SAY YES TO LIFE!
Morris A. Inch
|
CONTENTS
Textual Studies
The choice between
life and death strikes close to home. Mother was beyond the age when women
generally give birth when she conceived. Moreover, she was not in the best of
health. There was risk involved in bringing the fetus to full term. Had she
opted for abortion, my life would have been terminated.
I gather that she never
genuinely regretted her decision. Even though the birth was difficult,
she chose life. Even though there were lingering adverse effects, she
chose life.
Of course, I was not consulted.
Scripture encourages us to make provision for those who are importune.
The fetus would seem to eminently qualify.
In Jewish tradition,
three are implicated in birthing a child. Along with mother and father,
there is God. The implication is that all three have invested interests,
which should be addressed.
I cannot remember a
time when I was not loved. Mother expressed her love in a variety of ways.
For instance, by her loving care. For another, when she would show her
approval. Dad was of necessity less involved. His love translated into being
a good provider, a respected virtue in our village culture. Then, too, in
playing with me from time to time, or reading to me when I was ill. Not to be
overlooked, there were my siblings, extended family, and childhood friends.
A road separated our home from
my father's store. It was some time before mother would allow me to
negotiate the road, and then only after considerable coaching. "Look
both ways," she would shout after me. "Yes, mother," I would indulge
her.
I came of age while
World War II was raging. It was a time when life was increasingly uncertain.
Mother seemed to sense that I would not return from overseas deployment. Her
intuition proved misleading.
My parents have passed
away, as have my siblings and ever so many more. I supposed that the hurt
would diminish with the passing of time. Perhaps for the time being, only to
be renewed on occasion. Given the opportunity, I would opt for life–for
myself and for others.
If for no other reason,
the Christian faith appeals to me. "I am come that they may have life,"
Jesus affirmed, "and have it to the full" (John 10:10).
Things are not always as
they appear. In a manner of speaking, the Christian martyr chose life
rather than death; inasmuch as he or she would not exchange a few fleeting
years for the prospect of eternity.
The above comments will
suffice for the present. Walk with me as I subsequently explore the
topic in greater detail. It will hopefully prove to be time well
invested.
"The greatest power we possess is the power to choose. Our most important choice, whether on the plains of Moab or in today's fast paced world is between life and death. The appeal to choose between life and death is common in the Old Testament."1 It is no less prevalent in the New Testament.
* * *
Illustrations abound.
"See," Moses solemnly addressed the people,
I set before you today life and
prosperity, death and destruction. For I
command you today to love the
Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to
keep his commands, decrees and
laws; then you will live and increase, and
the Lord your God will bless
you in the land you are entering to possess.
But if your heart turns away
and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn
away to bow down to other gods
and worship, them, I declare to you this
day that you will certainly be
destroyed (Deut. 30:15-16).
In context, the phrase I set
before you implies that a categorical choice must be made between life and
death. There is no third option.
Moreover, the decision
is urgent. We cannot resurrect the past, and we cannot presume regarding the
future. As I was assured as a child, "Life comes around only once."
Much is at stake.
Life and prosperity is set over against death and destruction.
Life and all that it affords; death and the loss of all that might
have been. The contrast is intentionally stark.
Moses next sets out to
explain his use of terms. Life is generated from loving the Lord
your God, and eventuates in walking in his ways. This, in turn, involves
keeping their covenant obligations.
Conversely, death
results from disobedience. In any regard, but expressly concerning
idolatry. Idolatry can take many forms. Some actually worship figures made
from wood, metal, or clay. Either that or what they suppose the figures
represent. Others are more subtle. They simply esteem things of this world
more than their benevolent benefactor.
Idolatry reveals a complex
dynamic. It appears to satisfy the concern to have a visible object for
adoration; it may result from ignorance (cf. Acts 17:30); it often allows the
person to be self-serving; it can be a means for exercising control over
others. All things considered, there is some truth to the assertion:
"One is as good as the gods he or she placates."
The prophets were quick
to point out that idols lack vitality. They have ears, but do not hear.
They have mouths, but do not speak. In this regard, they qualify as
harbingers of death.
Finally, Moses associates
the choice with the promised land. If the people choose life, "the Lord
your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess." If
they opt for death, "you will not live long in the land you are crossing the
Jordan to enter and possess." The focus is not on some ethereal hope in
the distant future, but concerning impending events.
