Original Meaning

Separation from Lot (13:1–18)

IN ABRAM’S ITINERANT LIFE, the text is not interested in detailing every stop he made or the length of time spent in each location. This was the typical way of life for those who kept herds and flocks. Different seasons led them to different grazing locations and water sources. In addition, they had to be careful not to deplete the grazing land in any one area. We are also told that Abram continued to call on the name of the Lord (v. 4). The main focus of the chapter, however, concerns the separation from Lot. The land of Canaan had a limited number of water sources as well as limited grazing areas. It is not surprising, then, that the needs of Abram and Lot soon outgrew the available resources. As always, competing needs lead to conflict, and Abram and Lot finally decide they must go their separate ways.

Lot’s attention is drawn to the “plain of the Jordan” (v. 10). It is possible to get a good view of the Jordan Valley and the northern area of the Dead Sea from the hills around Bethel. While the area around the Dead Sea is not a hospitable region today, the text makes it clear that the area had a far different quality prior to the Lord’s judgment. There are extensive areas along the Jordan Plateau that do provide ample grazing that may also be represented in this narrative. When the eastern boundary of Canaan is identified, it is typically the Jordan River (see esp. Num. 34:1–12). Thus it becomes clear that by moving to the vicinity of the cities of the plain, Lot has gone outside the land of Canaan, leaving it entirely to Abram.1 It is also important to notice the recurrence of “toward the east” in verse 11. Every movement away from God thus far in Genesis has been designated as toward the east (3:24; 4:16; 11:2).

Once Lot moves out of the land, the Lord gives Abram the land of Canaan (13:14–17). His itinerant wandering now takes on new purpose, almost equivalent to conquest, since everywhere he walks will be given to him and his family. Abram and Lot are moving south from Bethel when they separate. Lot takes the road toward Jericho and the Jordan Valley, eventually crossing at the fords of Jordan and moving south on the east side of the Dead Sea to the vicinity of Sodom and Gomorrah.2 Abram takes the road south through Jerusalem and Bethlehem and into the Negev to arrive at Hebron.

The city of Hebron (13:18) is located in the Judean hill country (ca. 3,300 feet above sea level), approximately nineteen miles southeast of Jerusalem and twenty-three miles northeast of Beersheba. Ancient roadways converge on this site coming east from Lachish and connecting with the road north to Jerusalem, indicating its importance and continuous settlement. The construction of an altar here, as at Bethel, transforms it eventually into an important religious site, and its subsequent use as a burial place for the ancestors established its political importance (reflected in the Davidic narrative, 2 Sam. 2:1–7; 15:7–12).

Bridging Contexts

PURPOSE OF GENESIS 13–15. Genesis 13 is a regular in children’s Sunday school curriculum. A large majority of the curricula produced by the publishing houses emphasizes behavioral objectives; that is, the lessons are designed to instruct the children in appropriate ways to act. One of the earliest behavioral objectives driven home to children is that they should learn to share their things and let others have first choice. Consequently, the story of Abram and Lot is recruited (or more accurately, commandeered) to make the point. Is there a behavioral objective that is consciously taught by the author in this passage? If not, are we within our hermeneutical rights to commandeer the passage as an illustration for what most agree is a biblically sound teaching?

As we have seen previously, biblical narratives generally resist moralization. The importance of Abram’s allowing Lot to choose is that it is thereby made plain that Lot is not driven from the land but gives it up freely. Had Abram picked first, it could be claimed that Lot is, in effect, chased out. Whether Abram’s offer to Lot is motivated by magnanimity is incidental and, consequently, insignificant. This leads us to reconsider the role of behavioral objectives in the shaping of curriculum. If our Bible lessons focus on something the Bible does not intend to teach, what value is there in using the Bible stories? If we neglect their authoritative teaching in favor of driving home the points we want to make, even if our points are good points, we distort the text and model poor methods of Bible study.24

Likewise, we depart from the text if our sermons vitiate Lot’s motivations as selfish or tainted with the evil of Sodom. It is true that he will become tangled in Sodom’s web, but there is no indication that anything but consideration of the advantages for his livelihood dictate his choices. We gain nothing by raising Abram on a high pedestal and portraying Lot as either villain or victim.

Methodologically, we cannot be content to let the ends justify the means. Commandeering text is never appropriate. Our methodology requires us to pursue the purpose that the author has for the text. As the text portrays him, Lot is an obstacle, not because he represents the influence of carnality, but because he competes for the claim to the land. Abram is unaware that Lot is an obstacle. His separation from Lot is forced by economic and sociological factors, not by spiritual insight or divine instruction. Once the obstacle is removed, however, we see advancement in the covenant.

These elements, obstacle and advance, appear chapter after chapter. Since they serve as the common denominator in otherwise disparate narratives, we infer that they represent the author’s primary focus. Abram is promised a land, but up until this point, that land is shared with Lot (who, not insignificantly, is to become the ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites). Only when Lot voluntarily leaves the land can it become the sole inheritance of Abram, free of competing claims within his larger family. Previously God has told him, “Go to the land I will show you,” with no indication that the land will be given to him. Now more precision is included: “All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever.” In this way the covenant advances.

Chapter 14 is linked to chapter 13; God is going to give Abram the land, but how? It is important to follow the itinerary of the kings of the east to see that they establish their dominion over the whole land both east and west of Jordan. The land currently belongs to them. Theoretically, then, if Abram conquers them, dominion reverts to him. When Abram pursues the kings, he is not on a campaign of conquest; he is simply trying to rescue Lot and his family. Nonetheless, the upshot of his victory is that he is in a position to seize power to some extent. Is this the way God is going to give him the land?

We should recognize this scenario. In 1 Samuel 24 and 26 David is twice put in a position where he can take that which has been promised to him. Saul is vulnerable, David is armed; the throne is his for the taking. His men point out as much: “This is the day the LORD spoke of when he said to you, ‘I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish’ ” (1 Sam. 24:4). David is to have the throne, but is this the way it is to happen?

Consider a second scene: Christ, following his baptism, is driven out into the desert, where he is tempted by Satan. All the kingdoms of the world are to belong to him. Satan offers a shortcut if Christ will only bow down to him. Christ recognizes that he is being offered an inferior shortcut and, with less confidence, so did David. As we interpret the temptation of Adam and Eve, they also were offered a shortcut to wisdom, but they failed to recognize it as inferior and yielded to the temptation to eat from the tree.

Abram, like David, senses that the path set before him to gain the promises of God is a dead end, and, like David, Abram resists succumbing to the offer. He shows this by submitting to Melchizedek, who is one of the controlling kings in the region prior to the invasion, and by refusing to be made rich at the hands of the king of Sodom. On the first count he relinquishes his right to territorial control; on the second, he relinquishes his share of the wealth. This represents the beginning of the resolution of another obstacle to the covenant: How can the land belong to him when it is in the hands of others?

In chapter 14 an inappropriate resolution is explored, and in chapter 15 God’s answer is given. The resolution to the land problem is that there will still be four hundred years before the Lord is ready to give the land to Abram’s family. Though the text gives information about the removal of the obstacle, it is still a long way off. Nevertheless, chapter 15 also represents the next step in the advance of the covenant. Up until this point, the covenant is discussed in relation to the terms and benefits that Yahweh offers. No formal agreement has been entered into. In chapter 15, then, the advance of the covenant is that it is actually ratified, and 15:18 can now say for the first time in Genesis, “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.”

Melchizedek in later texts. In the Original Meaning section we considered Melchizedek only in terms of the information gleaned from Genesis 14. But as we look at the scope of the whole canon of Scripture, we understand that there may be more going on than meets the eye. Melchizedek next makes an appearance in Psalm 110:4, where the idealized Davidic king is identified as also having priestly credentials “in the order of Melchizedek.” Once we get to the intertestamental period, Melchizedek becomes a much more intriguing figure. The Hasmoneans, seeking to establish a messianic dimension to their rule, justify their priestly-royal prerogatives by reference to Melchizedek. This practice is continued by the Sadducees.25

In the Dead Sea Scrolls 11QMelchizedek and 4QAmram both show that Melchizedek has become the subject of much speculative interpretation. The former assigns him a judging function in heaven and associates Psalm 7:8–9 and 82:1 with him. The latter identifies him as Michael and calls him the Prince of Light. He is depicted as a heavenly redeemer figure, a leader of the forces of light who brings release to the captives and reigns during the messianic age. He is the heavenly high priest to whom archangels make expiation for the sins of ignorance of the righteous.26 In the Talmud (b. Ned. 32b) and Targum Neofiti, Melchizedek is identified as Shem. The former attributes irreverence to him and thereby transfers his priesthood to Abram. In the apologetic works of Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 19, 33), Melchizedek is portrayed as a representative of the Gentiles, who is seen as superior to the Jewish representative, Abram. Philo of Alexandria (Alleg. Interp. 3.79–82) considers him the eternal Logos.27

By the time we get to Hebrews 7, much of this Jewish tradition is mixed into the consideration of Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews is not drawing his information on Melchizedek solely from the Old Testament; he is also interacting with the traditions known to his audience. It is the Jewish profile of Melchizedek, not just the canonical profile, that informs his comparison. The author has been addressing his audience all along on their own level and in relationship to their own beliefs. He need not accept their beliefs, but he is demonstrating that Christ’s position is superior to the position in which they have placed others. He therefore relates not only to the Melchizedek of history, but to the Melchizedek of Jewish imagination.

