Category Archives: Expositions
The First Denial and the First Rooster’s Crowing
“But he disowned him before everyone saying, ‘I don’t know what you are talking about!’”
(Matthew 26:70)
“But he disowned him saying, “I don’t know or understand what you are talking about!’ He went out to the gateway and the rooster crowed.”
(Mark 14:68)
“But he disowned him saying, ‘I don’t know him, woman!’”
(Luke 22:57)
“The slave-girl that was at the door said to Peter, ‘Aren’t you also from the disciples of this man?’ He said, ‘I am not.’”
(John 18:17)
We tend to be familiar with the account of Peter’s denial. The variations should be pretty readily recognizable as in harmony with one another — each Gospel writer focusing on a little different aspect of what was said by both parties. In English, we often render the word ajrne/omai (arneomai) as “deny,” but in context the term means to disown or repudiate one’s connection with another person and deny just did not seem strong enough to convey what is going on at this point in time. Peter is disowning the one person who had promised never to disown him (Hebrews 13:5). How true that is with us and with our sin. How often, by choosing sin we choose to turn our backs on the one who offers us salvation, forgiveness, and the eternal fellowship of divine grace. He will never leave nor forsake us, but how often we forsake our blessings and hope by looking for satisfaction elsewhere.
One will note that in Mark’s account he records the rooster crowing after this first denial while the other Gospel writers do not record the rooster’s crowing until after the third denial. Again, that should not cause us to stumble greatly as Mark is the one Gospel author who points out that the rooster crowed more than once. The other writers, then, are focusing on the rooster crow after the final denial and Mark also pointing out that the rooster had crowed earlier in the night as well — perhaps as a warning to Peter as to the path that he was now taking. How often God offers us warnings and how often we ignore those warnings as we go through life and fall into sin and grief.
It is sometimes suggested that the fact that the rooster is crowing is an indication as to just how late (or how early, depending on your perspective) it happens to be in the night/morning. While it is certainly clear that this is taking well past dark and likely into the wee hours of the morning, the inference is not really one that can be drawn from the presence of roosters who are often thought of as crowing at the rising of the sun. The reality is that roosters crow at all different kinds of hours, using their crowing to mark territory, attract the hens, and to warn at the presence of predators. What we can say is that God has chosen to use this common farm bird as a tool in the eternal plan of redemption — a reminder to we who are human (and able to understand God’s gracious acts towards us) that God is sovereign King over the created order — even the animals serve at his command. May perhaps this crowing of the cock be a reminder to us as to God ever present providential governing of our own lives as well.
And thus, the rooster’s crow (from a distance) marks Peter’s first denial. Twice more will he deny the Lord on this dark night. Yet, let Peter’s sobering experience be a reminder to us as well as to how often we are tempted to deny our Lord by word and action — especially when we feel threatened. And may this reminder to us be a clarion call to act; pursuing Christ no matter the cost and no matter the opposition to the glory of our God and Father. Yet, on this night, the rooster’s crow would be a warning and then a reminder that would drive Peter to his knees — breaking his pride so that he would be fit and pliable clay in the Master’s hands.
The First Accusation
“But Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. One of the slave-girls approached him saying, ‘You were also with Jesus the Galilean.’”
(Matthew 26:69)
“And Peter was down in the courtyard and one of the slave-girls came and saw Peter warming himself. Looking at him intently she said, ‘You are with the Nazarine, Jesus.’”
(Mark 14:66-67)
“And a certain slave-girl saw him sitting towards the light and looking intently at him said, ‘This man was also with him!’”
(Luke 22:56)
“The slave-girl that was at the door said to Peter, ‘Aren’t you also from the disciples of this man?’ He said, ‘I am not.’”
(John 18:17)
This is the first of the challenges that leads to the first of Peter’s denials. Though John includes the challenge and the denial in the same verse, we will be focusing right now on the challenge. In the arrangement of the verses above, I have taken John 18:17 out of order not to imply a rearrangement of events, but to better group the discussions around the challenges to Peter. It seems, based on the accounts, that this first challenge takes place as Jesus is being questioned by Annas, so the rearrangement should not cause too much difficulty for us.
The same thing can be said of the slave-girl that questions Peter. Some would suggest that these are two separate denials — one taking place at the doorway when Peter comes in and one taking place at the fire where he is sitting. Yet, the only thing that the language of the doorway really implies is in connection to the slave-girl. She is not any slave-girl in general, but the slave-girl from the doorway — whom we see referred to in John 18:16 as “the doorkeeper.” Perhaps Peter’s appearance did not register with her right away or was not clear in the lower light by the doorway, but something also did not sit well with her and she followed him to the fire to confirm her suspicions.
This reading would be affirmed by the language of Mark and Luke who write of her “looking intently” at Peter. She wants to make clear her suspicions and will follow up with a question that is little more than a veiled accusation. Remember, this courtyard is hostile territory and the mob filling the court is out for blood. Thus, this question should not be seen as an innocent matter — she is making an accusation that could have cost Peter his life (a life he had earlier that evening promised to give, though it was not God’s time). How Peter responds next is inexcusable in many ways, but reasonable at least on human terms, but we get ahead of ourselves.
This is the first of the accusations or challenges — two more will come for Peter. Such is how Satan sifts Peter like wheat, but such is also how God teaches his own faith, trust, humility, and obedience. What Satan intends for evil; God intends for good. What an amazing God we serve.
Let Justice Flow
“Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the High Priest.”
(John 18:24)
We have already discussed the relationship between Annas and Caiaphas as to how both are referred to as the High Priest and how this short exchange formed a kind of initial interview in the shadows of the evening prior to the official trial by Caiaphas. Most likely, it was Annas who had the pull to bring out the Temple Guard to make this arrest and it is most likely that Annas wanted to satisfy his own curiosity in this case. The interview does not produce much other than indignation on the part of Jesus and the interview is cut short and Jesus is sent to Caiaphas for the trial.
It is interesting that probably one of the most significant activities that God calls his people to perform is the one thing that is entirely devoid of this evening. God calls us to pursue justice (Genesis 18:19; Exodus 23:6; Deuteronomy 16:19; Micah 6:8, etc…). Justice is the ensuring that people are treated with righteousness according to God’s will. It is the heart behind the commandment in Leviticus 19:18 that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Justice means that truth is upheld and wickedness is exposed for what it is — that righteous activities are rewarded and sin is punished. And this evening, no justice takes place.
Then again, in the divine plan, were this evening about justice in its purest sense, we would all be condemned. Jesus endures the injustice of men here so that he may bear the justice of God on the cross on behalf of unjust men — that means you and me. Folks, that simple reality ought to stagger us and drive us to our knees in repentance, thanksgiving, and praise. How interesting it is that God chooses to use such ways to show us such grace.
There is something else that follows that needs to be before our eyes, and that is the change that this grace of God works on us as we live our our life in this unjust world. Will we seek justice? Will we seek to act with grace to those who act unjustly toward us? Will we seek to bring justice to the lives of those who cannot speak for themselves? Millions of babies have been aborted in America and the church has often remained quite silent. Will you be a voice for those babies who are being treated so unjustly? The poor and homeless are often shunned by the church as not fitting into “the mold” that the church is looking for and their voices are often marginalized by city governments that don’t really want to wrestle with the question of abject poverty. Will you be a voice for those who society has sought to silence? Mental Illness is widespread in our culture but few seem to want to address it and learn how to minister to those in our midst that need such care. Again, will you be their voice and advocate? Children with severe disabilities are often denied the kinds of therapy that are needed to help them live a productive life and their families are worn thin with the battles against the system. Will you be their advocate? Justice demands that we be the voice for those who cannot speak for themselves and to ensure that righteousness is advanced and the wicked are punished. And God commands of us that we work justice. Will you be obedient to that command, or will you, like Annas, use Jesus to satisfy your own curiosity and allow justice to be perverted to preserve your own status, comfort, and influence?
“Let justice flow out like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing torrent.”
(Amos 5:24)
Kalos and Kakos
“Jesus answered him, ‘If I spoke wickedly, testify as to the evil; but if nobly, then why did you beat me?’”
(John 18:23)
There is a certain irony in Jesus‘ choice of words. Some of our modern translations render Jesus as saying, “If I have spoken wrongly…” which gives the impression that Jesus is defending his own deportment with respect to the High Priest. Indeed, the man who struck Jesus did scold him for speaking to Annas in such a way, so it is natural that such an interpretation would be made. Yet, that is not what Jesus is saying. This is a false and unjust trial and the man to whom he is speaking is not really the High Priest anyhow. In such a context, what role does protocol have in the first place?
The subordinate struck Jesus for now begging before Annas. Jesus’ response is righteous, truthful, and contains a level of indignation that, were Annas and his cohorts really aware of the man to whom they spoke, should have reduced them to a quiver. Jesus is going like a lamb to the slaughter and soon will remain silent before his accusers, but here in the pre-trial, righteous anger is found to lie behind these words.
The irony in Jesus’ statement can be found in his choice of language before Annas — in two words to be specific: kako/ß (kakas) and kalw◊ß (kalos). The word kako/ß (kakas) refers to that which is evil, wicked, unwholesome, defiled, etc… In the Greek culture, it was the polar opposite of that which is kalw◊ß (kalos), which means noble, beautiful, morally upright, or done in a manner that is pleasing. When used together like this, the contrast is between that which is moral and that which is immoral, that which is virtuous and that which is foul. Jesus is essentially saying, “You who have acted unrighteously toward me, are you going to accuse me of unrighteousness?” Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, indeed.