Consider another example.
"Enter through the narrow gate," Jesus admonished. "For wide is the gate and
broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few
find it" (Matt. 7:13-14).
Initially, note the
context. The Golden Rule, do others as you would have them do to you,
might be said to constitute the high point of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
The four paragraphs that follow contrast the two ways, two kinds of fruit, two
kinds of followers, and two kinds of builders. In each instance, a sharp
distinction is drawn between true discipleship and religious pretense.
Jesus calls for
decisive action. There was no time to attend to extraneous matters; nor to
consider what might lie in store for them. There was no room for ifs
or buts in the disciple's response. In nautical terms, they were to
set sail and weather the storms as they arose.
Jesus elaborates.
For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction. It
is readily accessible to all. It has the approval of most. Nonetheless, it
will inevitably lead to destruction.
Conversely, small
is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
The few is not specified. C. S. Lewis once observed that upon gaining
access to heaven, persons will likely discover that some of those who they
took to be pious simply enjoyed good digestion. "Examine yourself to see
whether you are in the faith," Paul admonishes his readers (2 Cor. 13:5).
Leave nothing to chance.
The discussion now takes
a more philosophic turn. Some decisions are manifestly complex. "I
have good news for you," a faculty colleague used to greet his freshman
students. "Now that you have matriculated, your options are dramatically
reduced. You do not have to decide whether or not to study; you will
study! You do not have to weigh whether to get enough rest, eat
properly, or have regular exercise–since these are conducive to study."
So it is with those
who opt for life. It will impact on the priorities we set, how we expend our
energies, and how we measure success. It will impact on the priorities we
set. Jesus cogently observed, "for I seek not to please myself but him
who sent me" (John 5:30). He assumed this as the prime directive.
It is in the above
regard that the worthwhile may keep us from excelling. The worthwhile
qualifies as anything that appears to us and/or others as a positive course of
action. Conversely, we excel only in conjunction with God's gracious
will for our lives. It is in this manner that we refine our potential by
means of his enabling grace.
An illustration will
perhaps clarify my thinking. Ed was a devout young college student, who
struggled to find his calling in life. After graduation, he took a
year's study in seminary. It was never his intent to become a pastor,
but he presumed that the theological training would stand him in good stead.
He eventually became a missionary educator. I have seldom seen a person
so assured of his calling, or more enthusiastic in rendering a ministry.
Moreover, Ed made a
practice of considering others in deference to himself. In order of
priority, it was God first and others second. His concern appeared to
focus on those near at hand: his instructors and fellow students. It
extended, as the opportunity afforded itself, to persons further removed.
Such as those he and his friends would visit on a Sunday afternoon, as a means
of sharing their faith.
Then, when his education
was completed, he ventured into strange surroundings, among people of a
different ethnic and cultural orientation. His life was cut short by
some tropical decease, and he was buried in a distant land–close to those he
was privileged to serve.
Ed seemed of the opinion
that he had everything to gain, and nothing to lose in venturing forth in
faith. "But seek the kingdom of God first," Jesus admonished, "and all
these things (concerning our daily provision) will be given to you as well"
(Matt. 6:33). In this regard, Jesus reminded them of God's providential
care for the lilies of the field.
On a later occasion,
the Lord observed: "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his
life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 10:39). "That self-seeking is
self-defeating is the central paradox of Christian living. In the context of
cross-bearing it would appear that 'gaining one's life' may refer to escaping
martyrdom by denying the faith. ...The saying of Jesus is also true in a more
general sense; to pursue selfish interests is to lose out on what life if all
about... ."2
If we opt
for life, it will also influence how we expend our energies. "Worship
the Lord in the splendor of his holiness," the psalmist enjoins (96:9). It is
emphatically time well spent. Without worship, life loses its seasoning.
Two related observations
would appear in order. First, worship is an expression of gratitude; as
relates to God's person and provision. Our God is a great God!
There is no one to rival his majesty.
In addition, he provides
for us as would a parent for his or her children. Indeed, we are blessed
from one generation to the next.
Second, our gratitude is
confirmed in the manner in which we live. In a passage I have
appreciatively quoted on various occasions, "Away with the noise of your
songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let
justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!"