In some ways this is like speaking to a Buddhist about how Christ is superior to Buddha. There is both a historical Buddha and the Buddha that has become the central focus in the traditions of Buddhism. The point is not to argue the validity of his audience’s belief one way or another, but to use their beliefs for a comparison to Christ. The three main points that Hebrews makes are as follows:

1. Christ had a legitimate priestly function based on the precedent of Melchizedek. This precedent and office have been established in Scripture.

2. The basis of the priesthood was an indestructible life; the author of Hebrews uses the audience’s beliefs to make the point.

3. That priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood.

There is no attempt to establish that Jesus is superior to the image cast of Melchizedek, only that the priesthood represented by Jesus on the basis of Melchizedek’s precedent (Ps. 110) is superior to the Levitical priesthood.

As a result, there is nothing in Hebrews or anywhere else to suggest that we need to believe that Melchizedek was anything other than the Canaanite king he is depicted as in Genesis 14. The fact that he held the roles of priest and king (as many did in the ancient world) in Jerusalem was sufficient to establish the precedent of a royal priesthood in Jerusalem that was adopted by the Davidic dynasty and therefore came into the messianic profile.28

Religion of Abram. In an attempt to begin with the description of the religion as it emerges from the text of Genesis, R. Moberly proposes six helpful interrelated aspects of patriarchal religion.29

1. Religion is open and inclusive. There is no need to choose between gods because all characters relate to the same God.

2. There is no antagonism between the God and religious practice of the patriarchs as over against the gods and religious practice of the Canaanites. In fact, one would not know there are any other gods.

3. Religious practice of the patriarchs is noticeably distinct from Mosaic practice (pillars and worship in many places vs. Sabbath, food laws, and sacrificial system).

4. There is an absence of institutionalized mediation—no prophets or priests aside from occasional roles played by the patriarchs themselves.

5. No stipulations of moral obedience serve as conditions of blessing.

6. There is no language suggesting holiness standards needing to be maintained.

Several of these are immediately explainable by the absence of a sanctuary, but still it is clear that there was no attempt on the part of author and editors of Genesis to bring patriarchal religious practice into conformity with Sinaitic terms. In general, patriarchal religious practice can be identified as informal, having no cultic place or personnel and no prescribed sacrifices, procedures, or festivals.30 But to what extent does patriarchal religious practice conform to that which is found in the Mesopotamian context from which Abram originates?

The biblical text is clear on the point that Abram comes from a family that is not monotheistic (see Josh. 24:2, 14). We must assume that he was brought up sharing the polytheistic beliefs of the ancient world. In this type of system the gods are connected to the forces of nature and show themselves through natural phenomena. As we have discussed in previous sections, these gods do not reveal their natures or give any idea of what will bring their favor or wrath. They are worshiped by being flattered, cajoled, humored, and appeased. Manipulation is the operative term. They are gods with needs made in the image of human beings. As we have suggested, one of the main reasons that God makes a covenant with Abram is in order to reveal what he is really like—to correct the false view of deity that people have developed. But this is projected to take place in stages, not all at once.

The Lord, Yahweh, is not portrayed as a God whom Abram already worshiped. It is interesting, then, that he does not give him a doctrinal statement or require rituals or issue demands when he appears to Abram; he makes an offer. Yahweh does not tell Abram that he is the only God there is, and he does not ask him to stop worshiping the gods his family is worshiping. He does not tell him to get rid of his idols, nor does he proclaim a coming Messiah or salvation. Instead, he says that he has something to give Abram if Abram is willing to give up some things first.

In the massive polytheistic systems of the ancient Near East the great cosmic deities, while respected and worshiped in national and royal contexts, had little personal contact with the common people. Individuals were more inclined to focus their personal or family worship on local or family deities. We can best understand this through an analogy to politics. Though we respect and recognize the authority of our national leaders, if we have a problem in our community we pursue it with our local government rather than write a letter to the president.

In Mesopotamia in the first part of the second millennium, an important religious development parallels this common sense approach to politics. The people began to relate to “personal gods” who were often adopted as family gods from generation to generation. This was usually the function of minor deities and was at times no more than a personification of luck. The personal god was one who was believed to have taken special interest in the family or an individual and became a source of blessing and good fortune in return for worship and obedience. While the personal god was not worshiped exclusively, most of the worship by the individual and the family was focused on him.31

It is possible that Abram’s first responses to Yahweh may have been along these lines—that Abram views Yahweh as a personal god who is willing to become his “divine sponsor.” The Lord provides for Abram and protects him while obedience and loyalty are given in return. One major difference, however, is that our clearest picture of the personal god in Mesopotamia comes from the many laments that are offered as individuals seek favors from the deity or complain about his neglect of them. There is no hint of this in Abram’s approach to Yahweh. He maintains an elevated view of deity that is much more characteristic of the overall biblical view of deity than it is of the Mesopotamian perspective.

Though we have no indication that Yahweh explained or demanded a monotheistic belief or that Abram responded with one, it is clear that the worship of Yahweh dominated Abram’s religious experience. By making a break with his land, his family, and his inheritance, Abram is also breaking all of his religious ties, since deities are associated with geographical, political, and ethnic divisions. In his new land, Abram does not have any territorial gods; as a new people he does not bring any family gods (though Rachel attempts to when she leaves); having left his country he does not have any national or city gods. It is Yahweh who fills this void, becoming the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”32

Old Testament soteriology. There are essential elements of the soteriological system (e.g., atonement and justification) that can only be totally and finally accomplished by the work of Christ on the cross. If we truly believe our theological affirmation that Christ is the only way to the Father, we are fully justified in insisting that no one before Christ could have gone to heaven. Though that goes strongly against our sentiments, sound theology cannot bow to sentiments and we must then think carefully whether there is any way to resolve the conundrum. Unquestionably there are those in the Old Testament who are approved of God, and Genesis 15:6 is only one of the texts that indicates that for Abram. So where does the solution lie?

(1) We must understand that, as important as our salvation is to us, the biblical text is not a soteriology textbook. Its intention is not to tell us who was saved, who was not, and what the basis of their salvation was. We must again remind ourselves how much trouble we can get into if we try to force the text to answer our questions rather than following its own agenda. We cannot impose on the text.

(2) For the most part, the saints of the Old Testament had no revelation that would lead them to live in the hope of heaven.33 It is therefore of little interest to them to think in terms of being saved from sin so as to enjoy eternal life with God. There was nothing they were aware of to be saved to, despite their awareness of their own sinfulness. God had not yet revealed the mechanism of deliverance, so what hope could they formulate? Their hope, whether for themselves in the present or for their descendants in the future, was earthly oriented.

(3) I have suggested above that the role of the law is for revelation, not salvation, a tenet that would enjoy full endorsement from the apostle Paul. Though the law did not provide salvation, it did offer conceptual models for many of the elements of soteriology. The sacrificial system provided a mechanism for the motions of atonement and justification to be carried out. In that way the law laid the foundation for those important theological concepts.

Atonement, for example, is addressed by the substitutionary death of the animal, and justification is approximated by the action that is described by the Hebrew term kipper, which, unfortunately, is often translated as “atonement.”34 Regeneration is theoretically partially accomplished through the expected internalization of the law, and sanctification is promoted in the continual call to holiness. None of these are actually intended to provide salvation, but they are important forerunners that got the Israelites thinking in the theological terms that eventually come together in a plan of salvation. There was, as yet, no efficacious mechanism. Therefore, sin reigned through the law. This was not a fault in the law, for the law was not intended to be a soteric mechanism; it was a revelatory instrument. Thus, as the law taught us what God is like, it also taught us what sin is. The tyranny of the law was that it offered no option but to try to be like God through our own efforts.

In conclusion, it is misleading to think of Abram as having a conversion experience in chapter 15. It is also misleading to think of God as providing justification for Abram of the same quality as that provided to us through Christ’s death and resurrection. It is too simplistic to say that Abram was saved by faith in the same way we are saved by faith, or that he was saved by anticipating in faith the work of Christ on his behalf. The text does not offer us this information. Nevertheless, we have no reason to doubt that we will see Abram in heaven. We only have to confess that the text does not give us sufficient information to satisfy our curiosity on all points.

Paul and Abraham. R. Moberly identifies Genesis 15:6 as “a classic illustration of the fact that it is extremely difficult to determine the theological meaning of the Old Testament apart from the appropriation of the material within the historic and contemporary communities of faith.”35

If it is not difficult to determine what Gen. 15:6 says, it is quite another matter when it comes to deciding what it means. This is partly because the terms “faith,” “reckon” and “righteousness” have a range of meanings in the Old Testament, and there has not always been agreement as to their precise meaning in Gen. 15:6. The problem is compounded by the fact that these terms resonate not only within the Old Testament but also within the two religions, Judaism and Christianity, which relate themselves to the Old Testament as scripture, with the result that commentators have a certain tendency to attribute to the words of Gen. 15:6 that meaning which is congenial to their own theological understanding. Thus on the one hand, Protestant Christians (whose views have formed the modern scholarly consensus) tend to find a meaning that is consonant with Paul’s interpretation in Gal. 3 and Rom. 4. . . . On the other hand, many Jewish interpreters have tended to read the verse in a way that is consonant with their traditional belief in the “merit of the fathers,” a belief which, among other things, includes the notion that many blessings have come to Israel because of their ancestors’ obedience to God.36

Genesis 15:6 is referred to a number of times in theological discussions in the New Testament.37 Some see it to be at the heart of an inherent difference between Paul and James. But the statements of Paul and James can both best be understood when Genesis 15:6 is seen not as a reflection of soteriology proper but as an analogy for soteriology. Strictly speaking, Paul does not argue that Abram was saved by faith; instead he argues that faith, not law, was the basis of the righteousness that brought covenant blessing. Abram’s faith is analogous to the faith that saves us, but his was not a faith operating with regard to a determined mechanism of salvation (like the blood of Christ).