Of course, this statement also frames all that will take place during these trials. From beginning to end, there is no legitimacy and all the testimonies of witnesses are staged. Often, as we live out our faith in this fallen world, it can seem as if unbelievers or unbelief in general is out to get us — Satan roaring like a lion looking to devour us if given the chance. Peter reminds us that this kind of behavior should not be that surprising to us for this is the way that Jesus was treated (1 Peter 2:21) — and if anyone can testify to that great truth it is Peter — Peter who on this night would deny his relationship with Jesus three times. John, who is also there that night, reminds us that we ought not be too surprised when the world hates us (1 John 3:13). The world hated Jesus first and we ought not be too surprised that we who are servants are treated in the same manner as our master (John 15:20). In fact, be of good cheer — for if the world does not listen to you it very well may be a sign that you are getting things right.
A Debt of Love I Owe…
“But when he said this, one of the subordinates who was standing there gave a blow to Jesus saying, ‘Is this how you answer the High Priest?’”
(John 18:23)
Again, many of our English translations like to render this word as “officer” when it comes to the one who slapped Jesus, giving the impression that this was one of the military guards. A better translation is subordinate, particularly recognizing that this term often refers to governmental offices, not military offices. Thus, we should see this man not as one of the soldiers, but as one of the underlings of Annas, perhaps even one of the Sadducees in authority — we are just not told. And this man strikes Jesus because Jesus refuses to submit himself before Annas in this false trial.
It is interesting that this subordinate also refers to Annas as the “High Priest” although the title rightly belongs to Caiaphas. Thus adds a further degree of support to the theory that Annas is still pulling the political strings of the High Priest’s office from behind the scenes and has likely arranged the events of the night to bring Jesus under Caiaphas’ judgment.
The blow that is struck upon Jesus will be the first amongst many, though it stands out as one of contempt and pride — it is the blow of an underling, likely trying to gain credibility in the eyes of his master, though truly only doing the devil’s deed. Many of our English translations render this phrase in such a way as to argue that the man slapped Jesus. That could be the case, though the word could also refer to one clubbing another with a stick or another blunt object. Were this man one of the mob that was so armed with torches and clubs from earlier that night, it could conceivably be the club and not the hand with which this man struck our Lord.
Loved ones, the one thing that we must keep painfully clear and before our eyes is that Jesus did not need to endure such suffering. Yet, in an outpouring of his grace, he chose to suffer for us by the hand of wicked men. Jesus could have called legions of angels to his defense and left the entire countryside scattered with the bodies of his enemies, but he chose to go like a lamb to the slaughter, be beaten and abused, falsely tried, and then horrifically executed on the cross. He did that for me. He did that for you, that is, if you are trusting in Him as your Lord and Savior. They say that the story of the Gospel is the “Greatest Story Ever Told” and there is truth in that claim. Yet, it is a story that not only travels to great heights in terms of the resurrection and promise of glory — but it is a story that travels to the greatest depths of misery — human and divine — as Jesus enters the household of the wicked to bear the sins of the wicked (you and me!) on his shoulders — and not only facing false judgment by the hands of wicked men, but facing righteous judgment by the hands of a holy God, who crushed him for our sin. Jesus was our substitute, so when you are tempted to wag the finger at these hypocritical Jewish authorities, remember first that he did this for you … and he did this for me. We are the reason Jesus gave himself into the hands of these men, thanks be to God! But oh, my soul, what a debt of love I owe to the King of Grace!
Boldly and Plainly
“Jesus answered him, ‘I have spoken frankly to the world — I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews gather. And in secret I have said nothing. Why then do you question me? Question the ones who heard me as to what I said to them. Look, they know what I said!”
(John 18:20-21)
To those who like to insist that the word “world” — ko/smoß (kosmos) — always refers to all people without any exceptions, here is a great illustration of the breadth of the term. For clearly, the world of whom Jesus is saying he has spoken to is not talking about all people without any exceptions. Instead, Jesus is implying that he has spoken to all kinds of people in the length of his ministry and in doing so he has spoken openly, boldly, plainly, and frankly. Certainly, in some contexts, the word ko/smoß (kosmos) can refer to all people without exception, but it must be noted that there is a breadth in the usage of the term such that context must be the key to understanding this word’s meaning when it is used.
What is more significant is Jesus’ statement to Annas that he has spoken nothing in secret. There are some who would challenge this statement citing the times when Jesus took the disciples to the side to instruct them or who would cite that the purpose of Jesus’ parables was to keep the unbelievers in the dark as to what Jesus was communicating (Matthew 13:13). While it is true that Jesus did take his disciples to the side on occasion, there was nothing secretive about these actions and the disciples were there as a witness to what it is that Jesus taught. Jewish culture also required two to three witnesses to charge a person with a serious crime — Jesus always took at least three (Peter, James, and John) with him so that they could record what was said and done. In terms of the parables, they were being spoken publicly, if the spiritual truth behind the message was unrevealed that stood as condemnation against the unbelieving Jewish officials, not as judgment against Jesus.
The bottom line is that Jesus is not going to recognize that these false judges have any authority over him — thus he does not legitimize their late night travesty of justice by answering their questions. He simply says, go ask the witnesses. If the witnesses would speak truth, there would be nothing that they could charge Jesus with — but truthfully or otherwise, the wicked priests had arrested Jesus for the purpose of murdering him — this evening would not come to a close without them making their charges — in this case, through trumped up false witnesses, but here I get ahead of myself.
And thus begins the false trial of Jesus in Caiaphas’ court. Perhaps, though for us, it is most important that we ask the question of ourselves — what have we been teaching others by our words and by our actions? Can we say, with Jesus, that our faith has been articulated in a way that would be considered bold, frank, or otherwise plain? Could witnesses to the things we have said and done articulate what we really believe? Would those witnesses even know you as a Christian by what you have talked about on a lunch break at work or at the ballfield? Sadly, I fear that “bold, plain, or frank” would not be an adjective that could accurately describe the lives of many professing Christians in America today. Yet, if the problem is noticed, the next step is to correct the error. Will you do so in your life? Will you strive to the kind of witness that speaks truthfully of Christ to a world that is in desperate need of the Gospel?
The First round of Questions
“Then the High Priest asked Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.”
(John 18:19)
In light of our discussions above, the High Priest being spoken of here must be Annas — referring to him in this way respecting his reputation and influence (as well as past title) not so much his formal title at the present time. As we labeled it above, we might refer to Annas as “High Priest Emeritus.” Were this not Annas doing the questioning, verse 24 (where Annas sends him over to Caiaphas) would make no sense.
We do not know a great deal of details with respect to this interaction. Clearly, it is not cordial based on what takes place next and it is rather brief (again substantiating that this is likely Caiaphas’ home, though Annas has likely claimed “first dibs” on questioning Jesus as he is likely the one who coordinated the mob that arrested Jesus.
What needs to be noted is that Annas is not only asking Jesus about his theological positions (kind of a hostile Presbytery exam), but also about his disciples. Jesus’ disciples escaped arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane and have gone into hiding. John seems to have connections in the High Priest’s household, so he stays with Jesus to witness events and Peter stays close to John — John getting Peter into the courtyard because of those contacts. Nevertheless, Annas is still after blood and wants to see this movement crushed. The best way to do so, is not just to silence the leader, but also the most significant spokespersons — the inner circle of disciples. Annas did not rise to power and influence without knowing how to silence his enemies and that seems to be exactly what he is doing at this point. Caiaphas can create the political trial; Annas wants to stop the movement.
Friends, it is often easy for us to read the Gospel accounts and to judge Peter and the others for their flight from Jesus’ side. Understand, two things, though. First, the level of hostility that is being expressed here is tremendously high. Were the disciples found, they too would have been similarly tried and killed. Secondly, Jesus had already promised that he would lose none of those that the Father had given to him (John 18:9). Though it was a rather ignoble means of preservation, it was God’s design for the preservation of his own during this time of great wickedness.
Yet, we are still left with the question. Were Jesus questioned about his teachings and disciples today, would we be at risk? Or, perhaps to put the question more plainly — if our words and actions were put on trial, would we be convicted as a Christian? Would the establishment of this world see us as a threat? I propose (sadly) that in most cases, the answer would be, “no.” As Christians, we have grown much too comfortable in this culture we live in and have grown to accept many of the evils around us as “necessary,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Loved ones, let us examine our life and teachings — examine the disciples we are making, particularly of our children — and seek to live and teach in such a way that we can genuinely be convicted of being Christian and even a threat to the status quo of the unbelieving world and their humanism.
A Time to Keep Silence and a Time to Speak
“But Peter followed him from a distance up to the court of the High Priest and going in he sat with the subordinates to witness the end.”
(Matthew 26:58)
“And Peter, from a distance, followed him as far as the courtyard of the High Priest and he was sitting with the subordinates and warming himself by the fire.”
(Mark 14:54)
“And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down in the midst of them.”
(Luke 22:55)
“The servants and the subordinates were standing around a charcoal fire they had made because it was cold and they were warming themselves. And Peter was also in that place and warming himself.”
(John 18:18)
Probably the obvious question to ask is with whom did Peter sit? Matthew and Mark speak of subordinates and John adds servants, but the question is, who are these people gathered in the middle of the night in Caiaphas’ court. Luke implies that these were amongst those who arrested Jesus, leading some English translations to render these verses as Peter sitting with the “guards.” Yet, the cohort (the official soldiers from the Temple) seems to have either departed or faded into the background for a variety of reasons, leaving us more likely with the rabble-rousers that made up the mob that accompanied the Cohort from the temple. Needless to say that this crowd is not a casual crowd and they are anything but neutral to the events that are transpiring.