(Amos 5:23-24).
Justice must be
cultivated in diverse contexts. There is legal justice. "How long
will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?" the Almighty
indignantly inquires. "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain
the rights of the poor and oppressed"
(Psa. 82:23).
There is also
distributive justice. This balances the privileges and obligations one
assumes as a member of society. It is incumbent that persons not be expected
to bear a disproportionate share of responsibility, but neither should they be
excused from contributing as warranted.
Likewise, there is
commutative justice. Such as is related to the exchange of commodities
and services. "Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales?" God rhetorically
inquires (Micah 6:11). Certainly not!
Then, finally, there
is retributive justice. The Lex Talionis serves as a prime case
in point. In biblical terms, "an eye for an eye" (Exod. 21:24). Its
expressed purpose was to prohibit excessive punishment. Whatever the specific
application, let justice flow on like a river, and righteousness like a
never-failing stream.
The alternative may
be said to focus our attention on the grave. That is all that remains to
bear witness that someone once walked this way. If he or she had
accumulated this world's goods, others are left to enjoy them.
If we opt for life, it
will likewise inform us how to measure success. "Now this is eternal
life," Jesus observed: "that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3). "In this world we are familiar with
the truth that it is a blessing and an inspiration to know certain people.
Much more is it the case when we know God. To know him transforms us and
introduces us to a different quality of living."3
Initially, note the
analogy. We are privileged to become personally acquainted with certain
people, who leave a lasting impression on us. We are now and forever in
their debt.
Sometimes these
people are renowned. More often than not, they receive little notice.
In any case, they qualify as exemplars.
Secondly, consider
what is lacking. There is no reference to the accumulation of material
things. We would be led to believe that these have little to do with
establishing the quality of life.
So it was that Jesus
told a parable concerning a certain rich man, whose ground produced a pumper
crop. He pondered to himself, "What shall I do? I have no place to
store my crops" (Luke 12:17). Then he concluded, "This is what I'll do.
I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my
grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, 'You have plenty of good
things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be
merry.'"
But God said to him, "You
fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then
who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"
After that, Jesus
concluded: "This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for
himself but is not rich toward God." He apparently felt no additional
commentary would seem necessary.
Thirdly, note the
preeminence of God If certain persons can be said to enrich our
lives, how much more must this be true concerning the Almighty!
There are various
means through which we experience God. Through his creation. "The
heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display
knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard" (Psa.
19:1-3).
Via wisdom.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom
and discipline" (Prov. 1:7). As an example, "Go to the ant, you sluggard;
consider its ways and be wise. It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet
it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest" (6:6).
From salvation
history. As with Moses, who
chose to be mistreated along
with the people of God rather than to enjoy the
pleasures of sin for a short
time. ...By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the
king's anger; he persevered
because he saw him who is invisible. ...By faith
the people passed through the
Red Sea as on dry land; but when the
Egyptians tried to do so, they
were drowned (Heb. 11:24-25, 27, 29).
In the person of
Jesus. "Lord," Philip said to Jesus, "show us the Father and that will be
enough for us" (John 14:8).
Jesus replied, "Don't
you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has see the Father." It is in the form of a gentle
rebuke.
All things considered,
by being open to the opportunities life affords. It is as we
enthusiastically embrace life that God delights in revealing his will to us.
According to conventional wisdom, "Live and learn."
The doctrine of the two ways, so admirably set forth in Psalm 1, permeates biblical narrative. I have chosen representative passages, so as to elaborate on the choice between life and death. As noted in the book's title, this constitutes the choice, since other choices take their point of departure from this initial juncture in our earthly sojourn.
It would appear that the most captivating biblical passage for Jewish piety is the akeda (binding) of Isaac. It appears as if a haunting memory, touching on the pathos of life, and soliciting uncompromising devotion to the Almighty. It is no less a profound commentary on what is sometimes a subtle choice between life and death.
* * *
From a literary
perspective, "The action is not merely broken up into steps. Each step is
told slowly, in considerable detail, and several sentences are long, carefully
built up by balanced clauses. It is the slow-telling technique discussed
above, handled with virtuosity."4
"Abraham!" God summoned the
patriarch.