Abram’s accredited righteousness is analogous to the imputed righteousness we enjoy through justification in that it came as a result of his faith in God’s word, but his righteousness was not soteriological in nature (i.e., it did not result from his being saved from sin by the blood of Christ). Abram’s blessing came in the form of a covenant, which is his eternal legacy. In that sense it is analogous to the eternal blessing we enjoy through the new covenant. When seen in this light, Paul’s statements are not as difficult to reconcile with those made by James. If Abram’s faith and righteousness are not portrayed as strictly soteriological in Paul, James is in no conflict with Paul’s soteriology.

Contemporary Significance

IN THE BRIDGING CONTEXTS section we saw the problem with moralizing the text through role models. Instead of taking the text as instructing us in behavior through the examples of people, we would do better to take it as instructing us in the nature of God. Genesis gives us the opportunity to observe how God worked in Abram’s life. That does not mean he will work that same way in our lives, but it gives us a sense of God. It is similar to looking at past tests a teacher has given in order to get a sense of what kinds of questions you can expect. We will approach the texts under five topics: obstacles, submission, communication, expectations, and faith.

On obstacles. There is no clue in the text that Abram knew or should have known that Lot was an obstacle. There is no suggestion in the text that Abram was disobedient when he brought Lot with him. Sometimes what we love can be an obstacle, but that does not make the thing bad in itself. Not all obstacles are sin. God did not tell Abram that he had to somehow get Lot out of the way. He did not ask Abram to overcome the obstacle; God in his sovereignty removed the obstacle. It is also worth noticing that Lot was not an obstacle to Abram’s serving God. He was only an obstacle to Abram receiving the blessing of God.

I encounter many students who at one time or another have felt a call to the mission field. Then obstacles arise. Certainly if some besetting sin is the obstacle, one must be proactive in removing it. But perhaps the obstacle is that the spouse does not share the call. Perhaps there is an unwillingness to put a family through the difficulties that are at times unavoidable, such as culture shock, economic hardships, and separation required by boarding schools. These are truly obstacles, but such obstacles cannot automatically be labeled as sin. God does not necessarily demand that these obstacles be overcome or removed. Above all, those who are beset by such obstacles need not think they can be of no service to God. Perhaps there are blessings of God that they are foregoing, but they can be of great service to God wherever they are. If obstacles need to be removed or overcome, God is quite capable of doing that himself or of indicating to us what we need to do.

One semester I was teaching an evening-school Bible course that drew many students from the inner city to the Chicago campus at Moody Bible Institute. It is always exciting to see the high level of motivation in these students who are taking time out of their evenings after busy days at work to study God’s Word. In this particular class was a student named William Reed. He did not speak out much in class, but it was evident that he had a keen interest in the Bible. When the written work began coming in, it became clear to me that Bill had some considerable skills in research, text analysis, and writing.

As I jotted notes of encouragement on his papers, we began to have some conversations. I discovered that he was a licensed, registered pharmacist and owned a pharmacy business that was bringing in an income adequate to support his family. Eventually our conversations turned to the question of whether God might have some other vocational and ministry plans for him, given the passion and gifts the Lord had given him. Had he ever considered seminary or full-time ministry? It was a great joy to see Bill come to the point of making the difficult decision to pursue a degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

When he completed his seminary education, he sold his pharmacies and started planting a church in the southwest suburbs of Chicago. Today this has become the South Suburban Evangelical Free Church, of which Bill is the pastor. He has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of his denomination and is also serving as the regional minister for the EFCA in the Chicagoland area. There was nothing wrong with Bill’s pharmacy business; he served the Lord well there as he served the community. But God had other blessings in store for Bill that he would not realize until God helped him past the obstacles of the pharmacy business, the necessary education, and care for his family.

For many of us, however, the real obstacle is not something external but internal. Sometimes the obstacle is simply the routines of life that have bound us to a particular status quo. C. S. Lewis helps us see the power of “nothing.”

Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years, not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heels, in whistling tunes that he does not like, or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, man is too weak and fuddled to shake off.38

Dare we pray that the Lord might remove or overcome these obstacles that may be preventing us from taking the next step in our spiritual growth or interfering with God’s work and blessing in our lives? God is willing and able.

On submission. In the film, The Dead Poets’ Society, Robin Williams stars as a teacher who is unafraid to combat the system. He seeks to challenge his students to embrace a worldview that will help them to step out of the molds that others try to force on them and the limitations they place on themselves, thereby to realize their potential. “Carpe diem! Seize the day, men!” In the end, though his philosophy proved life-changing for his students, there was a price to pay. One student was unable to get past the obstacle of his father’s expectations and, in despair, took his own life rather than go back to the chafing bit by submitting to his father’s control.

There is much to be said for seizing opportunities as they arise and shaking loose the shackles of our insecurities and others’ expectations. Certainly there are times when God wants us to step out in faith rather than sit around and wait for him to do something. But there are times when submitting is better than seizing as we seek to achieve our potential in his service and plan. Abram gave up a chance for the land, eventually to gain the land. David gave up a chance for the crown, eventually to gain the crown. Christ gave up a chance for the kingdoms, eventually to gain the kingdom. When preparing ourselves for our role in God’s plan or to receive God’s blessing, it is often counterproductive to take the easy way to the goal. It can be disastrous to simply seize what lies before us.

One proverb says “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” The fact about proverbs, though, is that they need to be applied to appropriate situations if they are to reflect true wisdom. For instance, which is true: “Birds of a feather flock together” or “Opposites attract”? Of course, either one can be, depending on the situation. In the same way, the wisdom of submission and faith may have to respond to situations where God asks us to let go of the “bird in the hand” so that we might be prepared for the “two in the bush” that he has for us.

Most of us are not dealing with land, crowns, and kingdoms. All of these are wrapped up in the destiny of unique individuals. Though there are few Abrahams or Davids in the world, we each have a destiny in Christ. The question that remains is the extent to which we will seize or submit. Are we going to be self-directed or God-directed? Again we find insight from C. S. Lewis as he comments on the prospect of submitting in order to gain:

When [God] talks of them losing themselves, he means only abandoning the clamor of self-will; once they have done that, he really gives them back all their personality, and boasts that when they are wholly his, they will be more themselves than ever.39

One of the great examples of submission of one’s destiny to God in the twentieth century is found in the life story of Eric Liddell. His athletic abilities and intensity led him to the pinnacle of his sport when he qualified to represent Scotland in the 1924 Paris Olympics. He was slated to run the hundred-meter race; but when he found that the trial heats were scheduled for a Sunday, he refused to participate, feeling that it would dishonor the Lord’s Day. Through a series of events, he ended up running in the four-hundred-meter race, which he not only won, but in the process set a world record. Even if the story stopped here, it would be an amazing example of submission of one’s own goals with the intent of being God-directed.

But the story continues. Having set the world record and won Olympic gold, Liddell, at the age of twenty-three, turned his back on all the glory and went to China as a missionary. There he had an amazing impact for God, even in his final days in a Japanese prison camp in occupied China, where he died of a brain tumor at the age of forty-three. He never considered what he gave up as a loss. In fact, in submitting to God, both he and God received more glory than if he had simply gone about seizing the opportunities that came to hand.

Does this passage of Genesis teach us anything about submission, or is this just another case of drawing moralizations from the role models in the text? The text neither approves nor condemns Abram’s submitting rather than seizing, so how do we know what teaching to derive? No guidelines are offered for knowing when to seize and when to submit, yet certainly each response has its proper place. Thus, the only point to be made here is for us to recognize that God does not always favor or desire the aggressive attitude of “God helps them that help themselves.” We need to consider each situation carefully in case God’s way might be found in patient waiting. We may be able to serve him better in some circumstances by not taking hold of that which is set before us.

On communication. “The LORD said to Abram. . . .” Did you ever sigh deeply after reading those words, wishing that God would speak to you as plainly as he spoke to Abram? A careful look may help us to see things in a different light. From God’s first conversation with Abram when he was 75 until his death at the age of 175, there are eight recorded conversations between God and Abram—eight times in a hundred years, and sometimes with decades of silence in between!40 And rarely were the conversations about those things that we often long to hear from God about. Abram did not control those meetings or have open Q&A times. In fact, he often left those meetings more confused than when they began.

What if you were to make an offer to Abram: “Which would you prefer, Abram? A brief conversation directly with God eight times in your life during which he spoke whatever was on his mind? Or a book that programmatically shows you what God is like and explains his plans and expectations?” God has given us far more revelation and guidance than Abram ever dreamed possible. I’ll take the Bible over random theophanies anytime, and I expect Abram would too.

On expectations. Imagine yourself in the following situation: God says that if you move out of your apartment house, he is going to give you a new house that is all yours, free and clear. So you find a house that is for rent and settle in waiting for the day when it is yours. Then comes the shocker—it is not going to actually belong to your family for another four hundred years, and for most of that time you will not live in it. Talk about the fine print!

This is comparable to what happened to Abram, but it is not unique in history. Consider the promise of Christ’s return, now some two thousand years anticipated at any moment. Yet Peter reminds us that the Lord is not slow as some understand slowness, for with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8–9). Be that as it may, the timetable for Christ’s return has eluded the church’s expectations for two millennia.