Often this courtyard scene with Peter’s denial is portrayed as if Peter is being asked innocent questions about his association with Jesus and that his denials are out of an unfounded fear of what might happen. I don’t think that is what is implied here, though. These questions come from a very hostile crowd that is wanting to see blood — thus, while we still might speak of Peter’s cowardice to follow Jesus even to prison or death (Luke 22:33), prison or death most certainly would have been the end of this night for Peter had he spoken boldly of his connection with Jesus. Peter had escaped capture in the garden just hours earlier (if that long!), it is sure that this escape was fresh in his mind and he knew the climate of the people with whom he would be mixing in Caiaphas’ courtyard. Danger was all around.
It should be noted that some English versions translate Peter as standing by the fire while the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) portray him as sitting. This objection, if it be a real objection, can be answered in two ways. The simplest way is to recognize that Peter first approaches the fire standing up and remains standing so long as those around him are standing. Then, as Caiaphas takes his position for the trial, people settle down and sit. Peter, not wanting to stand out chooses to sit as well. The second way — if it be a way at all — is to note that the word that John uses, i¢sthmi (histami), can simply mean to be located in a particular spot (standing or sitting). Thus, there is no real contradiction between John’s account and the account of the other four evangelists.
While these questions may be curious, there are two clauses in these verses that are very striking. The first is how Mark refers to the fire around which Peter and the subordinates are gathered. Instead of using the ordinary word for “fire,” which in Greek is pu◊r (pur), he chooses to use the word, fw◊ß (phos) — “light.” One might be tempted to dismiss this as a curiosity, that perhaps Mark was simply looking for a different word to use for variety until one points out that this is the only time Mark uses the term fw◊ß (phos) in his entire Gospel. Furthermore, this is the only occurrence in the Greek New Testament where the term fw◊ß (phos) is used to refer to a fire.
One still might be tempted to suggest that Mark is just referring to the light that is emitted from a fire to foreshadow the fact that Peter would be recognized by those around him. Of course, this is presuming that this fire is the only source of light in the courtyard, which seems to be an odd assumption as oil lamps likely would have filled the space with light. A better answer is to recall that Mark is traditionally understood to have served as Peter’s scribe in Jerusalem, and thus this gospel was written under Peter’s oversight. Thus, there seems to be the suggestion here that the one thing Peter does not intend to do (at least initially) is to hide. His presence by the fire, in other words, is not just to warm himself (though that is one of the reasons), but is also to be present “in the light” and not in the midst of shadows. Of course, Peter’s nerve is lost as the proceedings go on and he realizes that he is noticed, but it is likely that at least at first, Peter’s intent was to be visible.
The second thing of particular interest is Matthew’s statement that Peter followed to see “the end.” The end of what? If Matthew is referring to “the end” of Jesus’ life, could it have been that Peter expected Jesus to be tried and executed even before dawn? Could Matthew have been speaking of “the end” with respect to their pilgrimage from the Sea of Galilee to Caiaphas’ courts? This latter explanation seems to be a better answer to the question. And, while likely not “the end” as Peter anticipated at the time, it indeed was the end — the end of Peter being only a follower and time for Peter to stand up and lead — though that final aspect would not be fulfilled until Pentecost. Solomon writes that to all things there is a season — for Peter (and for the other 10 who remained faithful), the time of following Jesus as he walked and taught in this earth had come to an end. Soon, the time would be for him to speak — and speak boldly he would.
Caiaphas’ Prophesy
“It was Caiaphas who plotted with the Jews that it would be useful that one man die for the group.”
(John 18:14)
The language of Caiaphas’ warning to the Sanhedron is one worthy of reflection. This little parenthesis is meant to point us to an earlier event that took place shortly before Jesus’ Triumphal Entry. John records the event in this way:
“But one from their number, Caiaphas, who was the High Priest in that given year, said to them, ‘You do not know anything, nor do you understand that it would be useful for you that one man die for the group and not have the whole of the people destroyed.’ This he did not say on his own, but being the High Priest in that given year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the people and not for the people only, but also in order that the Children of God that are dispersed might be gathered together as one.”
(John 11:49-52)
Before we move further, there are some terms that we must understand if we are going to grasp John’s explanation. First of all, this is a plot. Some of our English translations render John 18:14 as if Caiaphas is giving advice or spiritual counsel. What they are doing is plotting and scheming to see Jesus dead because Jesus has upset their powerbase.
The second thing that we must clarify up front is “to whom” will this arrest and execution be “useful” or “expedient.” While John points out that these words of Caiaphas are prophetic, it is important to first understand Caiaphas’ motives for speaking such words. Thus, the “to whom” in Caiaphas’ mind, must clearly be referring to the power of the ruling party in the Sanhedron. Annas, Caiaphas’ father-in-law, showed himself to be a master manipulator of power for personal gain, there is no question that Annas has been coaching his son-in-law in these matters.
Thus, if we know for whom it is “useful” we must also ask for which group is Caiaphas thinking Jesus must die. In God’s economy, we know the answer is that Jesus died for the elect, but in what context is Caiaphas speaking when he utters these words? Some of our English translations imply that the group in question is that of the nation of Israel based on John’s use of the term e¡qnoß (ethnos) in verse 51 above. While e¡qnoß (ethnos) can be interpreted as “nation,” it can more simply refer to a group of people united by any given common tie — hence the derivation of our modern term, “ethnic,” from this Greek word. It is also clear from Caiaphas’ actions that he cares little for the people of Israel apart from his ability to use them for his own personal gain. Similarly, at this point in history, Israel cannot be said to be a nation, but is a Roman province, a status that Caiaphas clearly has no interest in changing due to the fact that an outright revolution would clearly bring Caiaphas’ downfall (the effects of revolt would be demonstrated 40 years later when the Romans would march on Jerusalem in 70 AD).
Thus, the answer seems to be that Caiaphas is still thinking about himself and about those in power. The presence of Jesus only shook up the status quo, interrupted their monetary gains (think of Jesus’ actions with the sellers in the temple courts), and risked the oppression of the Romans. From Caiaphas’ perspective, Jesus must die to preserve Caiaphas’ power and the power of those who were in the ruling class — these are the “people” — the e¡qnoß (ethnos) — of whom Caiaphas is speaking. Again, John points out clearly that Caiaphas is speaking prophetically here, much as the pagan, Balaam, spoke prophetically generations earlier. While Caiaphas’ heart was focused on one thing, God used him to speak truth. It was “useful” that one man should die for the people — and Jesus was the only such man that could do so, being both God and man. For in Jesus’ death, he would pay the penalty of sin for His people — believers throughout the generations — those that God had elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) and then drawn to Jesus (John 6:44). In God’s eternal plan, this is the group for whom Jesus was dying — a group that Peter would refer to as a nation of priests (1 Peter 2:9-10) — a nation of which, by God’s grace, I have been called to be a member. And you have been made a member of that nation as well so long as you are trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Caiaphas spoke prophetic words — but words that pronounced his own ultimate defeat at the hands of sin and death. May these words stick with us and remind us not only of God’s sovereignty over even the wicked of this world, but over our lives as well. May these words remind us that it is only in Jesus’ death and resurrection that we can find hope and life for the dark days in which we live and for eternity thereafter.
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.
-Edward Mote
The Darkest Night — Peter’s Denials & Jesus’ Trials Begin
“They led him to Annas first, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the High Priest in that given year. It was Caiaphas who plotted with the Jews that it would be useful that one man die for the group. And Simon Peter followed Jesus in addition to another disciple. As that disciple was known to the High Priest he was also allowed in with Jesus into the courtyard of the High Priest. But Peter stood outside of the door, therefore the other disciple who was known to the High Priest went out and spoke to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in.”
(John 18:12-16)
“And the ones who had seized Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the High Priest, where the Scribes and the Elders gathered.”
(Matthew 26:57)
“And Peter, from a distance, followed him as far as the courtyard of the High Priest and he was sitting with the guards and warming himself by the fire.”
(Mark 14:54)
“And they arrested him and led him off. They brought him to the house of the High Priest — Peter followed at a distance.”
(Luke 22:54)
As dark as this night already was, for Peter and Jesus, it was about to get darker. Jesus is ultimately tried by three groups prior to his execution — once here by the High Priest, twice before Pilate, and once by Herod. And of the groups that tried him, only that trial by the Pagan Roman — a Gentile! — had any semblance of order, and Pilate’s trial wasn’t a good one by any stretch of the imagination. And then there would be Peter’s denial. Grief is not adequate to describe the events of this night, but nothing short of grief can describe the sorrow that would befall the events that took place. According to Jewish custom, trials were to be held during the day and 2-3 credible witnesses were to be present. Darkness and lies reigned in the testimony of this night — even from Peter’s own lips…
As we look at the parallel accounts, though, we learn some interesting tidbits that are important to our understanding of this event. Notice how both Mark and John point out that it was Jesus that Peter was following. Mark does not say, “Peter followed them,” speaking of the mob that arrested Jesus, but he records that Peter followed “him.” What a significant reminder to us even today that when in the midst of trying times, we should always be following Jesus — though perhaps not at a distance.
We are told that Jesus is taken to the courtyard of the High Priest for this trial and that the High Priest at the time was Caiaphas. John will also introduce Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, a little further into the narrative. There is some debate as to which of these men is the real “High Priest.” At one point, Luke seems to imply that both men were High Priests at the beginning of Jesus’ three-year ministry (Luke 3:2) but then seems to indicate in Acts that it was Annas who was the High Priest (Acts 4:6). At the same time, John seems very clear in this passage that it was Caiaphas who was High Priest (John 18:24). At the same time, this adds another level to the discussion. Did Jesus meet with Annas first and then get sent to Caiaphas as seems to be implied by John 18:12, or was this all one meeting where both men were present?