"Here I am," Abraham replied.
It was not his intent to state the obvious, but to express his availability
and attention.
Then God directed him,
"Take your son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah.
Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell
you about." Sacrifice was a regular part of the worship of Abraham and the
Israelite patriarchs. After God had appeared to him at Shechem, he built an
altar to the Lord and offered a sacrifice (Gen. 12:7). Later altars were
subsequently erected at Bethel (12:8; 13:18).
The sacrifice is best
thought of as a token expression of one's religious devotion. It decidedly
did not excuse a lack of piety. In the terminology coined by Dietriech
Bonhoeffer, it was not meant to accommodate cheap grace.
Human sacrifice, however, was
quite a different matter. The practice appears to have been common among
the Canaanites, but discouraged by the Mosaic tradition. As an apt
illustration, "You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in
worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates.
They even burn their sons and daughters in the fires as sacrifices to their
gods" (Deut. 12:31).
Of course, the patriarch may
not have had a settled conviction in this matter. As sometimes
expressed, he was a project in progress. Pagan ways cast an exceedingly
long shadow.
Early the next morning, Abraham got
up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son,
Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for a burnt offering, he set out to
locate the place God had described.
On the third day, he looked up and
saw the location in the distance. He instructed his servants, "Stay here
with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and
then we will come back to you."
Abraham took the wood for the brunt
offering, and placed it on his son's shoulders. He himself carried the
fire and knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac broke the
silence. "Father?" he asked in an questioning voice.
"Yes, my son?" the
patriarch invited him to continue.
"The fire and the wood are here,"
Isaac observed, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself
will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." Then the two of
them went on together. As for commentary, repetition appears to be
especially characteristic of more ancient forms of narrative.
This might be due to the circumstances that oral
composition and
transmission are greatly helped
by regularly repeated elements;
furthermore, ...such elements make a story which is listened to sound
better. ...All this might seem to lead to the conclusion that the narrative
manner of the Bible is relatively close to ancient and primitive
conventions, though–since its repetitions are not quite regular–one step
higher on the
evolutionary scale.5
When they had reached
the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar and arranged the wood
on it. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar–on top of the wood.
Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his cherished son.
However, the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham!
Abraham!"
Now the angel of
the Lord characteristically serves as his messenger. This invites the
impression that he, at least on occasion, constitutes a manifestation of God.
In this capacity, the angel resembles the burning bush that was not consumed,
and which solicited Moses' attention
(cf. Exod. 3).
"Here I am," the patriarch again
replied.
"Do not lay a hand on
the boy," the angel protested. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that
you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
The fear of God conveys something more profound than simply dread or
terror; it suggests awe-inspiring reverence.
Abraham looked up and
saw a ram caught by its horns in a thicket. He went over and took the ram,
and sacrificed it–in place of his son. So the patriarch called that location
The Lord Will Provide. "And to this day," the narrator observes,
"it is said: 'On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.'"
Then the angel of the
Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time, "I swear by myself," the
Lord declares,
that because you have
done this and have not withheld your son, your
only son, I will surely bless you and make your
descendants as numerous
as the stars in the sky
and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants
will take possession of
the cities of their enemies, and through your
offspring all nations on
earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.
"By faith Abraham,
when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice," the author of Hebrews
observes. "He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one
and only son, even though God had said to him, 'It is through Isaac that your
offspring will be reckoned.' Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead,
and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death" (11:17-19).
"Now faith is being
sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (v. 1). This is
more along the line of a description than a definition. Faith might be
defined as a radical commitment of one's life to the Almighty. As such, it
involves knowledge, trust, and obedience. Knowledge in the sense of
comprehension, trust with regard to reliance, and obedience as
its corollary. In the memorable words of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, "only he who
believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes."6
It was God's intent to
test Abraham, but in what regard? Clearly, in keeping with God's
promise to fulfill his promise through Isaac. So it would seem that the
comment concerning Abraham's belief in God's ability to raise his son from
death is not off the mark, because Isaac's survival was necessary to the
realization of the promise–assuming his life would be taken. As it turns out,
this was not the case, except in a figurative sense.
