(The lectionary leaves out verses 7-11 about the deception
of Isaac and Rebekah concerning their relationship – perhaps the compilers
thought this was not true but simply a retelling of the same type deception
played out by Abraham and Sarah.)
The Lord renews the covenant with Isaac. He promises the same promises made to Abraham
and the basis is not anything Isaac has done or will do but “because Abraham
obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my
laws.” The covenant is predicated only
on the faithfulness of God and the belief of Abraham, it is irrevocable due to
unfaithfulness of the generations of Abraham.
They may not enjoy the blessing of the covenant at a particular time due
to their unfaithfulness but the covenant itself continues in force as it is
based on something once done. Isaac was
obedient to the Lord’s command to remain in Gerar during the famine and his
obedience was greatly rewarded, he reaped a hundredfold harvest! Even after the envious people forced him to
move to the valley he continued to prosper in finding water. Finally, Abimelech recognizes that the
prosperity of Isaac is due to the blessing of his God and determines to
covenant with Isaac for mutual peace and prosperity and they strike a covenant
complete with oaths, a meal and terms.
Wise move.
Where is the man with whom this woman was committing
adultery? How did these happen to find
her in the act of adultery? There are
many unanswered questions here in addition to what did Jesus write in the
dirt. This passage is not found in the
earliest manuscripts, it shows up first a couple hundred years after the
earliest ones we have so there is certainly the question of why was it either
originally omitted or why was it later added and widely accepted. Taking it at face value we have what seems to
be a straightforward issue of adultery which is punishable by death and the
leaders want Jesus to give His approval.
Did they have any real intention of stoning her to begin with? It seems clear from Jewish history that they
rarely carried out such punishments and in fact went to great lengths to avoid
doing so. Jesus is the only one among
the crowd who could meet the test He proposed of being without sin to begin the
proceedings and He chose not to exercise His right in the matter. He alone then can offer forgiveness but on
specific terms, that she “sin no more.”
Obviously He found her guilty of the sin but offered forgiveness rather
than condemnation.
Does anyone much think of obeying and submitting to our
leaders in church? I rarely, if ever,
think in such terms within the local parish setting. I certainly submit to and obey (more or less)
my bishops but at the local level we see much movement in and out of churches
rather than obedience and submission to leaders. It is far more difficult for me to walk away
from denominational leadership than it is to walk away from the local
church. Culturally we don’t see leaders
in the same way the writer here does and yet we need to examine our culture and
God’s plan and design for the church to ensure we aren’t in rebellion to God’s
authority exercised through leaders. The
writer also asks for prayers for the leadership to lead wisely and with good
conscience. Finally, the appeal is made
to the eternal covenant in Jesus’ blood.
We are in many ways like Isaac, beneficiaries of what someone else has
once done and we rest in the covenant already and forever established.
Give ear, O my people,
to my teaching;
incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
We will not hide them
from their children,
but tell to the coming generation
the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might,
and the wonders that he has done.
but tell to the coming generation
the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might,
and the wonders that he has done.
No comments:
Post a Comment