To know some history about these men is helpful in seeking to put this puzzle together, and thankfully, Annas is well known in Jewish historical writings. Annas was officially appointed High Priest in the year 6AD in what was then the newly established Roman province of Judaea and he was appointed by another figure known to Biblical scholarship: Quirinius the Roman Governor (see Luke 2:2 — note that the census of which Luke speaks took place earlier, when Judea was still part of the Syrian province). During his reign as High Priest, Annas used his position and influence to garner great amounts of wealth for himself and his family and influence in the powers that be — both in terms of the Roman and Jewish authorities. He was aligned with the Sadducees, and though deposed in 15AD, he still held an important seat in the Sanhedron.
While in Ancient Israel, the position of High Priest was considered one for life (see, for example, references to the liberty given to manslayers that came with the death of the High Priest), by Jesus’ day the role had become more or less a political one and not necessarily one held until death, as in Annas’ case. Though deposed, four of Annas’ sons would rise to power as High Priest, as well as Caiaphas, his son-in-law, and one grandson. Thus, while it is clear from the texts before us that Caiaphas was the official High Priest, Annas still holds a great degree of influence and is treated with the respect due to the High Priest. In some circles, we might refer to Annas as “High Priest Emeritus.”
As to the sequence of events, then, it is clear from John’s text that the soldiers escorted Jesus to Annas first and then to Caiaphas, yet from the description it appears that the events being described take place in the same location (not both the house of Annas and then the house of Caiaphas). The answer to this can be presented in a fairly simple way. Annas and Caiaphas both were clearly behind the plot to arrest and try Jesus for insurrection, but Annas would have been the one of the two with the informal connections to see such a large mob rallied and led by a cohort of temple guards. These guards were likely loyal to Annas and thus, to Annas Jesus was brought. Annas, it seems, had an initial (informal) conversation with Jesus to satisfy his own curiosity — perhaps even in the shadows of Caiaphas’ Court — and then when done with Jesus, he sent Jesus along to Caiaphas for the formal “trial.” Note that the text never says it was Annas’ courtyard or house — only that Jesus was led to Annas first. The simple logic of the account then, places these events in Caiaphas’ court with Annas, his father-in-law, helping to manipulate and pull strings.
And such continues the darkest night in history…
From Ur to Haran, but No Further…
3/26/13
“These are the descendants of Shem: when Shem was a son of one-hundred years, he begat Arpakshad — two years after the deluge. And Shem lived, after he begat Arpakshad, five hundred years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:10-11)
Essentially, this list of genealogies picks up where the genealogies in Genesis 5 leave off. Here we find the descendants of Noah that lead us to Abraham. And, much like we find in Genesis 5, we are not seeing an exhaustive list, but simply the covenantal line that leads from Adam to Noah (Genesis 5) and now from Noah to Abraham. God is a God who elects to bestow his grace and blessings upon a specific people, not vague generalities, and out of one lump of clay (in this case, the children of Shem), he has every right to make some vessels for honored use and others for dishonored use (Romans 9:21). We know nothing of most of these people apart from the fact that God called them to be part of the line of Abraham — the man with whom God would establish his covenant. But that is why we call God’s election: “Grace.” It is not what I have done, but what God has done, praise be to God.
Traditionally, Arpakshad’s name has been understood to mean, “healer,” though the etymology of this is a bit stretched. The Hebrew word apr (rapha) is seen as the root, being the verb, “to heal.” The word dv (shad) in Hebrew refers to one’s chest or perhaps to one’s mother’s breast. The Aleph at the beginning could be a use of the first person singular verbal prefix in the imperfect tense, but we are really beginning to stretch the speculative realm of things further than I am comfortable doing. The key is that while we know very little of this particular man, we know that he was born two years after the flood and that he is in the line of Abraham and for that we can celebrate our inheritance with him.
Shem lived a total of 600 years, had other sons and daughters, and then passed away. He had a full life, but we know nothing of what that life entailed apart from his connection to his father and to his son, though it should be noted that in Genesis 10:22 we have a fuller list of Shem’s sons. How often it is that the things that we consider important are not really that important in the economy of God. May we find our satisfaction not in all the things we have done but in the fact that in Christ our names have been preserved in the Lamb’s Book of Life — something far more important than those works that might be attributed to us during our lifetime.
3/27/13
“When Arpakshad lived thirty-five years he begat Shalach. Arpakshad, after he begat Shelach, lived four hundred and three years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:12-13)
When reading these genealogies, I often get asked why some of these Old Testament saints waited so long to have children. Thirty-five perhaps is not terribly old, but read this way, Shem was 100 before he had Arpakshad. Yet, to read the text in this way misses the thrust of what is being communicated. It is not that Arpakshad waited until he was thirty-five to have children, it is that Arpakshad was thirty-five when his wife gave birth to Shelach. Shelach stands out from his other brothers and sisters because Shelach is in the line of Abraham who is in the line of David who is in the line of Jesus. This genealogy is not seeking to be exhaustive, simply to trace the covenantal line from Noah to Abraham.
In these two verses, you will note that I spelled Shelach’s name differently. This is not a typo, but a reflection of the Hebrew vowel markers changing shifting from one use to the next. Remember, that Hebrew is a consonantal language, and in most cases, vowel pointing is not written, just simply pronounced. Thus, the change from an “a” to an “e” should not throw us off very much as we understand his name. Shelach means “to stretch out” or “to send.” Again, we do not know much about the context of his naming or character, but his purpose is that of being a pointer to the covenant mediator to come. Beyond that, all other things are secondary.
Once again, scripture reminds us repeatedly that human life is passing like the flowers of the field in the scope of eternity. What is more important is not so much all of the accomplishments we think are important, but whether we have faithfully pointed others to Jesus, using all of our gifts to do that task. May we commit ourselves to being pointers to one greater than we are and not to ourselves.
4/4/13
“It came to pass that Shelach had lived for thirty years, and he begat Eber. And after he began Eber, Shelach lived another four-hundred and three years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:14-15)
And here the pattern continues. At times this may seem to get redundant, but the presence of these genealogies reminds us of God’s patience through the generations and the long gaps of time in between his covenantal activities. Our tendency is to be impatient and we want everything yesterday. God’s design is that he may never intend to bring earth-shattering events in our generation, but it may be through our children, our grandchildren, or through our great-great-great grandchildren whom we will never live long enough to meet in this life. There are basically ten generations that are traced here from Noah’s son Shem to Abraham. In which generation are we? We may be called simply to live in faith and obscurity, setting an example in our children or grandchildren to follow, for it may be in their generation that God is going to fulfill our prayers and move. We may pray for revival, but God is the one who brings such revival and he does so in His timing.
The name Eber comes from the Hebrew word meaning, “to pass by” or “to cross over.” Typically this is seen to reflect the nomadic lifestyle given to the descendants of Noah (they were to multiply and fill the earth — Genesis 9:1). It could also reflect the deliverance that God had given to his people through the flood as they passed over the waters of judgment if only still in the loins of Shem. It is also rather prophetic, because the people of God would pass through the Red Sea and the Jordan River by God’s divine working. There is some debate as to the origin of the word Hebrew, but some trace the word back to this son of Shem’s name. Hebrew traditionally is understood to be taken from the term “the ones who come from across the river.” Prophetic indeed.
The bottom line is that God is still continuing to work. Shelach and Eber may not be mighty judges or covenant mediators, but they prove faithful to God and hand down what they know from one generation to the next — something that we are all called to do as believers. We must be engaged in this privilege — teaching our children and grandchildren about the mighty works of God. The sad thing is that in our culture today, many parents are not doing that, but rather are taking the attitude that children should make up their own mind on such matters. Yet, for a plant to grow strong and healthy, it must be biased by good soil, plenty of water, and good sunshine; for a child to grow strong and healthy, he or she must be biased toward the truth — we are called to do that biasing by the way we live and by the way we teach our children. And while history may simply record us as a name in the line of another, our faithfulness will bear fruit in the generations that follow in faithfulness to God’s call and design.
4/12/13
“It came to pass that Eber had lived thirty-four years and he begat Paleg. After Eber begat Peleg, he lived four-hundred and thirty years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:16-17)
Like Shelach, we find Peleg presented with two sets of vowel, which again should not cause us to stumble greatly as we are reminded that the vowel pointing is present for pronunciation, not for definition. Of the Sons of Shem, this is the first case where more than one son is mentioned (see Genesis 10:25) and in that context we are also given the meaning of his name: “division.” We are told that it was in this generation that the earth was divided up — in context, most likely speaking about the various clans going in their separate directions. God had commanded the children of Noah to be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth with their kind (Genesis 9:1), yet the children of Noah settled in Shinar and set forth to build a city in their own honor (Genesis 11:1-4). God confused their languages and thus divided the people, forcing them apart and to migrate to every corner of the earth, leaving behind their plans for vain-glory and being made to be obedient even if that was not their intent. While we do not know for sure exactly which “division” that Eber had in mind when he named his son, it is not unreasonable to consider Babel as the event behind the division. Peleg’s brother’s name was Yoqtan, which means “watchful,” and traditionally is seen as the forefather of those who live in the Arabic nation of Yemen.