It is important for us to realize that God has no obligation to live up to our expectations of how he will work in history or in our lives. His ways are not our ways, and his plans are often obscured from our sight. When Elisabeth Elliot and Rachel Saint began praying for the Auca Indians, it probably never occurred to them that their prayers would only be answered through the sacrifice of their husbands’ lives. Who would expect to pay such a price? Though God often may not do things according to our expectations, we must always be prepared to acknowledge that God’s way is the best way.

Not only do God’s plans often involve difficulties that we do not expect, they often take a long time to unfold. If someone is in a hurry, it is easy for that person to grow impatient with God. Genesis shows us a God who is not in a hurry. We cannot hurry him along, and we dare not grow impatient with him. When everything we do can be done faster and faster, thus accommodating our impatience, we are encouraged to be in a hurry ourselves and expect everyone else to match our pace.

Jeremy Rifkin laments this development in a book written in the late 1980s entitled Time Wars.41 In doing so he lashes out at such time-honored media institutions as Sesame Street, which he claims puts kids on the fast track to impatience from their earliest years. If our attention spans are never stretched, they never grow. Media and technology have made it possible for us to live our lives with the short attention spans of children. Everybody is hyperactive, and speed is credited as intelligence. No sooner do kids outgrow Sesame Street and its kin than they graduate to MTV, where the trend continues. Rifkin warns that as the pace increases, the impatience increases. He tries to promote the idea that “Slow is beautiful,” but got trampled by the rat race. In the time since he wrote the book, the situation has only grown worse.

We are an increasingly impatient people. This is particularly true in our modern Western culture, which is growing used to measuring time in nanoseconds. Give us more RAM so we don’t have to wait three whole seconds to complete that operation. If something cannot be said in a fifteen second sound-bite, it is not worth saying. On TV any problem is resolvable in half an hour. Attention spans dwindle; sermons get shorter and shorter; reflection has become an endangered quality. We wait for no one. When God doesn’t perform his operations in nanoseconds, our impatience begins to show as our expectations go unfulfilled.

How can we begin to resolve this problem? The key is to recognize that there is a certain tension between expectations and relationship. Relationships operate in the here and now, while expectations are always looking to the future. For instance, it is not difficult for parents to focus too much attention on expectation. They are anxious for the diaper stage to be over; anxious for school to begin; anxious about the teen years fast approaching; anxious about their kids choosing a college, a spouse, a career; they are always anticipating the next step and setting up expectations, looking through the present to the future. Unfortunately, parents who get caught in this trap can become so focused on future expectations that they never develop relationships with their children. Before they know it, their children are in college and they are left asking, “Who was that masked man?”

In contrast, parents who manage to cherish each stage of development and focus on the present tolerate whatever drawbacks accompany each stage in deference to the sheer enjoyment of their child. They are not anxious for their child to be out of diapers because they enjoy those toddler years. They are far too busy working at relationships with their teenagers, despite the trials of teen years, to spend time growing anxious about what the next stage will be like. This is the focus on present relationship rather than future expectation.

If we are to achieve the goal of putting relationships ahead of expectations, we must learn to see relationships as a matter of greater consequence than expectations. If something is of consequence to us, we are not reluctant to spend time or even to “waste” time on it. This is delightfully illustrated in a children’s classic The Little Prince, which explores the question, “What are matters of consequence?”42

The little prince visits a succession of planets, each with a single inhabitant who represents a different view of what is of consequence. He encounters a king who is so concerned about being obeyed that he will only command something that will be done anyway (such as the sunset). His authority is the only thing of consequence to him. He encounters a conceited man for whom there is only consequence in being admired. A “tippler” on a third planet finds only his habit of drinking to be of any consequence. A businessman finds consequence in his facts and figures, and a lamplighter finds consequence in the performance of his duties, no matter how unreasonable they may be. On the last planet he meets a geographer, who finds consequence only in that which does not change; geographers do not concern themselves with what is ephemeral.

In the process of his exploration, the little prince discovers what is of consequence to him: a single rose that he cared for on his planet. A fox who befriends him observes that “it is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important.” The prince discovers through this that it is the relationship that was of consequence to him.

Patience in expectations and attention to relationship requires us to be content with relationship instead of being driven by expectations. When our family first got a dog, our kids were ten, eight, and six. We had the normal family discussion that the dog belonged to everybody, and everybody would have to be involved in taking care of the dog. One of the ways that we figured out to accomplish that was that when I walked the dog each night, one of the kids would go with me. As a result, throughout all their growing years, each evening I got thirty minutes one-on-one with one of my kids. When none of the kids was available, my wife went with me. Instead of the dog’s needs taking me (or anyone else) away from the family, the dog walk became one of the most important relationship building blocks in our family.

Night by night, week by week, year by year, we talked about activities, friends, philosophy, decisions, interests, hobbies . . . life. We laughed, we argued, we struggled, we learned. Sometimes we just walked together and didn’t say anything. It made a difference that in this way the time was spent with my family instead of with the dog. The dog was not a matter of consequence, but my family was. As we took time to relate to each other and learned to be patient with each other, we stretched our relationship attention span. Hopefully the dividends of that will be that our expectations of God will reflect the same patience. If God is truly a matter of consequence to us, we will not be reluctant to spend time on our relationship with him.

In the end, relationship needs to overshadow expectation rather than be driven by it. To do this we must slow down, focus on the present, and extend our attention spans. We can slow ourselves down by strategies such as putting more reading in our routine or by taking slow walks and thinking while we walk. We can slow our families down by planning some family activities that take a longer amount of time (a game of Monopoly, a jigsaw puzzle) or by making plans for something that won’t happen for awhile (perhaps a vacation that is still eight months away).

What are some ways that we can extend our attention span with God, so that we can learn to wait patiently on God? We can focus on the present instead of always wondering and worrying about tomorrow. Sometimes we become so absorbed in what we want or expect him to do next that we neglect our daily relationship with him. The contented life of faith cherishes the relationship of today and takes tomorrow as it comes. The four-hundred-year wait is no problem for one who is content in a faith-filled daily relationship. In the same way we should not be so anxious in our anticipation of Christ’s return that we neglect developing a faith-filled relationship for today. This is the best preparation for the kingdom.

On faith. My mentor in my doctoral program, the late Rabbi Chanan Brichto, was remarkable for his insight into text, language, literature, scholarship, and, not least, faith. He was an ardent admirer of C. S. Lewis and was as intimately familiar with Christianity as with his own Jewish faith. While writing this chapter, I came across the transcript of an address he delivered in 1970 at the conference called by the Commission on Faith and Order of the Ohio Council of Churches, entitled “How Does God Speak in the World?”43 His observations about the nature of faith will enlighten us about what so impressed God about Abram and will renew our commitments to our own faith. It is worth quoting at length.

To the eye of faith the presence of God is obvious, patent. To the ear of faith the message of God is equally clear, equally obvious. But to most people these last two sentences of mine are not obvious at all. So I shall beg your indulgence as I digress briefly to discuss this matter of faith. In a famous Socratic dialogue, Plato undertakes to show that opinion is the opposite of knowledge—namely, ignorance. We know what we know, but our opinions are clearly what we do not know—although they are what we believe. Belief then is opinion; and if opinion is ignorance then belief is ignorance. At this point I should expect most religious people to become defensive—if not indignant. But indignation is a poor answer to the force of a cleanly wrought syllogism. And my answer is that while the syllogism is impressive, it disturbs me not at all as a religionist. For belief and faith are not quite the same thing. Let me try to differentiate between the two, for they are often taken to be synonymous.

Whereas opinion implies a frank disclaimer of knowledge, a confession of ignorance, belief conveys an assertion of greater confidence. That is to say, belief is an expression not for ignorance but for partial or imperfect knowledge. Faith, however, is an expression which is as much stronger and more confident than belief, as belief is than opinion. Faith, indeed, expresses more than conviction. Faith is a claim to knowledge of a higher order of reality. My opinion is a matter of tertiary concern to me: You can reject it without bruising my ego. Belief touches me more closely—it assures me that “honesty is the best policy”—most of the time. But faith—faith is the touchstone of our lives. Faith is that certainty—or near certainty—to which we refer the issues of life and death, as touching ourselves and others. We would sooner take our chance with the law of gravity than contravene the norms we hold by faith.

But faith—unlike the other kind of knowledge—is not a constant. It is a light which blazes like a thousand suns—at some times; at others, it flickers dimly, casting shadows of changing shapes. But even when it is weak we struggle to brighten the flame—for it is the most precious of commodities. Man knows no blackness to match the darkness when that light has gone out. And no man who has ever seen it will rest happy until it is rekindled. And when it burns bright, all other lamps are feeble.

This is what impressed God about Abraham. He did not simply believe. In taking God at his word, he embraced faith. That is not to say he adopted a faith system—he simply had faith in God. God is always impressed with faith. We learn here, then, what impresses God. Do you seek to impress God? Have faith. Our sacrifices of time or resources do not impress God unless they are motivated by faith. And then it is our faith that impresses him, not our sacrifices. On occasion a student complains about getting a low grade in spite of all the time and effort put into a project. I am then sometimes forced to explain gently that if time and effort were all that was required, I would have students fill out time slips and give out grades accordingly. But frankly, those are simply the basics that as a teacher I have every right to expect.

Similarly, God certainly appreciates our hard work, our honesty, and our purity. But these are the basics. It is our faith that is most capable of impressing him. I am not talking about the faith for salvation, though certainly that is a good place to start. I am talking about the faith that God is who he says he is—faith in his attributes, faith that he can and will do what he says he will do, faith that he cares, faith that he is sovereign, faith that he is good. Stake your life on it. Don’t just believe; live in faith. Go beyond carpe diem to carpe Deum (embrace God).

