all aspects of life.  Far too many believers fail to understand the radical nature of Jesus’ claim on their lives.

Allegiance is an issue of the heart (Proverbs 4:20-23). A true change of allegiance will greatly impact our worldview.  Worldview can simply be explained as a pair of eyeglasses in the core of our being through which we perceive reality, define values, and decide actions.  Since our worldview begins to develop the day we are born and is strongly conditioned by the environment in which we grow up, most people don’t even know it is there and seldom question it.  But because our values and actions flow out of our worldview, having a biblical worldview is a vital component of discipleship.  Without it, our cultural environment will define our values and actions. 

Although many issues could be mentioned to demonstrate what worldview is, one example will suffice.  At the core of the Anglo-Saxon American worldview is the sovereign identity of the individual person, apart from their family or peers.  The old phrase “I gotta be me,” and Frank Sinatra’s hit song I Did It My Way express this worldview assumption quite well.  From this worldview comes the values of individual rights, such as the right to do my own thing, regardless of the impact it will have on my family, friends, or society as a whole.  Actions are based on values, and the particular value of individual rights has had an enormous impact on the American church as many believers feel that they serve Christ without being a part of a local church or rise up against authority in an unrighteous manner when they perceive that the church does not meet their needs.  They may also think, consciously or not, that the church exists to serve them—the individual.  Other cultures have different worldviews, from which their values and actions flow.  Everyone’s worldview has been marred by sin—there are no exceptions. 

Since our worldview reflects the core of what makes us who we are, the implications for discipleship are enormous.  Unfortunately, much of what is called discipleship today does not go far enough and many, perhaps most, American Christians, like the lotto lady mentioned above, have a bifurcated, or two-tiered, worldview, living according to God’s values when they are around other believers and going by society’s standards the rest of the time.  The result is a compromised discipleship.  If we recognize that our actions reflect our values and that our values flow out of our worldview, we must raise the question, “how can we change our worldview in order to follow Christ more completely?”        

The first step is to pray, asking the Holy Spirit, who alone knows our hearts, to reveal God’s truth to us.  He can and will lead us into all truth (John 16:13).  Second, under the Spirit’s guidance, we need to do some self-analysis.  Why do we do the things we do?  Why do we do things we shouldn’t and not do things we should?  Don’t be satisfied with cheap answers.  Seek to know your motives.  Actions are easy to observe but motives are not so easily discernable.  This is where the Body of Christ is so critical.  We all need a trusted, mature brother or sister in Christ to speak into our lives and help uncover our blind spots.

Take the lotto lady in the story above, for example.  Since I did not talk to her, I have no idea why she bought lotto tickets, nor am I judging her.  If she bought the tickets for her own use and stopped to think about it, she might ask herself what the Bible has to say about gambling, how money should be handled, or what it teaches about God’s ability and willingness to provide for those who trust him.  If she bought the tickets for someone else, she might ask what the Bible teaches about her being a good example of what it means to follow Jesus.  But, again, we need to go beyond actions here, and discover what motivates us.  She, or a trusted Christian friend, might ask if her motivation was it the desire for riches?  Anxiety over finances and concern about meeting basic needs in the present and future?  Was it a lack of trust in God?  She or her friend might dig a little deeper and ask, “Who is really in control of the universe, God, me, or the impersonal force of Lady Luck?”  When questions like these are honestly faced, we have gotten down to the inner core of who we are at the worldview level.  Unless our commitment to God reaches the core of our being and impacts every aspect of our lives, our obedience will be inconsistent, superficial, and fall far short of the full and enriching life that God wants us to have (John 10:10).

But since the way we handle money tells more about us than we would care to admit, let us follow the example of the lotto lady a little further.  Let’s assume that she prays over the matter of buying lotto tickets, and the Holy Spirit convicts her of her sin.  Let’s also assume that she presses in further and examines why she felt the need to buy the tickets and discovers that her motivation was fear about the future.  Now she has gotten to the heart of the matter.  She begins to ask questions like, “What is the truth about God, and what is the truth about me?”  Answering these questions demands that we read, study, hear, memorize, and meditate on the Word of God.

As she continues to study she discovers that God is all powerful and that he is the owner of everything.  She then discovers that as a believer in Christ, she is entitled to the promises of God regarding his provision and that she can trust him for her future.  Her worldview begins to change and she no longer feels the need to take matters into her own hands by buying lotto tickets.  Since our worldview part of the foundation of our lives, building the foundation on the secure foundation of Christ enables us to face life without fear, and we can begin to experience a change in our values and actions.

As she prays and studies further, she will encounter passages such as Malachi 3:8-11, which teach her to act on what she now believes and begin to tithe.  She understands that tithing indicates her new understanding that God is the owner of everything, including the money she used to invest in lotto tickets, and she begins to realize that she is a steward, not the owner, of the resources that God has invested in her.  She may also realize that giving and gambling are the antithesis of each other, one being an act of obedience that places her financial needs in the hands of God and the other following the worldly system of taking the future into her own hands. 

As she studies Malachi 3:10-11 further, she also recognizes that God will cause her to prosper through working, whether on the job or caring for her family at home.  When she discovers this, she has uncovered the heart of what has been called the Protestant Work Ethic.  When she sees that all honest labor is honorable to God and she begins to see her work as something more important than simply earning a paycheck or the receiving the appreciation of her family, she will then seek to be more industrious, conscientious, and honest—doing it for God rather than men (Colossians 3:23-24).  She will then recognize that not only is buying lotto tickets wrong, it is unnecessary since she has seen that God has a better plan.