How often disobedience brings division. Our culture is one which celebrates the individual and tends only to think of the ramifications that one’s actions may have on oneself. Yet, what of the ramifications of one’s actions on the community around us? God would have us understand that one’s actions either bless or bring trial upon the community around us — hence the seriousness of the punishments prescribed for Old Testament Israel were incremental based on the seriousness of the crime within the covenantal community. Division was brought in Peleg’s day. If as a result of Babel, then we know exactly the kind of disobedience that caused the division. If as a result of something else, then all we know is that the actions of the day were ones that brought division — something that brought grief and separation on the face of the earth — no longer could the people dwell together but they had to separate and divide.
As Christians, we are called to be a people of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-19). Yet how often we act as Pelegs — people of division. Numerous protestant denominations are a testimony to this fact. And, though there are certainly times when denominations separate themselves from the body of Christ by their unfaithfulness, how many small, faithful denominations are there whose only point of separation was on whether one sang psalms, hymns, or praise choruses? Loved ones, we are quick to divide and slow to reconcile…it ought to be the other way around.
4/13/13
“And it came to pass that Peleg was thirty years old and he begat Reu. And after he begat Reu, Peleg lived two-hundred and nine years. And he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:18-19)
Here we find the first real indications that the effect of the Fall upon our lifespan is progressive, for Peleg’s lifespan is significantly shorter than that of his fathers’ before him. Shem lived to be 600, Apakshad to 438, Shelach to 433, Eber to 464, and now Peleg dies at 239 — a comparatively young man compared to those who have gone before him. And, as we continue to see the lives of these Old Testament saints go forward, we find that their life expectancy continues to drop until they are within our range. Isaiah speaks in terms of the new creation to come that those who only live to 100 would be counted as cursed (Isaiah 65:20) — how accursed a race we are then!
This change in longevity is worth noting because Peleg is the first of these patriarchs to die before his father. In fact, he died before his father, before his grandfather, before his great grandfather, and before his great-great grandfather. In fact, Peleg dies ten years before Noah, his great-great-great grandfather, dies. What a devastating reminder that while the world has been remade new through the flood, people still are under the weight of the fall and thus death still reigned in their bodies. To put things in even clearer perspective, Shem outlives almost all of his named descendants for nine generations — only Abraham and Eber outlive their great ancestor — and Eber (Peleg’s father) outlives Abraham by four years!
Reu’s name means, “companion” or “friend.” How profound a name that is given the context of death that the descendants of Shem now need to face. How often, in the wake of death, what we need most is friendship — those who will comfort and not condemn. Loved ones, we live in a dark and fallen world, we need those Godly friends and companions that he gives us to accompany us on our way. May there be many “Reu”s in your life.
“And it came to pass that Reu lived thirty-two years and he begat Serug. Reu lived two-hundred and seven years after he begat Serug. And he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:20-21)
And the pattern continues. Sometimes we can get a little weighed down by lists of genealogies like this, but do remember always that these are real people in time and space that are striving to live faithfully before the Lord and to teach their sons and daughters the ways of God. More importantly, they are the line from whom God would raise up Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and eventually Jesus. It is important to be able to trace these roots — a reminder to all of the sovereign hand of God upon his elect through the ages.
The name Serug is typically understood to be an adaptation of Sarugi, an Akkadian place name marking a region about 35 miles from Haran (though spelled, “Charan”). Perhaps this is where he lived and settled or perhaps his name is somewhat prophetic of the travels that his grandson, Terah would make when he left Ur and settled in Haran. This we do not know. Perhaps his name is simply a reminder that they were not a people to be settled in Ur, but meant for a place distant from there in the direction of Sarugi and Haran.
It is interesting to me how our nature can often be so radically distinct from God’s call. Abraham was to be a wanderer — a traveler — in a land promised to him and to his children, but not his own. I wonder how many of us would accept a call like that in our lives today. How often we choose comfort and security over the call that God places upon us. Yet God’s call and God’s way is always better than our own. Loved ones, do not despair, God is sovereign over all things — big and small! — and he has your life in his hand. When he calls you to step out in faith, do not hesitate to do so. Be messengers of his grace in all you do and trust the bigger plan to God’s hand.
4/18/13
“And it came to pass that Serug was thirty years old and he begat Nachor. And Serug lived two-hundred years after he begat Nachor and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:22-23)
Some names in the Bible are more flattering than others. This one is not one of the more flattering ones… Nachor literally means, “snorter,” and is typically understood to refer to the kind of snort that an aquatic whale would make when they surface and snort, or blow out, the carbon dioxide stored in their bodies from long dives. Being called a “whale” is unflattering enough, but even more so when you realize that the ancient Hebrew culture was never overly fond of the water in the first place. One can speculate that perhaps this name came from the way the baby snorted or played, but that is entering into speculation. The reality is that we do not know for sure.
Yet, as unflattering as we might find the name to be, Nachor’s grandson — the son of Terah — would be named after him. That simple fact should remind us of the importance of honoring those who have gone before us and one way to do so is for our children to carry their names. There is a tribute that is made to that end and Terah saw that as a way to honor the one who had raised him up in the world. So often we are prone to live only thinking of ourselves; this is a reminder to us that we stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before us.
4/19/13
“And it came to pass that Nachor was twenty-nine years old he begat Tarach. And after Nachor begat Terach, he lived one-hundred and nineteen years and begat sons and daughters. And it came to pass that Terach had lived seventy years. He begat Abram, Nachor, and Haran.”
(Genesis 11:24-26)
And the bridge has now been crossed — the covenantal transition between Noah and his sons and Abram — a period spanning 352 years beginning with the flood and taking us to the birth of Abraham. And all of that three hundred and fifty two years summarized within 17 verses of scripture. There may perhaps be a temptation to be discouraged, wondering if our own lives will prove to be such a small footnote of history — or even to make the text of the history books, for many do not. Yet, we are to always remember that it is not our lives that are of significance; it is Jesus who is of significance. And that means that if we labor all our lives in humble obscurity yet in a way that honors our Lord and Savior, that ought to be enough — and enough it is.
We have seen the subtle vowel changes between the first and second readings of several of the names in this genealogy already, so Terach’s name should not cause us to stumble. There is a great deal of discussion as to what the origin of Terach’s name actually is. Some have suggested that it goes back to a town on the edge of the River Balikh which is north-east of Haran, Turāhu. Others have connected his name with the Akkadian word turāhum, which means “mountain goat” — typically understood as referring to an ibex. The answer we just may never know in this life.
We have already seen the meaning of the name Nachor; Haran is typically understood to refer to a mountainous countryside as the root of the name, rAh (har), means “mountain” or “rough hill.” Abram’s name means, “Great Father.” And that is exactly what he is.
There are some who would be slightly tripped up by the way verse 26 leaves things off. Was Abraham the oldest of the three brothers (hence is mentioned first) and if so, was Abraham born when Terah was 70? Traditionally, it has been understood that Abraham left Haran at the age of 75 (Genesis 12:4) and at the death of his father, Terah. Yet, that means that Terah was 130 years old when he Abraham was born, thus making him a younger son of Terah, not the oldest.
The answer to this question lies in the fact of who Abram is — he is the son of the covenant, the one through whom God will be continuing his covenantal promise. Just as the language of Genesis 5:32 leaves us with the birth of Noah’s three sons, yet only through Shem would the line continue, we find the same pattern being preserved here, hence he is listed first (just as Shem is listed first in Noah’s lineage — and note that Shem was 97 years old when the flood hit, making his father, Noah, 503 when he was born — so again, he was not the oldest of the three.
What will follow in this chapter is the beginning of the call that Abraham would receive — in portion given through his father Terah. Perhaps, though, as we continue to introduce the life of Abraham, it would be valuable to lay out the timetable of births and deaths that bridges us from the flood of Noah to the life of Abraham.
- The Flood of Noah’s Day takes place (the floodwaters themselves lasting a full year)
- 2 AF (After the Flood): Arpakshad born
- 37 AF: Shelach born
- 67 AF: Eber born
- 101 AF: Peleg born
- 131 AF: Reu born
- 163 AF: Serug born
- 193 AF: Nachor born
- 222 AF: Terach born
- 292 AF: Terach begins having sons
- 340 AF: Peleg dies (the first of the covenantal line to die post-flood)
- 341 AF: Nachor dies
- 350 AF: Noah dies
- 352 AF: Abraham born
- 370 AF: Reu dies
- 393 AF: Serug dies
- 427 AF: Terach dies and Abram migrates to Canaan
- 440 AF: Arpakshad dies
- 452 AF: Isaac is born
- 470 AF: Shelach dies
- 502 AF: Shem dies
- 527 AF: Abraham dies
- 531 AF: Eber dies
Sobering, isn’t it?
4/23/13
“These are the descendants of Terach. Terach begat Abram, Nachor, and Haran and Haran begat Lot. Haran died before the face of Terach, his father. It was in the land of his descendants, in Ur of the Kasdiym.”
(Genesis 11:27-28)
As we have mentioned, the scriptures are transitioning us from the life of Noah to the life of Abraham. Terach had three sons, but it would only be Abraham that is the line through which God will work, calling Abraham’s descendants to himself. These verses and the verses that follow really mark the setting apart of Abraham from his brothers — the first of his brothers, Haran, died at an unrecorded age in the land of his children. No children are mentioned by name as they are not connected to the covenantal line, but the text indicates their presence.
In Hebrew, the name of their homeland is MyIÚdVcAÚk (Kasdiym), and typically that is recognized to be the land of the Chaldeans, the predecessors of the later Babylonians. This is likely a connection back to Babel and the tower that those who dwelled in that area were seeking to build. We are introduced to Haran’s son, Lot, whose name refers to a covering or a wrapping over top of something. Lot will be taken in by Abram and Sarai and thus we know a great deal more about this man and his family (though much of it is not good), but we get ahead of ourselves.