"Was not our ancestor
Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on
the altar?" James rhetorically inquires. "You see that his faith and his
actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did"
(2:21-22). "The idea is not that faith was perfected in the sense of it
having been less than faith before, but that faith is brought to maturity
through action (cf. 1:4; 15). There is a mutuality: Faith informs and
motivates action; action matures faith."7 James means to repudiate
a false dichotomy, in preference for a faith that rings true.
The comments of the
early church fathers are likewise pertinent. Clement encourages his readers
to reflect on how one might obtain God's blessing. In this connection, "Let
us think over the things which have taken place from the beginning. For what
reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought
righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect condidence, as if
knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice."8
The term
blessing acknowledges God's favorable disposition. In particular,
Abraham merited God's approval because he wrought righteousness and truth
through faith. Then, too, Clement supposes that Isaac was not hesitant to
comply with his father's wishes. The wood he bore on his shoulders is
represented as analogous to the cross.
Irenaeus reasons along
a complementary line: "For Abraham, according to his faith, followed the
command of the Word of God, and with a ready mind delivered up, as a sacrifice
to God, his only begotten and beloved son, in order that God also might be
pleased to offer up for all his seed His own beloved and begotten Son, as a
sacrifice for our redemption."9 In order that bonds the two
events together, in terms of promise and fulfillment.
Moreover, the Word
of God provides an unifying theme. When the patriarch heard God's word,
he obeyed. When the apostles were summoned by the Incarnate Word, they also
obeyed. When anyone reflects on the revealed word of God, it is their
obligation to be obedient.
One additional
instance will suffice, although I have little more than scratched the surface.
Cyprian observes that we ought not to complain, but endure hardship in God's
service. He recalls in this connection the Job narrative, before turning
his attention to the binding of Isaac. The latter expressly serves to
demonstrate that God means to prove the instrument of his use.
Then, in summary: "As
gold in the furnace He proved them, and as burnt-offering He received them.
And in their time there shall be respect of them; they shall judge the
nations, and shall rule over the people; and their Lord shall reign for ever."10
But not before they have been refined in life's furnace.
It remains to focus
more precisely on the mix of life and death imagery associated with the
binding of Isaac. It begins with God. Abraham, conversely, resembles
more a member of the supporting cast. He comes on stage for the time being,
only to leave out of deference to others.
God is there all
along. In the beginning, at the end, and for the interim. He is
the one constant in the midst of change. Life revolves around him.
Now life originates
with God. First, he created a habitable environment. There was
heat to warm the firmament. There was water, which withdrew to allow
land to appear. There was flora and fauna of rich diversity. Then,
finally, there was humanity–as if a capstone to God's creative activity.
Humans are not the
most robust of God's creatures. They need to bond together in order to
survive. God graciously made provision for community.
The biblical writers
assume that since God created the world, he is necessary to sustain it. "He
covers the sky with clouds," the psalmist enthuses; "he supplies the earth
with rain and makes grass grow on the hills. He provides food for the cattle,
and for the young ravens when they call" (Psa. 147:8-9). In more general
terms, "The Lord is righteous in all his ways and loving toward all he has
made" (Psa. 145:17).
Jesus
concluded, "He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Matt. 22:32).
This he said by way of rebuking the Sadducees who reasoned that there was no
resurrection. John Calvin observed that it is customary for a father to
have children. So it is that to affirm God's existence is to confirm
life.
The notion of life
asserts itself again concerning God's promise to Abraham. It was couched
in the context of the mandate to leave familiar surroundings and a supportive
extended family structure, so as to claim his inheritance. "I will make you
into a great nation and I will bless you," he was told; "I will make your name
great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and
whoever curses you will I curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed
through you" (Gen. 12:2-3).
He would be
blessed. In antiquity, this was as a rule associated with long life and
a large family. If, that is, life is relatively free from misfortune,
and the children are not contentious. These desirable considerations in
and of themselves would not substitute for a walk with God.
He would be a means of
blessing. Consequently, he would more resemble a channel than a
reservoir. It
was never God's intent that we should squander his blessings on ourselves.
As noted above, it
was this promise that kept the patriarch on course. Since God had
promised, it was as good as done. If it took raising Isaac from the
dead, God could be counted on to manage it. If by some other way, God is
faithful. In a manner of speaking, this was not so much Abraham's
problem as God's.