Original Meaning

Separation from Lot (13:1–18)

IN ABRAM’S ITINERANT LIFE, the text is not interested in detailing every stop he made or the length of time spent in each location. This was the typical way of life for those who kept herds and flocks. Different seasons led them to different grazing locations and water sources. In addition, they had to be careful not to deplete the grazing land in any one area. We are also told that Abram continued to call on the name of the Lord (v. 4). The main focus of the chapter, however, concerns the separation from Lot. The land of Canaan had a limited number of water sources as well as limited grazing areas. It is not surprising, then, that the needs of Abram and Lot soon outgrew the available resources. As always, competing needs lead to conflict, and Abram and Lot finally decide they must go their separate ways.

Lot’s attention is drawn to the “plain of the Jordan” (v. 10). It is possible to get a good view of the Jordan Valley and the northern area of the Dead Sea from the hills around Bethel. While the area around the Dead Sea is not a hospitable region today, the text makes it clear that the area had a far different quality prior to the Lord’s judgment. There are extensive areas along the Jordan Plateau that do provide ample grazing that may also be represented in this narrative. When the eastern boundary of Canaan is identified, it is typically the Jordan River (see esp. Num. 34:1–12). Thus it becomes clear that by moving to the vicinity of the cities of the plain, Lot has gone outside the land of Canaan, leaving it entirely to Abram.1 It is also important to notice the recurrence of “toward the east” in verse 11. Every movement away from God thus far in Genesis has been designated as toward the east (3:24; 4:16; 11:2).

Once Lot moves out of the land, the Lord gives Abram the land of Canaan (13:14–17). His itinerant wandering now takes on new purpose, almost equivalent to conquest, since everywhere he walks will be given to him and his family. Abram and Lot are moving south from Bethel when they separate. Lot takes the road toward Jericho and the Jordan Valley, eventually crossing at the fords of Jordan and moving south on the east side of the Dead Sea to the vicinity of Sodom and Gomorrah.2 Abram takes the road south through Jerusalem and Bethlehem and into the Negev to arrive at Hebron.

The city of Hebron (13:18) is located in the Judean hill country (ca. 3,300 feet above sea level), approximately nineteen miles southeast of Jerusalem and twenty-three miles northeast of Beersheba. Ancient roadways converge on this site coming east from Lachish and connecting with the road north to Jerusalem, indicating its importance and continuous settlement. The construction of an altar here, as at Bethel, transforms it eventually into an important religious site, and its subsequent use as a burial place for the ancestors established its political importance (reflected in the Davidic narrative, 2 Sam. 2:1–7; 15:7–12).

Bridging Contexts

PURPOSE OF GENESIS 13–15. Genesis 13 is a regular in children’s Sunday school curriculum. A large majority of the curricula produced by the publishing houses emphasizes behavioral objectives; that is, the lessons are designed to instruct the children in appropriate ways to act. One of the earliest behavioral objectives driven home to children is that they should learn to share their things and let others have first choice. Consequently, the story of Abram and Lot is recruited (or more accurately, commandeered) to make the point. Is there a behavioral objective that is consciously taught by the author in this passage? If not, are we within our hermeneutical rights to commandeer the passage as an illustration for what most agree is a biblically sound teaching?

As we have seen previously, biblical narratives generally resist moralization. The importance of Abram’s allowing Lot to choose is that it is thereby made plain that Lot is not driven from the land but gives it up freely. Had Abram picked first, it could be claimed that Lot is, in effect, chased out. Whether Abram’s offer to Lot is motivated by magnanimity is incidental and, consequently, insignificant. This leads us to reconsider the role of behavioral objectives in the shaping of curriculum. If our Bible lessons focus on something the Bible does not intend to teach, what value is there in using the Bible stories? If we neglect their authoritative teaching in favor of driving home the points we want to make, even if our points are good points, we distort the text and model poor methods of Bible study.24

Likewise, we depart from the text if our sermons vitiate Lot’s motivations as selfish or tainted with the evil of Sodom. It is true that he will become tangled in Sodom’s web, but there is no indication that anything but consideration of the advantages for his livelihood dictate his choices. We gain nothing by raising Abram on a high pedestal and portraying Lot as either villain or victim.

Methodologically, we cannot be content to let the ends justify the means. Commandeering text is never appropriate. Our methodology requires us to pursue the purpose that the author has for the text. As the text portrays him, Lot is an obstacle, not because he represents the influence of carnality, but because he competes for the claim to the land. Abram is unaware that Lot is an obstacle. His separation from Lot is forced by economic and sociological factors, not by spiritual insight or divine instruction. Once the obstacle is removed, however, we see advancement in the covenant.

These elements, obstacle and advance, appear chapter after chapter. Since they serve as the common denominator in otherwise disparate narratives, we infer that they represent the author’s primary focus. Abram is promised a land, but up until this point, that land is shared with Lot (who, not insignificantly, is to become the ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites). Only when Lot voluntarily leaves the land can it become the sole inheritance of Abram, free of competing claims within his larger family. Previously God has told him, “Go to the land I will show you,” with no indication that the land will be given to him. Now more precision is included: “All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever.” In this way the covenant advances.

Chapter 14 is linked to chapter 13; God is going to give Abram the land, but how? It is important to follow the itinerary of the kings of the east to see that they establish their dominion over the whole land both east and west of Jordan. The land currently belongs to them. Theoretically, then, if Abram conquers them, dominion reverts to him. When Abram pursues the kings, he is not on a campaign of conquest; he is simply trying to rescue Lot and his family. Nonetheless, the upshot of his victory is that he is in a position to seize power to some extent. Is this the way God is going to give him the land?

We should recognize this scenario. In 1 Samuel 24 and 26 David is twice put in a position where he can take that which has been promised to him. Saul is vulnerable, David is armed; the throne is his for the taking. His men point out as much: “This is the day the LORD spoke of when he said to you, ‘I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish’ ” (1 Sam. 24:4). David is to have the throne, but is this the way it is to happen?

Consider a second scene: Christ, following his baptism, is driven out into the desert, where he is tempted by Satan. All the kingdoms of the world are to belong to him. Satan offers a shortcut if Christ will only bow down to him. Christ recognizes that he is being offered an inferior shortcut and, with less confidence, so did David. As we interpret the temptation of Adam and Eve, they also were offered a shortcut to wisdom, but they failed to recognize it as inferior and yielded to the temptation to eat from the tree.

Abram, like David, senses that the path set before him to gain the promises of God is a dead end, and, like David, Abram resists succumbing to the offer. He shows this by submitting to Melchizedek, who is one of the controlling kings in the region prior to the invasion, and by refusing to be made rich at the hands of the king of Sodom. On the first count he relinquishes his right to territorial control; on the second, he relinquishes his share of the wealth. This represents the beginning of the resolution of another obstacle to the covenant: How can the land belong to him when it is in the hands of others?

In chapter 14 an inappropriate resolution is explored, and in chapter 15 God’s answer is given. The resolution to the land problem is that there will still be four hundred years before the Lord is ready to give the land to Abram’s family. Though the text gives information about the removal of the obstacle, it is still a long way off. Nevertheless, chapter 15 also represents the next step in the advance of the covenant. Up until this point, the covenant is discussed in relation to the terms and benefits that Yahweh offers. No formal agreement has been entered into. In chapter 15, then, the advance of the covenant is that it is actually ratified, and 15:18 can now say for the first time in Genesis, “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.”

Melchizedek in later texts. In the Original Meaning section we considered Melchizedek only in terms of the information gleaned from Genesis 14. But as we look at the scope of the whole canon of Scripture, we understand that there may be more going on than meets the eye. Melchizedek next makes an appearance in Psalm 110:4, where the idealized Davidic king is identified as also having priestly credentials “in the order of Melchizedek.” Once we get to the intertestamental period, Melchizedek becomes a much more intriguing figure. The Hasmoneans, seeking to establish a messianic dimension to their rule, justify their priestly-royal prerogatives by reference to Melchizedek. This practice is continued by the Sadducees.25

In the Dead Sea Scrolls 11QMelchizedek and 4QAmram both show that Melchizedek has become the subject of much speculative interpretation. The former assigns him a judging function in heaven and associates Psalm 7:8–9 and 82:1 with him. The latter identifies him as Michael and calls him the Prince of Light. He is depicted as a heavenly redeemer figure, a leader of the forces of light who brings release to the captives and reigns during the messianic age. He is the heavenly high priest to whom archangels make expiation for the sins of ignorance of the righteous.26 In the Talmud (b. Ned. 32b) and Targum Neofiti, Melchizedek is identified as Shem. The former attributes irreverence to him and thereby transfers his priesthood to Abram. In the apologetic works of Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 19, 33), Melchizedek is portrayed as a representative of the Gentiles, who is seen as superior to the Jewish representative, Abram. Philo of Alexandria (Alleg. Interp. 3.79–82) considers him the eternal Logos.27

By the time we get to Hebrews 7, much of this Jewish tradition is mixed into the consideration of Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews is not drawing his information on Melchizedek solely from the Old Testament; he is also interacting with the traditions known to his audience. It is the Jewish profile of Melchizedek, not just the canonical profile, that informs his comparison. The author has been addressing his audience all along on their own level and in relationship to their own beliefs. He need not accept their beliefs, but he is demonstrating that Christ’s position is superior to the position in which they have placed others. He therefore relates not only to the Melchizedek of history, but to the Melchizedek of Jewish imagination.