For now, God is situating Abram to be separated from his people back in Ur. One step at a time, he is preparing to take this man and his wife on a journey of a lifetime — a journey of covenantal promise. For those who doubt the election of God, this is one of portions of scripture that must not be ignored. Here is a God who is intentionally separating a man and his line from all the rest of his family to be the bearer of the covenant. That, my friends, is election, plain and simple.
Yet, we would be remiss if we did not bring out a final principle by way of reminder. When God calls a person to follow, we must follow. He expects obedience from his own. Does that obedience characterize your life? If not, repent and follow the calling of the King of Kings wherever that may lead you.
5/10/13
“And Abram and Nachor took to themselves wives. The name of the wife of Abram was Saray and the name of the wife of Nachor was Milkah — the daughter of Haran who was the father of both Milkah and Yiskah. And it came to pass that Saray was infertile and had no child of her own.”
(Genesis 11:29-30)
I suppose that there are no great surprises in the various spellings of familiar names — again, transliteration is not a precise science and there are many agreed upon spellings of these names that do not reflect the literal transliteration from the Hebrew into English. Saray, is better known to us as Sarai, whose name means, “My princess.” Milkah is the daughter of Haran, which makes her the sister of Lot. Milkah (or Milcah) means “Queen.” It is interesting that, based on names, both Abraham and Milkah marry women whose names denote royalty. Milkah has a sister named Yiskah, or Iscah in our English Bibles, whose name probably is derived from the word for “to look” or “to look at.”
And now we have the family line laid out before us as well as another tidbit — Sarai was barren and could bear no child. Perhaps that is the reason for Abram taking in Lot, his nephew, when his brother dies. We do not know the answer to that particular question. What we do know is that God is waiting until Abram’s father dies (and thus Abram becomes the covenant head of his home) and then is going to begin doing mighty things in this man’s life. The wait is for another purpose as well — so that the only explanation for this man’s success could be attributed to God.
How we like to have our successes attributed to our persons. Yet, how much better it is when our successes are attributed to the one from whom the success originated! For any good success that I might have is only because of the grace of God and the hand of God working in my life. It is all about God and his work from beginning to end — I am not my own. How often we fall on our faces because we do not recognize that truth and how often we allow our bloated egos to become so puffed up with pride that we become a blight even to ourselves and need be laid low all over again. Oh how the “mighty” have so often fallen. Loved ones, cling to God, trust his leading, but also ensure that you understand that any good credit belongs to God alone. We are but tools in his hand — may we be always sharp and ready for use.
5/14/13
“And Terach took Abram, his son, and Lot, the son of Haran — the son of his son, and Saray, his daughter-in-law — the wife of Abram, and they went out together from Ur of the Kasdiym traveling toward the land of Canaan. But when they entered into Charan, they dwelt there. And the days of Terach were two-hundred and five years. And Terach died in Charan.”
(Genesis 11:31-32)
It strikes me that the call of Abram to leave behind the land of Ur and enter the land of Canaan was initially heard, at least in part, by Abram’s father, yet Terach did not complete what he started out to do. Perhaps the roads ahead were hard and the place in Haran more comfortable. Perhaps his health was waning and there was a need to stop here and allow him to rest out the final years of his life. We are simply not told the human reasons for this rest stop.
Though we will come back to this as we explore the life Abram and Abram’s following of God’s call where his father failed, it should be noted here the significance of God’s sovereign plan. Ultimately, it was for Abram, not Terach, to receive the promise of the land of Canaan and in God’s sovereign design, all of the human events that took place or failed to take place that caused Terach to stop in Haran were ordained by God so that it would be Abram and his household that would enter into the promised land. It is Abram who is the great father, not Terach.
We often talk of the plan of God but we also often fail to see God’s hand in our failures as well as in our successes. That, of course, does not let us off the hook, but God uses us in spite of ourselves, our foibles, and our abject failures. Bottom line is that we are to strive to be faithful to God’s calling upon our lives, but God has ordered all things — even our failures — to bring about his will. On one level that ought to boggle our minds. On another level, it ought to drive us to our knees in worship and thanksgiving. Personally, I have walked some very dark roads of sin over the years of my life; to be reminded that even in those dark valleys, God was directing my steps is a remarkable thing. It was my sin, but God was using even that sin to conform me into the image of his Son. And for that, I am eternally grateful. Thus begins the call of Abraham.
God Gets the Glory…Great Things He Has Done
“And Abram and Nachor took to themselves wives. The name of the wife of Abram was Saray and the name of the wife of Nachor was Milkah — the daughter of Haran who was the father of both Milkah and Yiskah. And it came to pass that Saray was infertile and had no child of her own.”
(Genesis 11:29-30)
I suppose that there are no great surprises in the various spellings of familiar names — again, transliteration is not a precise science and there are many agreed upon spellings of these names that do not reflect the literal transliteration from the Hebrew into English. Saray, is better known to us as Sarai, whose name means, “My princess.” Milkah is the daughter of Haran, which makes her the sister of Lot. Milkah (or Milcah) means “Queen.” It is interesting that, based on names, both Abraham and Milkah marry women whose names denote royalty. Milkah has a sister named Yiskah, or Iscah in our English Bibles, whose name probably is derived from the word for “to look” or “to look at.”
And now we have the family line laid out before us as well as another tidbit — Sarai was barren and could bear no child. Perhaps that is the reason for Abram taking in Lot, his nephew, when his brother dies. We do not know the answer to that particular question. What we do know is that God is waiting until Abram’s father dies (and thus Abram becomes the covenant head of his home) and then is going to begin doing mighty things in this man’s life. The wait is for another purpose as well — so that the only explanation for this man’s success could be attributed to God.
How we like to have our successes attributed to our persons. Yet, how much better it is when our successes are attributed to the one from whom the success originated! For any good success that I might have is only because of the grace of God and the hand of God working in my life. It is all about God and his work from beginning to end — I am not my own. How often we fall on our faces because we do not recognize that truth and how often we allow our bloated egos to become so puffed up with pride that we become a blight even to ourselves and need be laid low all over again. Oh how the “mighty” have so often fallen. Loved ones, cling to God, trust his leading, but also ensure that you understand that any good credit belongs to God alone. We are but tools in his hand — may we be always sharp and ready for use.
The descendants of Terach
“These are the descendants of Terach. Terach begat Abram, Nachor, and Haran and Haran begat Lot. Haran died before the face of Terach, his father. It was in the land of his descendants, in Ur of the Kasdiym.”
(Genesis 11:27-28)
As we have mentioned, the scriptures are transitioning us from the life of Noah to the life of Abraham. Terach had three sons, but it would only be Abraham that is the line through which God will work, calling Abraham’s descendants to himself. These verses and the verses that follow really mark the setting apart of Abraham from his brothers — the first of his brothers, Haran, died at an unrecorded age in the land of his children. No children are mentioned by name as they are not connected to the covenantal line, but the text indicates their presence.
In Hebrew, the name of their homeland is MyIÚdVcAÚk (Kasdiym), and typically that is recognized to be the land of the Chaldeans, the predecessors of the later Babylonians. This is likely a connection back to Babel and the tower that those who dwelled in that area were seeking to build. We are introduced to Haran’s son, Lot, whose name refers to a covering or a wrapping over top of something. Lot will be taken in by Abram and Sarai and thus we know a great deal more about this man and his family (though much of it is not good), but we get ahead of ourselves.
For now, God is situating Abram to be separated from his people back in Ur. One step at a time, he is preparing to take this man and his wife on a journey of a lifetime — a journey of covenantal promise. For those who doubt the election of God, this is one of portions of scripture that must not be ignored. Here is a God who is intentionally separating a man and his line from all the rest of his family to be the bearer of the covenant. That, my friends, is election, plain and simple.
Yet, we would be remiss if we did not bring out a final principle by way of reminder. When God calls a person to follow, we must follow. He expects obedience from his own. Does that obedience characterize your life? If not, repent and follow the calling of the King of Kings wherever that may lead you.
The Genealogy brought to a Close…
“And it came to pass that Nachor was twenty-nine years old he begat Tarach. And after Nachor begat Terach, he lived one-hundred and nineteen years and begat sons and daughters. And it came to pass that Terach had lived seventy years. He begat Abram, Nachor, and Haran.”
(Genesis 11:24-26)
And the bridge has now been crossed — the covenantal transition between Noah and his sons and Abram — a period spanning 352 years beginning with the flood and taking us to the birth of Abraham. And all of that three hundred and fifty two years summarized within 17 verses of scripture. There may perhaps be a temptation to be discouraged, wondering if our own lives will prove to be such a small footnote of history — or even to make the text of the history books, for many do not. Yet, we are to always remember that it is not our lives that are of significance; it is Jesus who is of significance. And that means that if we labor all our lives in humble obscurity yet in a way that honors our Lord and Savior, that ought to be enough — and enough it is.
We have seen the subtle vowel changes between the first and second readings of several of the names in this genealogy already, so Terach’s name should not cause us to stumble. There is a great deal of discussion as to what the origin of Terach’s name actually is. Some have suggested that it goes back to a town on the edge of the River Balikh which is north-east of Haran, Turāhu. Others have connected his name with the Akkadian word turāhum, which means “mountain goat” — typically understood as referring to an ibex. The answer we just may never know in this life.