The lad's life was not
spared until the last moment. The knife was already poised in his father's
hand when the angel of the Lord stayed the execution. It is perhaps not
surprising that Jewish tradition finds in this a cause for martyrdom. "It may
be pointed out that the prohibition against suicide in Judaism is not
absolute. A Jew is actually obligated to accept death rather than commit
murder, idolatry, or incest."11 Such are said to die
sanctifying the Holy Name.
Conversely, his life was
spared. This serves as a reminder that God does not take pleasure in
human sacrifice. Life is sacred from the moment of inception to its
demise, and should be treated with the greatest of respect.
As noted at the
outset, the akida has made an unique contribution to Jewish piety. As
subsequently observed, it has not gone unnoticed by the New Testament writers
or the early church fathers. Now it deserves to be given serious attention in
the midst of the current clash between the cultures of life and death.
The significance of the Decalogue can hardly be overstated. The rabbis "speculated that it was prepared on the eve of creation in anticipation of subsequent use; they asserted that as each commandment was sounded from the lofty heights of Sinai it filled the world with a pleasing aroma; they concluded that all nature hushed to hear every word as it was spoken."12
* * *
Initially, I will
briefly sketch the events that led up to the gathering of Israel at Sinai to
embrace its covenant obligations. Severe famine ravaged the land, prompting
the extended family's flight to Egypt. One generation died, and another
replaced it. The "Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became
exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them" (Exod. 1:2).
A new ruler, with no recollection of
Joseph, came to power. "Look," he said to the people, "the Israelites
have become much too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with
them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join
our enemies, fight against us and leave the country." This, in turn,
would diminish the work force available.
So they put oppressive
slave masters over the Israelites, and forced them to build store cities
for Pharaoh. These served as centers for gathering and distributing
grain, not to exclude other enterprises that would contribute to their
importance. "They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar
and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the
Egyptians used them ruthlessly."
Then the king summoned the mid-wives
who birthed the Hebrew women, and commanded them to put to death any male
children they would deliver. But the mid-wives feared God, and made
excuse for failing to keep their instructions. After that, Pharaoh
issued a decree: "Every (Hebrew) boy that is born you must throw into the
Nile, but let every girl live."
So it was that when Moses was born,
his mother hid him for three months. "But when she could hide him no
longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch.
Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of
the Nile" (2:3). His sister stood at a distance to see what would
transpire. The child was discovered by Pharaoh's daughter, who embraced him as
her own.
One day, after Moses
had matured, he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew–one of his own people.
Seeing no one to observe his actions, he killed the oppressor and hid his body
in the sand. When what he had done became known, he fled to Midian. There he
took a wife, who presented him with a child.
Meanwhile, the Israelites
continued to suffer in slavery. Thus it was that God confronted Moses
from a burning bush that was not consumed. "I have indeed seen the
misery of my people in Egypt," the Lord assured him. "So I have come
down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of
the land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey"
(3:7-8).
Moses reticently accepted God's
mandate that he serve as his representative. The contest that
followed was calculated to demonstrate the impotency of the Egyptian pantheon
when confronted with the living God. When Pharaoh could drag his feet no
longer, he granted Moses' request that the Israelites be permitted to assemble
before the Lord in the wilderness.
Having a change of heart,
the king ordered his troops to apprehend the Israelites, and bring them back.
God miraculously intervened, so that the Israelites escaped and their pursuers
perished. Then Moses and the people sang unto the Lord, He "is my
strength and my song; he has become my salvation. He is my God, and I
will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him" (15:2).
It was the third month to
the very day after the Israelites had left Egypt that they made camp before
Mount Sinai. Then Moses went up before the Lord. God said to him,
"Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you
will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you
will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (19:5-6).
The covenant is
structured in the form of a vassal treaty. Its preamble is meant to
solicit reverence concerning the Universal Sovereign. The historical
prologue recalls his benevolent dealing with the people up to that point.
The stipulations constitute the body of the text. They consist of
general principles, and case instances; that is, apodictic and casuistic law.
Heaven and earth is subsequently called up to bear witness to the
pact. Curses and blessings are elaborated, contingent on keeping the
covenant obligations. Then, finally, there is provision for treaty renewal.