She, as an accountable member of the Body of Christ, has now come full circle on this issue.  Her actions have changed because her worldview and values have changed.  She now gives rather than gambles because she recognizes that her loving, all-powerful God, holds her in the palm of his hand, and her future is safe with him.  She is not alone.  The Lord is with her and the Body of Christ supports her.  The lotto lady has become a lady of the Lord.  Then she prays and the Holy Spirit identifies another issue in her life, and the process of discipleship continues.   

Discipleship Through Local Church Ministries and Church Planting: A Divine Imperative

Sarah (not her real name) was sitting outside her home with her mother and sister when they heard music playing down the street at the outdoor community plaza, and they decided to check it out.  What they discovered was a children’s program being conducted by our evangelistic team as the opening part of a gospel rally designed for everyone.  Curious, they stayed for the entire event which consisted of singing, a gospel film, and the preaching of the Word.  Drawn by the power of the Holy Spirit, they came to know Christ that night.

Sarah was a well respected leader of the local youth organization in a community entrenched in the traditional church.  In reaction to her profession of new found faith in Christ, the whole community snubbed and harassed her.  One man publicly humiliated her.  But the Assemblies of God pastor discipled her and together with the support of the church, her mother and sister, she was able to stand strong against the opposition and joyfully witness for her Lord.  Today she has the favor of the town leadership and is employed at the city hall.

Sarah’s story provides an excellent example of what it means to become a disciple of Christ through the ministry of a local church.  The biblical basis for local church discipleship can be found in Matthew 28:16-20, one of the many biblical passages that deal with this subject.  Here, Jesus clearly states that the commission he is giving his disciples is based upon his own authority and that all is to be done in his name. The focus of the Great Commission is to make disciples, not mere converts, baptizing them as a sign of identification with Christ and teaching them to obey what Jesus had commanded.  Both public identification with Christ and walking in obedience to his Word are marks of a true disciple.

But how does discipleship happen?  From decades of personal experience, I can testify that it is a process that begins when we first come to Christ and lasts a lifetime.  What are the components of discipleship?  Simply put, the components of discipleship revolve around the practice of various spiritual disciplines, which help us understand and put in practice the teachings of Christ.  These include prayer, fasting, reading, studying, hearing, meditating on, and memorizing the Word of God being the most common.  As we practice the spiritual disciplines within the context of our churches, homes, work, or school, God builds his character us by the power of the Holy Spirit.  We grow in Christ together.     

God intended that most of the spiritual disciplines be done within a community of believers called the church.  God’s plan is that, in the local church, we would find fellowship and draw strength from one another as we face ups and downs of life together.  Every church must then provide teaching and mentoring opportunities for discipleship to take place.  In the past, Sunday School, mid-week Bible studies, prayer meetings, and children’s programs provided structure for discipleship and growth. Today, the Holy Spirit has provided some new strategies, such as small groups and mentoring.  The type of ministry is not nearly important as its content.  That so many churches have done away with such structures for growth is lamentable, but the lack in our churches today does not change God’s command.  To claim to be a New Testament church means providing opportunities for people to grow and mature in their faith and to be a follower of Christ calls for participating in the discipleship process in a local church.

If someone leads a person to Christ, bringing them to their church is natural.  But what is to be done as the Kingdom of God expands into areas where there is no church, or where the existing church does not preach Christ? If there is no church, new churches must be planted.  In the Philippines, where my wife and I serve, the dominant religion is folk Catholicism, and there are thousands of communities, many of them small, that have no gospel preaching church.  If we intend to reach the Philippines for Christ and since the local church is the best place for discipleship to take place, thousands of new churches must be planted in order for the Great Commission to be fulfilled.    

But simply starting a new church is not enough.  These new churches must provide opportunities for people to grow and mature in their relationship with Christ and one another.  To do this, a trained pastor must be provided, which is the reason why the Assemblies of God now has around 900 Bible schools all over the world.  In our district in the Philippines, we have a Bible school that has a three year training program.  That eighty-five percent of its graduates over the last forty four years have found their way into the ministry indicates that the school has done its job.

The problem is that our Bible school cannot provide enough pastors fast enough to meet the need for new church planting in all of the places we need to go.  To meet this need, God spoke to Debbie in 2007 to pioneer church planting schools, which were designed to train laymen and women to plant house churches in their own locale.  Since these people cannot get away from their jobs and families to attend Bible school, it was imperative that the church planting schools be held in a nearby location and for a shorter duration of time.  In the beginning, three schools were started in local churches and the training sessions lasted one and one half days per month.  About twenty students attended.  Today, there are now seventeen schools with about 200 students.  Specific statistics are hard to come by but there appears to be about eighty houses churches now open in our district.  While we rejoice because of the growth, great care must be taken that good teaching and mentoring, which are key components of discipleship, are taking place.  Additional tiers of training are needed—an issue we intend to address when we return.  These lay pastors, in turn, must put discipleship structures in place for these new believers to grow in Christ.  A church with an ill-trained pastor is a breeding ground for heresy, but a new believer without a church to provide love, instruction, and encouragement is a tragedy. 

A pastor, no matter what his or her background, must be committed to bringing new believers to maturity in accordance with 2 Timothy 2:2.  Sarah, her mother, and her sister came to know Christ through the ministry of an evangelistic team that was working with a local church.  The pastor of that church incorporated them into the local body and discipled them.  All over the world the Assemblies of God is planting new churches for this purpose.  Millions and millions of people, like Sarah, still need to be brought into relationship with Christ and his body.