In some ways this is like speaking to a Buddhist about how Christ is superior to Buddha. There is both a historical Buddha and the Buddha that has become the central focus in the traditions of Buddhism. The point is not to argue the validity of his audience’s belief one way or another, but to use their beliefs for a comparison to Christ. The three main points that Hebrews makes are as follows:

1. Christ had a legitimate priestly function based on the precedent of Melchizedek. This precedent and office have been established in Scripture.

2. The basis of the priesthood was an indestructible life; the author of Hebrews uses the audience’s beliefs to make the point.

3. That priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood.

There is no attempt to establish that Jesus is superior to the image cast of Melchizedek, only that the priesthood represented by Jesus on the basis of Melchizedek’s precedent (Ps. 110) is superior to the Levitical priesthood.

As a result, there is nothing in Hebrews or anywhere else to suggest that we need to believe that Melchizedek was anything other than the Canaanite king he is depicted as in Genesis 14. The fact that he held the roles of priest and king (as many did in the ancient world) in Jerusalem was sufficient to establish the precedent of a royal priesthood in Jerusalem that was adopted by the Davidic dynasty and therefore came into the messianic profile.28

Religion of Abram. In an attempt to begin with the description of the religion as it emerges from the text of Genesis, R. Moberly proposes six helpful interrelated aspects of patriarchal religion.29

1. Religion is open and inclusive. There is no need to choose between gods because all characters relate to the same God.

2. There is no antagonism between the God and religious practice of the patriarchs as over against the gods and religious practice of the Canaanites. In fact, one would not know there are any other gods.

3. Religious practice of the patriarchs is noticeably distinct from Mosaic practice (pillars and worship in many places vs. Sabbath, food laws, and sacrificial system).

4. There is an absence of institutionalized mediation—no prophets or priests aside from occasional roles played by the patriarchs themselves.

5. No stipulations of moral obedience serve as conditions of blessing.

6. There is no language suggesting holiness standards needing to be maintained.

Several of these are immediately explainable by the absence of a sanctuary, but still it is clear that there was no attempt on the part of author and editors of Genesis to bring patriarchal religious practice into conformity with Sinaitic terms. In general, patriarchal religious practice can be identified as informal, having no cultic place or personnel and no prescribed sacrifices, procedures, or festivals.30 But to what extent does patriarchal religious practice conform to that which is found in the Mesopotamian context from which Abram originates?

The biblical text is clear on the point that Abram comes from a family that is not monotheistic (see Josh. 24:2, 14). We must assume that he was brought up sharing the polytheistic beliefs of the ancient world. In this type of system the gods are connected to the forces of nature and show themselves through natural phenomena. As we have discussed in previous sections, these gods do not reveal their natures or give any idea of what will bring their favor or wrath. They are worshiped by being flattered, cajoled, humored, and appeased. Manipulation is the operative term. They are gods with needs made in the image of human beings. As we have suggested, one of the main reasons that God makes a covenant with Abram is in order to reveal what he is really like—to correct the false view of deity that people have developed. But this is projected to take place in stages, not all at once.

The Lord, Yahweh, is not portrayed as a God whom Abram already worshiped. It is interesting, then, that he does not give him a doctrinal statement or require rituals or issue demands when he appears to Abram; he makes an offer. Yahweh does not tell Abram that he is the only God there is, and he does not ask him to stop worshiping the gods his family is worshiping. He does not tell him to get rid of his idols, nor does he proclaim a coming Messiah or salvation. Instead, he says that he has something to give Abram if Abram is willing to give up some things first.

In the massive polytheistic systems of the ancient Near East the great cosmic deities, while respected and worshiped in national and royal contexts, had little personal contact with the common people. Individuals were more inclined to focus their personal or family worship on local or family deities. We can best understand this through an analogy to politics. Though we respect and recognize the authority of our national leaders, if we have a problem in our community we pursue it with our local government rather than write a letter to the president.

In Mesopotamia in the first part of the second millennium, an important religious development parallels this common sense approach to politics. The people began to relate to “personal gods” who were often adopted as family gods from generation to generation. This was usually the function of minor deities and was at times no more than a personification of luck. The personal god was one who was believed to have taken special interest in the family or an individual and became a source of blessing and good fortune in return for worship and obedience. While the personal god was not worshiped exclusively, most of the worship by the individual and the family was focused on him.31

It is possible that Abram’s first responses to Yahweh may have been along these lines—that Abram views Yahweh as a personal god who is willing to become his “divine sponsor.” The Lord provides for Abram and protects him while obedience and loyalty are given in return. One major difference, however, is that our clearest picture of the personal god in Mesopotamia comes from the many laments that are offered as individuals seek favors from the deity or complain about his neglect of them. There is no hint of this in Abram’s approach to Yahweh. He maintains an elevated view of deity that is much more characteristic of the overall biblical view of deity than it is of the Mesopotamian perspective.

Though we have no indication that Yahweh explained or demanded a monotheistic belief or that Abram responded with one, it is clear that the worship of Yahweh dominated Abram’s religious experience. By making a break with his land, his family, and his inheritance, Abram is also breaking all of his religious ties, since deities are associated with geographical, political, and ethnic divisions. In his new land, Abram does not have any territorial gods; as a new people he does not bring any family gods (though Rachel attempts to when she leaves); having left his country he does not have any national or city gods. It is Yahweh who fills this void, becoming the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”32

Old Testament soteriology. There are essential elements of the soteriological system (e.g., atonement and justification) that can only be totally and finally accomplished by the work of Christ on the cross. If we truly believe our theological affirmation that Christ is the only way to the Father, we are fully justified in insisting that no one before Christ could have gone to heaven. Though that goes strongly against our sentiments, sound theology cannot bow to sentiments and we must then think carefully whether there is any way to resolve the conundrum. Unquestionably there are those in the Old Testament who are approved of God, and Genesis 15:6 is only one of the texts that indicates that for Abram. So where does the solution lie?

(1) We must understand that, as important as our salvation is to us, the biblical text is not a soteriology textbook. Its intention is not to tell us who was saved, who was not, and what the basis of their salvation was. We must again remind ourselves how much trouble we can get into if we try to force the text to answer our questions rather than following its own agenda. We cannot impose on the text.

(2) For the most part, the saints of the Old Testament had no revelation that would lead them to live in the hope of heaven.33 It is therefore of little interest to them to think in terms of being saved from sin so as to enjoy eternal life with God. There was nothing they were aware of to be saved to, despite their awareness of their own sinfulness. God had not yet revealed the mechanism of deliverance, so what hope could they formulate? Their hope, whether for themselves in the present or for their descendants in the future, was earthly oriented.

(3) I have suggested above that the role of the law is for revelation, not salvation, a tenet that would enjoy full endorsement from the apostle Paul. Though the law did not provide salvation, it did offer conceptual models for many of the elements of soteriology. The sacrificial system provided a mechanism for the motions of atonement and justification to be carried out. In that way the law laid the foundation for those important theological concepts.

Atonement, for example, is addressed by the substitutionary death of the animal, and justification is approximated by the action that is described by the Hebrew term kipper, which, unfortunately, is often translated as “atonement.”34 Regeneration is theoretically partially accomplished through the expected internalization of the law, and sanctification is promoted in the continual call to holiness. None of these are actually intended to provide salvation, but they are important forerunners that got the Israelites thinking in the theological terms that eventually come together in a plan of salvation. There was, as yet, no efficacious mechanism. Therefore, sin reigned through the law. This was not a fault in the law, for the law was not intended to be a soteric mechanism; it was a revelatory instrument. Thus, as the law taught us what God is like, it also taught us what sin is. The tyranny of the law was that it offered no option but to try to be like God through our own efforts.

In conclusion, it is misleading to think of Abram as having a conversion experience in chapter 15. It is also misleading to think of God as providing justification for Abram of the same quality as that provided to us through Christ’s death and resurrection. It is too simplistic to say that Abram was saved by faith in the same way we are saved by faith, or that he was saved by anticipating in faith the work of Christ on his behalf. The text does not offer us this information. Nevertheless, we have no reason to doubt that we will see Abram in heaven. We only have to confess that the text does not give us sufficient information to satisfy our curiosity on all points.

Paul and Abraham. R. Moberly identifies Genesis 15:6 as “a classic illustration of the fact that it is extremely difficult to determine the theological meaning of the Old Testament apart from the appropriation of the material within the historic and contemporary communities of faith.”35

If it is not difficult to determine what Gen. 15:6 says, it is quite another matter when it comes to deciding what it means. This is partly because the terms “faith,” “reckon” and “righteousness” have a range of meanings in the Old Testament, and there has not always been agreement as to their precise meaning in Gen. 15:6. The problem is compounded by the fact that these terms resonate not only within the Old Testament but also within the two religions, Judaism and Christianity, which relate themselves to the Old Testament as scripture, with the result that commentators have a certain tendency to attribute to the words of Gen. 15:6 that meaning which is congenial to their own theological understanding. Thus on the one hand, Protestant Christians (whose views have formed the modern scholarly consensus) tend to find a meaning that is consonant with Paul’s interpretation in Gal. 3 and Rom. 4. . . . On the other hand, many Jewish interpreters have tended to read the verse in a way that is consonant with their traditional belief in the “merit of the fathers,” a belief which, among other things, includes the notion that many blessings have come to Israel because of their ancestors’ obedience to God.36

Genesis 15:6 is referred to a number of times in theological discussions in the New Testament.37 Some see it to be at the heart of an inherent difference between Paul and James. But the statements of Paul and James can both best be understood when Genesis 15:6 is seen not as a reflection of soteriology proper but as an analogy for soteriology. Strictly speaking, Paul does not argue that Abram was saved by faith; instead he argues that faith, not law, was the basis of the righteousness that brought covenant blessing. Abram’s faith is analogous to the faith that saves us, but his was not a faith operating with regard to a determined mechanism of salvation (like the blood of Christ).