This would affirm the binding character of the covenant in the light of
subsequent developments.
It is in the above
context that we are introduced to the so-called ten words
(commandments). These are apodictic (see above) in character. They
are customarily divided among duties to God and to others. As for the former,
You shall have no other gods
before me (in the sense of tolerating them).
You shall not make for yourself
an idol in the form of anything in heaven
above or on the earth
beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow
down to them or worship
them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children
for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth
generation of those who
hate me (idiom expressing continuity), but
showing love to a
thousand generations of those who love me and keep my
commandments.
You shall not misuse the
name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not
hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Remember the Sabbath
day by keeping it holy (Exod. 20:3-8).
When taken together, "Love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
mind" (Matt. 22:37).
As for the latter,
Honor your father
and your mother, so that you may live long in the land
the Lord your God
is giving you.
You shall not
murder.
You shall not
commit adultery.
You shall not
steal.
You shall not give
false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet
your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, or
his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or
anything that belongs
to your neighbor (Exod. 20:12-17).
As succinctly expressed, "Love
your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:39). "All the Law and the Prophets hang
on these two commandments," Jesus then concluded.
We now come to consider the
prohibition against murder in its biblical setting. In particular, the
renewed promise of God concerning blessing in the promised land, the
deliverance of his people from what had become for them a culture of death,
the covenant stipulations, and especially those general principles set forth
in the Decalogue.
You shall not
murder. The prohibition is derived from the conviction that since God
gives life, he alone has the prerogative to take it away. The intentional
killing of another, except in carefully prescribed instances, was strictly
forbidden. The life of a child was considered as sacred as that of an adult.
The exceptions are
worthy of note. The first concerned capital punishment. As an example,
"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to
flee to a place I will designate" (Exod. 21:12-13). In the initial instance,
the death penalty means to preclude the wanton taking of life. The
implication is that the failure to do so devalues life.
In the second instance,
death was not premeditated. Should such occur, the person implicated was
to flee to a city of refuge. There he would be safe from those who would
avenge the death of their kin, as was the custom.
Great care was to be taken in
making a determination. There must be a least two credible witnesses to
confirm what had transpired. Extenuating circumstances could be taken in
consideration. No undue suffering was to be inflicted on the guilty.
In these and other ways, it was evident that the death penalty was not to be
exercised lightly.
Legitimate warfare was a
second exception. It would come to pass that the Lord instructed Moses,
"Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families,
listing every man by name...all the men of Israel twenty years old or more who
are able to serve in the army" (Num. 1:2-3). The presupposition is that
they would be called upon to wage war when necessary.
There were obvious
qualifications to be considered. For instance, "War must always be the final
resort, the last extreme measure in the political order. Only after every
other bloodless effort that is humanly possible and sufferable has been tried
to resolve a conflict and has failed, may a nation resort to war."13
That is, if we take the Hebrew precedent at face value.
Then, too, one should not
resort to war if its prospect entailed greater suffering. This is a
difficult call at best, especially since short term strategies often frustrate
long term solutions.
Hebrew ethics expands
the scope of murder to include both doing anything that would endanger the
life of others or failing to do something that would protect them from peril,
distress, or despair. Consequently, persons were prohibited from deliberately
putting someone in harm's way. According to rabbinic commentary, such as
stranding a person in a situation where he is likely to starve.
Sins of omission are no
less acceptable. According to conventional thought, "All that is
necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."
The concern for civility
is likewise relevant. In this connection, persons were to honor their
parents. Initially, by providing for their physical needs. So also in
expressing appreciation and loving concern. Moreover, by observing their
sage counsel. Then, when they have passed away, by fondly remembering
them.
Civility extends to all
areas of life. Such as listening courteously to someone who is speaking,
waiting your turn in line, allowing for a difference in opinion, and returning
good for evil.
The sometimes illusive
goal of civility appears served in two ways. First, we ought not to attribute
to others the worst of motives. I was encouraged as a child, "Give anyone the
benefit of a doubt." Second, we should not assume that we are
activated by the best of motives. This can be very misleading. In any case,
motives are characteristically mixed.
All things considered,
the dark night of oppression was past. A new day had dawned, with
greater potential than could be imagined. Welcome people of God to a
brave new world!