We have already seen the meanings of the name Nachor, Haran is typically understood to refer to a mountainous countryside as the root of the name, rAh (har), means “mountain” or “rough hill.” Abram’s name means, “Great Father.” And that is exactly what he is.
There are some who would be slightly tripped up by the way verse 26 leaves things off. Was Abraham the oldest of the three brothers (hence is mentioned first) and if so, was Abraham born when Terah was 70? Traditionally, it has been understood that Abraham left Haran at the age of 75 (Genesis 12:4) and at the death of his father, Terah. Yet, that means that Terah was 130 years old when he Abraham was born, thus making him a younger son of Terah, not the oldest.
The answer to this question lies in the fact of who Abram is — he is the son of the covenant, the one through whom God will be continuing his covenantal promise. Just as the language of Genesis 5:32 leaves us with the birth of Noah’s three sons, yet only through Shem would the line continue, we find the same pattern being preserved here, hence he is listed first (just as Shem is listed first in Noah’s lineage — and note that Shem was 97 years old when the flood hit, making his father, Noah, 503 when he was born — so again, he was not the oldest of the three.
What will follow in this chapter is the beginning of the call that Abraham would receive — in portion given through his father Terah. Perhaps, though, as we continue to introduce the life of Abraham, it would be valuable to lay out the timetable of births and deaths that bridges us from the flood of Noah to the life of Abraham.
- The Flood of Noah’s Day takes place (the floodwaters themselves lasting a full year)
- 2 AF (After the Flood): Arpakshad born
- 37 AF: Shelach born
- 67 AF: Eber born
- 101 AF: Peleg born
- 131 AF: Reu born
- 163 AF: Serug born
- 193 AF: Nachor born
- 222 AF: Terach born
- 292 AF: Terach begins having sons
- 340 AF: Peleg dies (the first of the covenantal line to die post-flood)
- 341 AF: Nachor dies
- 350 AF: Noah dies
- 352 AF: Abraham born
- 370 AF: Reu dies
- 393 AF: Serug dies
- 427 AF: Terach dies and Abram migrates to Canaan
- 440 AF: Arpakshad dies
- 452 AF: Isaac is born
- 470 AF: Shelach dies
- 502 AF: Shem dies
- 527 AF: Abraham dies
- 531 AF: Eber dies
Sobering, isn’t it?
The Snorter…
“And it came to pass that Serug was thirty years old and he begat Nachor. And Serug lived two-hundred years after he begat Nachor and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:22-23)
Some names in the Bible are more flattering than others. This one is not one of the more flattering ones… Nachor literally means, “snorter,” and is typically understood to refer to the kind of snort that an aquatic whale would make when they surface and snort, or blow out, the carbon dioxide stored in their bodies from long dives. Being called a “whale” is unflattering enough, but even more so when you realize that the ancient Hebrew culture was never overly fond of the water in the first place. One can speculate that perhaps this name came from the way the baby snorted or played, but that is entering into speculation. The reality is that we do not know for sure.
Yet, as unflattering as we might find the name to be, Nachor’s grandson — the son of Terah — would be named after him. That simple fact should remind us of the importance of honoring those who have gone before us and one way to do so is for our children to carry their names. There is a tribute that is made to that end and Terah saw that as a way to honor the one who had raised him up in the world. So often we are prone to live only thinking of ourselves; this is a reminder to us that we stand on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before us.
Serug
“And it came to pass that Reu lived thirty-two years and he begat Serug. Reu lived two-hundred and seven years after he begat Serug. And he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:20-21)
And the pattern continues. Sometimes we can get a little weighed down by lists of genealogies like this, but do remember always that these are real people in time and space that are striving to live faithfully before the Lord and to teach their sons and daughters the ways of God. More importantly, they are the line from whom God would raise up Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and eventually Jesus. It is important to be able to trace these roots — a reminder to all of the sovereign hand of God upon his elect through the ages.
The name Serug is typically understood to be an adaptation of Sarugi, an Akkadian place name marking a region about 35 miles from Haran. Perhaps this is where he lived and settled or perhaps his name is somewhat prophetic of the travels that his grandson, Terah would make when he left Ur and settled in Haran. This we do not know. Perhaps his name is simply a reminder that they were not a people to be settled in Ur, but meant for a place distant from there in the direction of Sarugi and Haran.
It is interesting to me how our nature can often be so radically distinct from God’s call. Abraham was to be a wanderer — a traveler — in a land promised to him and to his children, but not his own. I wonder how many of us would accept a call like that in our lives today. How often we choose comfort and security over the call that God places upon us. Yet God’s call and God’s way is always better than our own. Loved ones, do not despair, God is sovereign over all things — big and small! — and he has your life in his hand. When he calls you to step out in faith, do not hesitate to do so. Be messengers of his grace in all you do and trust the bigger plan to God’s hand.
The Dividing Peleg
“It came to pass that Eber had lived thirty-four years and he begat Paleg. After Eber begat Peleg, he lived four-hundred and thirty years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:16-17)
Like Shelach, we find Peleg presented with two sets of vowel, which again should not cause us to stumble greatly as we are reminded that the vowel pointing is present for pronunciation, not for definition. Of the Sons of Shem, this is the first case where more than one son is mentioned (see Genesis 10:25) and in that context we are also given the meaning of his name: “division.” We are told that it was in this generation that the earth was divided up — in context, most likely speaking about the various clans going in their separate directions. God had commanded the children of Noah to be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth with their kind (Genesis 9:1), yet the children of Noah settled in Shinar and set forth to build a city in their own honor (Genesis 11:1-4). God confused their languages and thus divided the people, forcing them apart and to migrate to every corner of the earth, leaving behind their plans for vain-glory and being made to be obedient even if that was not their intent. While we do not know for sure exactly which “division” that Eber had in mind when he named his son, it is not unreasonable to consider Babel as the event behind the division. Peleg’s brother’s name was Yoqtan, which means “watchful,” and traditionally is seen as the forefather of those who live in the Arabic nation of Yemen.
How often disobedience brings division. Our culture is one which celebrates the individual and tends only to think of the ramifications that one’s actions may have on oneself. Yet, what of the ramifications of one’s actions on the community around us? God would have us understand that one’s actions either bless or bring trial upon the community around us — hence the seriousness of the punishments prescribed for Old Testament Israel were incremental based on the seriousness of the crime within the covenantal community. Division was brought in Peleg’s day. If as a result of Babel, then we know exactly the kind of disobedience that caused the division. If as a result of something else, then all we know is that the actions of the day were ones that brought division — something that brought grief and separation on the face of the earth — no longer could the people dwell together but they had to separate and divide.
As Christians, we are called to be a people of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-19). Yet how often we act as Pelegs — people of division. Numerous protestant denominations are a testimony to this fact. And, though there are certainly times when denominations separate themselves from the body of Christ by their unfaithfulness, how many small, faithful denominations are there whose only point of separation was on whether one sang psalms, hymns, or praise choruses? Loved ones, we are quick to divide and slow to reconcile…it ought to be the other way around.
Eber…
“It came to pass that Shelach had lived for thirty years, and he begat Eber. And after he began Eber, Shelach lived another four-hundred and three years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:14-15)
And here the pattern continues. At times this may seem to get redundant, but the presence of these genealogies reminds us of God’s patience through the generations and the long gaps of time in between his covenantal activities. Our tendency is to be impatient and we want everything yesterday. God’s design is that he may never intend to bring earth-shattering events in our generation, but it may be through our children, our grandchildren, or through our great-great-great grandchildren whom we will never live long enough to meet in this life. There are basically ten generations that are traced here from Noah’s son Shem to Abraham. In which generation are we? We may be called simply to live in faith and obscurity, setting an example in our children or grandchildren to follow, for it may be in their generation that God is going to fulfill our prayers and move. We may pray for revival, but God is the one who brings such revival and he does so in His timing.
The name Eber comes from the Hebrew word meaning, “to pass by” or “to cross over.” Typically this is seen to reflect the nomadic lifestyle given to the descendants of Noah (they were to multiply and fill the earth — Genesis 9:1). It could also reflect the deliverance that God had given to his people through the flood as they passed over the waters of judgment if only still in the loins of Shem. It is also rather prophetic, because the people of God would pass through the Red Sea and the Jordan River by God’s divine working. There is some debate as to the origin of the word Hebrew, but some trace the word back to this son of Shem’s name. Hebrew traditionally is understood to be taken from the term “the ones who come from across the river.” Prophetic indeed.
The bottom line is that God is still continuing to work. Shelach and Eber may not be mighty judges or covenant mediators, but they prove faithful to God and hand down what they know from one generation to the next — something that we are all called to do as believers. We must be engaged in this privilege — teaching our children and grandchildren about the mighty works of God. The sad thing is that in our culture today, many parents are not doing that, but rather are taking the attitude that children should make up their own mind on such matters. Yet, for a plant to grow strong and healthy, it must be biased by good soil, plenty of water, and good sunshine; for a child to grow strong and healthy, he or she must be biased toward the truth — we are called to do that biasing by the way we live and by the way we teach our children. And while history may simply record us as a name in the line of another, our faithfulness will bear fruit in the generations that follow in faithfulness to God’s call and design.
Shelach…
“When Arpakshad lived thirty-five years he begat Shalach. Arpakshad, after he begat Shelach, lived four hundred and three years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:12-13)
When reading these genealogies, I often get asked why some of these Old Testament saints waited so long to have children. Thirty-five perhaps is not terribly old, but read this way, Shem was 100 before he had Arpakshad. Yet, to read the text in this way misses the thrust of what is being communicated. It is not that Arpakshad waited until he was thirty-five to have children, it is that Arpakshad was thirty-five when his wife gave birth to Shelach. Shelach stands out from his other brothers and sisters because Shelach is in the line of Abraham who is in the line of David who is in the line of Jesus. This genealogy is not seeking to be exhaustive, simply to trace the covenantal line from Noah to Abraham.