Abram’s accredited righteousness is analogous to the imputed righteousness we enjoy through justification in that it came as a result of his faith in God’s word, but his righteousness was not soteriological in nature (i.e., it did not result from his being saved from sin by the blood of Christ). Abram’s blessing came in the form of a covenant, which is his eternal legacy. In that sense it is analogous to the eternal blessing we enjoy through the new covenant. When seen in this light, Paul’s statements are not as difficult to reconcile with those made by James. If Abram’s faith and righteousness are not portrayed as strictly soteriological in Paul, James is in no conflict with Paul’s soteriology.

Contemporary Significance

IN THE BRIDGING CONTEXTS section we saw the problem with moralizing the text through role models. Instead of taking the text as instructing us in behavior through the examples of people, we would do better to take it as instructing us in the nature of God. Genesis gives us the opportunity to observe how God worked in Abram’s life. That does not mean he will work that same way in our lives, but it gives us a sense of God. It is similar to looking at past tests a teacher has given in order to get a sense of what kinds of questions you can expect. We will approach the texts under five topics: obstacles, submission, communication, expectations, and faith.

On obstacles. There is no clue in the text that Abram knew or should have known that Lot was an obstacle. There is no suggestion in the text that Abram was disobedient when he brought Lot with him. Sometimes what we love can be an obstacle, but that does not make the thing bad in itself. Not all obstacles are sin. God did not tell Abram that he had to somehow get Lot out of the way. He did not ask Abram to overcome the obstacle; God in his sovereignty removed the obstacle. It is also worth noticing that Lot was not an obstacle to Abram’s serving God. He was only an obstacle to Abram receiving the blessing of God.

I encounter many students who at one time or another have felt a call to the mission field. Then obstacles arise. Certainly if some besetting sin is the obstacle, one must be proactive in removing it. But perhaps the obstacle is that the spouse does not share the call. Perhaps there is an unwillingness to put a family through the difficulties that are at times unavoidable, such as culture shock, economic hardships, and separation required by boarding schools. These are truly obstacles, but such obstacles cannot automatically be labeled as sin. God does not necessarily demand that these obstacles be overcome or removed. Above all, those who are beset by such obstacles need not think they can be of no service to God. Perhaps there are blessings of God that they are foregoing, but they can be of great service to God wherever they are. If obstacles need to be removed or overcome, God is quite capable of doing that himself or of indicating to us what we need to do.

One semester I was teaching an evening-school Bible course that drew many students from the inner city to the Chicago campus at Moody Bible Institute. It is always exciting to see the high level of motivation in these students who are taking time out of their evenings after busy days at work to study God’s Word. In this particular class was a student named William Reed. He did not speak out much in class, but it was evident that he had a keen interest in the Bible. When the written work began coming in, it became clear to me that Bill had some considerable skills in research, text analysis, and writing.

As I jotted notes of encouragement on his papers, we began to have some conversations. I discovered that he was a licensed, registered pharmacist and owned a pharmacy business that was bringing in an income adequate to support his family. Eventually our conversations turned to the question of whether God might have some other vocational and ministry plans for him, given the passion and gifts the Lord had given him. Had he ever considered seminary or full-time ministry? It was a great joy to see Bill come to the point of making the difficult decision to pursue a degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

When he completed his seminary education, he sold his pharmacies and started planting a church in the southwest suburbs of Chicago. Today this has become the South Suburban Evangelical Free Church, of which Bill is the pastor. He has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of his denomination and is also serving as the regional minister for the EFCA in the Chicagoland area. There was nothing wrong with Bill’s pharmacy business; he served the Lord well there as he served the community. But God had other blessings in store for Bill that he would not realize until God helped him past the obstacles of the pharmacy business, the necessary education, and care for his family.

For many of us, however, the real obstacle is not something external but internal. Sometimes the obstacle is simply the routines of life that have bound us to a particular status quo. C. S. Lewis helps us see the power of “nothing.”

Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years, not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heels, in whistling tunes that he does not like, or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, man is too weak and fuddled to shake off.38

Dare we pray that the Lord might remove or overcome these obstacles that may be preventing us from taking the next step in our spiritual growth or interfering with God’s work and blessing in our lives? God is willing and able.

On submission. In the film, The Dead Poets’ Society, Robin Williams stars as a teacher who is unafraid to combat the system. He seeks to challenge his students to embrace a worldview that will help them to step out of the molds that others try to force on them and the limitations they place on themselves, thereby to realize their potential. “Carpe diem! Seize the day, men!” In the end, though his philosophy proved life-changing for his students, there was a price to pay. One student was unable to get past the obstacle of his father’s expectations and, in despair, took his own life rather than go back to the chafing bit by submitting to his father’s control.

There is much to be said for seizing opportunities as they arise and shaking loose the shackles of our insecurities and others’ expectations. Certainly there are times when God wants us to step out in faith rather than sit around and wait for him to do something. But there are times when submitting is better than seizing as we seek to achieve our potential in his service and plan. Abram gave up a chance for the land, eventually to gain the land. David gave up a chance for the crown, eventually to gain the crown. Christ gave up a chance for the kingdoms, eventually to gain the kingdom. When preparing ourselves for our role in God’s plan or to receive God’s blessing, it is often counterproductive to take the easy way to the goal. It can be disastrous to simply seize what lies before us.

One proverb says “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” The fact about proverbs, though, is that they need to be applied to appropriate situations if they are to reflect true wisdom. For instance, which is true: “Birds of a feather flock together” or “Opposites attract”? Of course, either one can be, depending on the situation. In the same way, the wisdom of submission and faith may have to respond to situations where God asks us to let go of the “bird in the hand” so that we might be prepared for the “two in the bush” that he has for us.

Most of us are not dealing with land, crowns, and kingdoms. All of these are wrapped up in the destiny of unique individuals. Though there are few Abrahams or Davids in the world, we each have a destiny in Christ. The question that remains is the extent to which we will seize or submit. Are we going to be self-directed or God-directed? Again we find insight from C. S. Lewis as he comments on the prospect of submitting in order to gain:

When [God] talks of them losing themselves, he means only abandoning the clamor of self-will; once they have done that, he really gives them back all their personality, and boasts that when they are wholly his, they will be more themselves than ever.39

One of the great examples of submission of one’s destiny to God in the twentieth century is found in the life story of Eric Liddell. His athletic abilities and intensity led him to the pinnacle of his sport when he qualified to represent Scotland in the 1924 Paris Olympics. He was slated to run the hundred-meter race; but when he found that the trial heats were scheduled for a Sunday, he refused to participate, feeling that it would dishonor the Lord’s Day. Through a series of events, he ended up running in the four-hundred-meter race, which he not only won, but in the process set a world record. Even if the story stopped here, it would be an amazing example of submission of one’s own goals with the intent of being God-directed.

But the story continues. Having set the world record and won Olympic gold, Liddell, at the age of twenty-three, turned his back on all the glory and went to China as a missionary. There he had an amazing impact for God, even in his final days in a Japanese prison camp in occupied China, where he died of a brain tumor at the age of forty-three. He never considered what he gave up as a loss. In fact, in submitting to God, both he and God received more glory than if he had simply gone about seizing the opportunities that came to hand.

Does this passage of Genesis teach us anything about submission, or is this just another case of drawing moralizations from the role models in the text? The text neither approves nor condemns Abram’s submitting rather than seizing, so how do we know what teaching to derive? No guidelines are offered for knowing when to seize and when to submit, yet certainly each response has its proper place. Thus, the only point to be made here is for us to recognize that God does not always favor or desire the aggressive attitude of “God helps them that help themselves.” We need to consider each situation carefully in case God’s way might be found in patient waiting. We may be able to serve him better in some circumstances by not taking hold of that which is set before us.

On communication. “The LORD said to Abram. . . .” Did you ever sigh deeply after reading those words, wishing that God would speak to you as plainly as he spoke to Abram? A careful look may help us to see things in a different light. From God’s first conversation with Abram when he was 75 until his death at the age of 175, there are eight recorded conversations between God and Abram—eight times in a hundred years, and sometimes with decades of silence in between!40 And rarely were the conversations about those things that we often long to hear from God about. Abram did not control those meetings or have open Q&A times. In fact, he often left those meetings more confused than when they began.

What if you were to make an offer to Abram: “Which would you prefer, Abram? A brief conversation directly with God eight times in your life during which he spoke whatever was on his mind? Or a book that programmatically shows you what God is like and explains his plans and expectations?” God has given us far more revelation and guidance than Abram ever dreamed possible. I’ll take the Bible over random theophanies anytime, and I expect Abram would too.

On expectations. Imagine yourself in the following situation: God says that if you move out of your apartment house, he is going to give you a new house that is all yours, free and clear. So you find a house that is for rent and settle in waiting for the day when it is yours. Then comes the shocker—it is not going to actually belong to your family for another four hundred years, and for most of that time you will not live in it. Talk about the fine print!

This is comparable to what happened to Abram, but it is not unique in history. Consider the promise of Christ’s return, now some two thousand years anticipated at any moment. Yet Peter reminds us that the Lord is not slow as some understand slowness, for with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8–9). Be that as it may, the timetable for Christ’s return has eluded the church’s expectations for two millennia.