In these two verses, you will note that I spelled Shelach’s name differently. This is not a typo, but a reflection of the Hebrew vowel markers changing shifting from one use to the next. Remember, that Hebrew is a consonantal language, and in most cases, vowel pointing is not written, just simply pronounced. Thus, the change from an “a” to an “e” should not throw us off very much as we understand his name. Shelach means “to stretch out” or “to send.” Again, we do not know much about the context of his naming or character, but his purpose is that of being a pointer to the covenant mediator to come. Beyond that, all other things are secondary.
Once again, scripture reminds us repeatedly that human life is passing like the flowers of the field in the scope of eternity. What is more important is not so much all of the accomplishments we think are important, but whether we have faithfully pointed others to Jesus, using all of our gifts to do that task. May we commit ourselves to being pointers to one greater than we are and not to ourselves.
Prelude to Abraham… Shem
“These are the descendants of Shem: when Shem was a son of one-hundred years, he begat Arpakshad — two years after the deluge. And Shem lived, after he begat Arpakshad, five hundred years and he begat sons and daughters.”
(Genesis 11:10-11)
Essentially, this list of genealogies picks up where the genealogies in Genesis 5 leave off. Here we find the descendants of Noah that lead us to Abraham. And, much like we find in Genesis 5, we are not seeing an exhaustive list, but simply the covenantal line that leads from Adam to Noah (Genesis 5) and now from Noah to Abraham. God is a God who elects to bestow his grace and blessings upon a specific people, not vague generalities, and out of one lump of clay (in this case, the children of Shem), he has every right to make some vessels for honored use and others for dishonored use (Romans 9:21). We know nothing of most of these people apart from the fact that God called them to be part of the line of Abraham — the man with whom God would establish his covenant. But that is why we call God’s election: “Grace.” It is not what I have done, but what God has done, praise be to God.
Traditionally, Arpakshad’s name has been understood to mean, “healer,” though the etymology of this is a bit stretched. The Hebrew word apr (rapha) is seen as the root, being the verb, “to heal.” The word dv (shad) in Hebrew refers to one’s chest or perhaps to one’s mother’s breast. The Aleph at the beginning could be a use of the first person singular verbal prefix in the imperfect tense, but we are really beginning to stretch the speculative realm of things further than I am comfortable doing. The key is that while we know very little of this particular man, we know that he was born two years after the flood and that he is in the line of Abraham and for that we can celebrate our inheritance with him.
Shem lived a total of 600 years, had other sons and daughters, and then passed away. He had a full life, but we know nothing of what that life entailed apart from his connection to his father and to his son. How often it is that the things that we consider important are not really that important in the economy of God. May we find our satisfaction not in all the things we have done but in the fact that in Christ our names have been preserved in the Lamb’s Book of Life — something far more important than those works that might be attributed to us during our lifetime.
Faith of Our Fathers
“And it came to pass that Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him in the cave of Makpelah — the one in the field of Ephron the son of Tsohar the Hittite which is in the direction of Mamre — the field which Abraham bought from the sons of the Hittites. There Abraham was buried along with Sarah, his wife.”
(Genesis 25:9-10)
Abraham’s body is now placed in the same cave which he bought to hold his wife’s body — property that rightfully belongs to him. As we read in Genesis 23, Abraham goes to lengths to ensure that this property is rightfully purchased and belongs to him, not something given as a gift or a loan — not something that the Hittites would have any recourse to come and take back. But a piece of property that now belongs to Abraham and is meant as a covenantal foretaste of the reality that one day Abraham’s descendants will come back and take the whole land as their own. Compared to the whole, it is a small spot — yet it is a spot nonetheless and it is here that Abraham’s body will be buried alongside of his wife’s remains.
And notice that it is not all of the sons of Abraham that return to bury their father. Nor is it Isaac alone. But Isaac and Ishmael work together to this end. This may seem odd to us, but Isaac is the son of the covenant and Ishmael is a son that is covenantally blessed because of his lineage from Abraham (see Genesis 16:11-12; 21:18). From both men great nations will arise — nations that will perpetually be at war with one another even up until this very day. His other sons are sons nonetheless, but no covenantal promise is attached to them. They are simply a fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars of the sky.
And here ends the account of Abraham, the friend of God. What follows in this chapter is the transition of the covenant story to the life of Isaac, Abraham’s son. The baton has been passed from one generation of promise to the next. To cite God’s statement regarding Abraham earlier in his life — here is one who will “teach his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice…” (Genesis 18:19). May that statement be made of each of our households as we seek to pass the baton of faith from one generation to the next…
He died with Good Grey Hair
“These are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived: one-hundred and seventy-five years. Abraham perished and died with good grey hair, an old man and fulfilled. And he was gathered to his people.”
(Genesis 25:8)
These are the final words recorded in the narrative of the life of Abraham. What follows relates his burial and the transition in God’s covenant story from Abraham’s life to that of Isaac. Even so, here we have the scriptural epitaph for this man of God. His days were full and long, he died with a full head of grey hair (a sign of maturity), and he was gathered to his people — his spirit joined the spirits of all those other believers who had passed on ahead of him in the presence of their almighty God. Though it is brief (as are all epitaphs), as far as epitaphs go, this is just about as good as it gets.
There is something that we have lost in our modern pursuit of youth, and that is the respect and honor due to those elders in our midst. Too often we see them as slow, not up to date, and a burden, when we ought to see them as a great treasure and repository of wisdom. Those grey hairs were earned and thus things to be held in honor, not hidden under layers of dye or relegated to being “old fashioned.” That grey head of Abraham signifies more than his old age — it signifies the wisdom that those many years brought to his life. His death marked not only the passing on of the covenant responsibility from himself to his son, but the passing away of wisdom and experience from this world — something that must be mourned.
Notice that the passing away of one with great wisdom is a community affair — all recognize their corporate loss as well as the family’s immediate loss. Again, in a culture that glamorizes the vibrancy of youth, often the wisdom of maturity is neglected. Yet, as the word of God brings a close to Abraham’s life, it does so with great dignity and grace and from that we can learn as we honor the passing of those in our own midst.
The Sending …
“But to the sons of the concubines of Abraham, Abraham gave gifts. And he sent them away from Isaac during his life — eastward, to the land in the east.”
(Genesis 25:6)
Before Abraham sends his sons (those not of Sarah) away, he gives to each gifts — a practice that is remarkably ahead of his time. Many today seek to give a portion of their estate to their children while they are still living — this has tax benefits and gives you control over the disbursements — but Abraham’s purpose is rather different. Isaac will inherit his estate — he will be the one to assume responsibility for this great and wonderful promise that God has given to Abraham in terms of the covenant and the wealth that has been given in the context of the covenant. Upon Abraham’s death, there will be no squabbles over nick-knacks, but all will fall to Isaac.
Yet, Abraham still provides for his other sons. They are his children and this is a fulfillment of the covenant that God made to him at the very time of his calling — I will make you a blessing (Genesis 12:1). Thus, the account of Abraham’s life ends the way it began … with a focus on the nations finding their hope and blessing in the line of Abraham. And Paul writes that we who find our hope in Jesus Christ are counted as children of Abraham and thus heirs to the promise (Galatians 3:29). Again, while we tend to react to the sparkle of gold and wealth; those who are found in Christ have discovered what wealth truly is.
Thus, with their wealth, the descendants of Abraham head to the east and form many of the Arab tribes that will end up coming back to haunt the people of Israel, but that is an account for another day. Now, once all things are settled and each son is provided for and sent off to the east to find his own fortune, Abraham will finally be ready to lay down and rest, shuffling off this mortal coil and joining Sarah in the presence of the Almighty God who called him out of his homeland and would establish his line in Canaan — a God whom he called, “Friend” (James 2:23).
All He Had to Isaac
“And Abraham gave all that was his to Isaac.”
(Genesis 25:5)
As with Ishmael, the other sons of Abraham are not meant for the covenant — the covenant line shall be set through Isaac. And thus Isaac is the inheritor of his father’s estate, but he is also the inheritor of something far more important — a covenant promise. It is for sure that the gifts mentioned in the following verse, given to the other sons, were substantial from an earthly perspective, but from an eternal view, they are like dust. The wealth of the nations will turn to dust but the promises of the Lord will last forever.
Why is it though, that so often we focus on the earthly inheritances that we are offered? When a man with great financial wealth passes away, people immediately begin dreaming of spending money and even professing Christians sometimes are reduced to bickering and fighting over what they perceive as their “fair share.” Yet, had Abraham given all of his earthly wealth and property to his other sons and left Isaac only with the promise of God’s covenant, Isaac’s wealth would have still infinitely surpassed that of his brothers’ and this statement, that all Abraham had was given to Isaac, would have been no less true. For all that Abraham had of any lasting value was the promise of God — all else was just a measure of earthly comfort.
In the west, we labor hard to provide an inheritance for our children, but sadly that inheritance for which we labor is often of no value. That which is of value is a spiritual, Godly inheritance offered in the name of Christ, Jesus. The children who inherit from their parents a knowledge of the Lord and a model of a life lived faithfully before the Lord, but not a penny in wealth, have received far more than the children who are given millions of dollars but nothing of lasting value. Take care in choosing that for which you labor. Set your efforts on things of lasting value, not on things of this earth.
The Preacher's Study 