It is important for us to realize that God has no obligation to live up to our expectations of how he will work in history or in our lives. His ways are not our ways, and his plans are often obscured from our sight. When Elisabeth Elliot and Rachel Saint began praying for the Auca Indians, it probably never occurred to them that their prayers would only be answered through the sacrifice of their husbands’ lives. Who would expect to pay such a price? Though God often may not do things according to our expectations, we must always be prepared to acknowledge that God’s way is the best way.

Not only do God’s plans often involve difficulties that we do not expect, they often take a long time to unfold. If someone is in a hurry, it is easy for that person to grow impatient with God. Genesis shows us a God who is not in a hurry. We cannot hurry him along, and we dare not grow impatient with him. When everything we do can be done faster and faster, thus accommodating our impatience, we are encouraged to be in a hurry ourselves and expect everyone else to match our pace.

Jeremy Rifkin laments this development in a book written in the late 1980s entitled Time Wars.41 In doing so he lashes out at such time-honored media institutions as Sesame Street, which he claims puts kids on the fast track to impatience from their earliest years. If our attention spans are never stretched, they never grow. Media and technology have made it possible for us to live our lives with the short attention spans of children. Everybody is hyperactive, and speed is credited as intelligence. No sooner do kids outgrow Sesame Street and its kin than they graduate to MTV, where the trend continues. Rifkin warns that as the pace increases, the impatience increases. He tries to promote the idea that “Slow is beautiful,” but got trampled by the rat race. In the time since he wrote the book, the situation has only grown worse.

We are an increasingly impatient people. This is particularly true in our modern Western culture, which is growing used to measuring time in nanoseconds. Give us more RAM so we don’t have to wait three whole seconds to complete that operation. If something cannot be said in a fifteen second sound-bite, it is not worth saying. On TV any problem is resolvable in half an hour. Attention spans dwindle; sermons get shorter and shorter; reflection has become an endangered quality. We wait for no one. When God doesn’t perform his operations in nanoseconds, our impatience begins to show as our expectations go unfulfilled.

How can we begin to resolve this problem? The key is to recognize that there is a certain tension between expectations and relationship. Relationships operate in the here and now, while expectations are always looking to the future. For instance, it is not difficult for parents to focus too much attention on expectation. They are anxious for the diaper stage to be over; anxious for school to begin; anxious about the teen years fast approaching; anxious about their kids choosing a college, a spouse, a career; they are always anticipating the next step and setting up expectations, looking through the present to the future. Unfortunately, parents who get caught in this trap can become so focused on future expectations that they never develop relationships with their children. Before they know it, their children are in college and they are left asking, “Who was that masked man?”

In contrast, parents who manage to cherish each stage of development and focus on the present tolerate whatever drawbacks accompany each stage in deference to the sheer enjoyment of their child. They are not anxious for their child to be out of diapers because they enjoy those toddler years. They are far too busy working at relationships with their teenagers, despite the trials of teen years, to spend time growing anxious about what the next stage will be like. This is the focus on present relationship rather than future expectation.

If we are to achieve the goal of putting relationships ahead of expectations, we must learn to see relationships as a matter of greater consequence than expectations. If something is of consequence to us, we are not reluctant to spend time or even to “waste” time on it. This is delightfully illustrated in a children’s classic The Little Prince, which explores the question, “What are matters of consequence?”42

The little prince visits a succession of planets, each with a single inhabitant who represents a different view of what is of consequence. He encounters a king who is so concerned about being obeyed that he will only command something that will be done anyway (such as the sunset). His authority is the only thing of consequence to him. He encounters a conceited man for whom there is only consequence in being admired. A “tippler” on a third planet finds only his habit of drinking to be of any consequence. A businessman finds consequence in his facts and figures, and a lamplighter finds consequence in the performance of his duties, no matter how unreasonable they may be. On the last planet he meets a geographer, who finds consequence only in that which does not change; geographers do not concern themselves with what is ephemeral.

In the process of his exploration, the little prince discovers what is of consequence to him: a single rose that he cared for on his planet. A fox who befriends him observes that “it is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important.” The prince discovers through this that it is the relationship that was of consequence to him.

Patience in expectations and attention to relationship requires us to be content with relationship instead of being driven by expectations. When our family first got a dog, our kids were ten, eight, and six. We had the normal family discussion that the dog belonged to everybody, and everybody would have to be involved in taking care of the dog. One of the ways that we figured out to accomplish that was that when I walked the dog each night, one of the kids would go with me. As a result, throughout all their growing years, each evening I got thirty minutes one-on-one with one of my kids. When none of the kids was available, my wife went with me. Instead of the dog’s needs taking me (or anyone else) away from the family, the dog walk became one of the most important relationship building blocks in our family.

Night by night, week by week, year by year, we talked about activities, friends, philosophy, decisions, interests, hobbies . . . life. We laughed, we argued, we struggled, we learned. Sometimes we just walked together and didn’t say anything. It made a difference that in this way the time was spent with my family instead of with the dog. The dog was not a matter of consequence, but my family was. As we took time to relate to each other and learned to be patient with each other, we stretched our relationship attention span. Hopefully the dividends of that will be that our expectations of God will reflect the same patience. If God is truly a matter of consequence to us, we will not be reluctant to spend time on our relationship with him.

In the end, relationship needs to overshadow expectation rather than be driven by it. To do this we must slow down, focus on the present, and extend our attention spans. We can slow ourselves down by strategies such as putting more reading in our routine or by taking slow walks and thinking while we walk. We can slow our families down by planning some family activities that take a longer amount of time (a game of Monopoly, a jigsaw puzzle) or by making plans for something that won’t happen for awhile (perhaps a vacation that is still eight months away).

What are some ways that we can extend our attention span with God, so that we can learn to wait patiently on God? We can focus on the present instead of always wondering and worrying about tomorrow. Sometimes we become so absorbed in what we want or expect him to do next that we neglect our daily relationship with him. The contented life of faith cherishes the relationship of today and takes tomorrow as it comes. The four-hundred-year wait is no problem for one who is content in a faith-filled daily relationship. In the same way we should not be so anxious in our anticipation of Christ’s return that we neglect developing a faith-filled relationship for today. This is the best preparation for the kingdom.

On faith. My mentor in my doctoral program, the late Rabbi Chanan Brichto, was remarkable for his insight into text, language, literature, scholarship, and, not least, faith. He was an ardent admirer of C. S. Lewis and was as intimately familiar with Christianity as with his own Jewish faith. While writing this chapter, I came across the transcript of an address he delivered in 1970 at the conference called by the Commission on Faith and Order of the Ohio Council of Churches, entitled “How Does God Speak in the World?”43 His observations about the nature of faith will enlighten us about what so impressed God about Abram and will renew our commitments to our own faith. It is worth quoting at length.

To the eye of faith the presence of God is obvious, patent. To the ear of faith the message of God is equally clear, equally obvious. But to most people these last two sentences of mine are not obvious at all. So I shall beg your indulgence as I digress briefly to discuss this matter of faith. In a famous Socratic dialogue, Plato undertakes to show that opinion is the opposite of knowledge—namely, ignorance. We know what we know, but our opinions are clearly what we do not know—although they are what we believe. Belief then is opinion; and if opinion is ignorance then belief is ignorance. At this point I should expect most religious people to become defensive—if not indignant. But indignation is a poor answer to the force of a cleanly wrought syllogism. And my answer is that while the syllogism is impressive, it disturbs me not at all as a religionist. For belief and faith are not quite the same thing. Let me try to differentiate between the two, for they are often taken to be synonymous.

Whereas opinion implies a frank disclaimer of knowledge, a confession of ignorance, belief conveys an assertion of greater confidence. That is to say, belief is an expression not for ignorance but for partial or imperfect knowledge. Faith, however, is an expression which is as much stronger and more confident than belief, as belief is than opinion. Faith, indeed, expresses more than conviction. Faith is a claim to knowledge of a higher order of reality. My opinion is a matter of tertiary concern to me: You can reject it without bruising my ego. Belief touches me more closely—it assures me that “honesty is the best policy”—most of the time. But faith—faith is the touchstone of our lives. Faith is that certainty—or near certainty—to which we refer the issues of life and death, as touching ourselves and others. We would sooner take our chance with the law of gravity than contravene the norms we hold by faith.

But faith—unlike the other kind of knowledge—is not a constant. It is a light which blazes like a thousand suns—at some times; at others, it flickers dimly, casting shadows of changing shapes. But even when it is weak we struggle to brighten the flame—for it is the most precious of commodities. Man knows no blackness to match the darkness when that light has gone out. And no man who has ever seen it will rest happy until it is rekindled. And when it burns bright, all other lamps are feeble.

This is what impressed God about Abraham. He did not simply believe. In taking God at his word, he embraced faith. That is not to say he adopted a faith system—he simply had faith in God. God is always impressed with faith. We learn here, then, what impresses God. Do you seek to impress God? Have faith. Our sacrifices of time or resources do not impress God unless they are motivated by faith. And then it is our faith that impresses him, not our sacrifices. On occasion a student complains about getting a low grade in spite of all the time and effort put into a project. I am then sometimes forced to explain gently that if time and effort were all that was required, I would have students fill out time slips and give out grades accordingly. But frankly, those are simply the basics that as a teacher I have every right to expect.

Similarly, God certainly appreciates our hard work, our honesty, and our purity. But these are the basics. It is our faith that is most capable of impressing him. I am not talking about the faith for salvation, though certainly that is a good place to start. I am talking about the faith that God is who he says he is—faith in his attributes, faith that he can and will do what he says he will do, faith that he cares, faith that he is sovereign, faith that he is good. Stake your life on it. Don’t just believe; live in faith. Go beyond carpe diem to carpe Deum (embrace God).