I will conclude with
some representative commentary. "If a person sees someone pursuing another
for the obvious or suspected intent of committing murder or with the intent of
causing the pursued to commit a sin, and the observer is able to stop the
pursuer by wounding him, but kills him instead, he transgresses this
commandment (you shall not murder)."14
The issue has to do with
excessive means. If the person could be restrained in some other
fashion, the taking of life was prohibited.
"A person is commanded
to allow himself to be killed rather than kill," the rabbinic text adds.
"This means that if people try to compel a person on pain of death to kill
someone, he must not commit murder regardless of consequences."15
The issue
concerns personal responsibility. If the person is killed in pursuit of what
is right, then he is not at fault. If, however, he violates the prohibition
under duress, he stands condemned. The rationale carried over into the
general prohibition against taking one's own life.
"You have heard it
said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,' and anyone who murders will be
subject to judgment," Jesus recalled. "But I tell you that anyone who is
angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to
his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says,
'You fool! will be in danger of the fire of hell" (Matt. 5:21-22).
Jesus deftly applies the
text to two contributing factors. First, the indulgence of anger.
Such resembles a boiling cauldron. It needs only the occasion to take
the life of another, if not actual then by disregard and lack of concern.
Second, the expression of
anger in abusive language. Such as is meant to inflict injury on the
other person. Then, too, to depreciate him in the sight of others.
"While angry outbursts
are denounced in verse 22 as punishable by hellfire, in verses 23-24 the
forgiving grace of God comes to the fore. While anger is damnable, genuine
repentance permits reconciliation with God as well as with the injuured sister
or brother."16 "Therefore," the extended passage reads, "if you
are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has
something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go
and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."
So it is that the echoes
of Sinai reverberate down through the corridors of time (to embrace a frequent
metaphor). They can be heard in the daily conflicts that come about in
the pursuit of routine duties, the crisis situations that arise from time to
time, the efforts to amend our ways, and such times as solicit celebration.
"Life is good," we are
reminded. "Wherefore a man should treasure it, not despise it; affirm and not
deny it; have faith in it and never despair of its possibilities. For behind
it is God. Life is good and man can find it such, provided–and this is the
great condition to everything else–that it is properly lived."17
The designation holiness code is not employed in its more restricted sense–as concerns chapters 17-26 of Leviticus, but in more general terms. In the latter connection, Mary Douglas aptly observes: "We can conclude that holiness is exemplified by completeness. Holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong. And holiness requires that different classes of things shall not be confused."18
* * *
The term holy
implies being separate from all that is unclean and reprehensible. "Be holy,"
the people were admonished, "because I, the Lord your God am holy" (Lev.
19:2). We are thus to understand that God's holiness provides the paradigm
for individual and corporate behavior. "This principle can well be regarded
as the watchword of the covenant people. The personal characteristics of
holiness as reflected in God's nature include the perfected state of such
ethical attributes as righteousness, love, goodness and purity."19
I will return to the
earlier quote, before continuing with the latter. Holiness is exemplified
by completeness. In ethical terms, it is being all that one can be. It
goes without saying that this cannot be accomplished without God's
enablement. Grace is a pervasive ingredient of life.
The human body serves as an
example. Some are given more to work with than others. All can
benefit from regular exercise, and proper diet. All should refrain from
harmful practices, such as smoking.
The human body also
provides corporate imagery. "Now the body is not made up of one part but of
many," Paul observes. "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense
of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell
be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them,
just as he wanted them to be" (1 Cor. 12:14, 17-18). Each serves a
distinctive function, and in doing so, the welfare of all.
Moreover, holiness
requires that individuals conform to the class to which they belong. In
this regard, humans are set off from all of God's other creatures. They alone
are said to be created in his image (cf. Gen. 1:27). This implies at least
three complimentary characteristics. First, the privilege of communing with
his or her maker. "Evening, morning and noon I cry out in my distress," the
psalmist asserts, "and he hears my voice" (55:17).
Second, man's
benevolent rule–meant to emulate God's disposition. "When I consider your
heavens and the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have
set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you
care for him?" (Psa. 8:3-4). He appears as little more than a bit of
protoplasm on an inconsequential planet, in one of the less impressive
galaxies.
Upon further reflection,
"You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with
glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you
put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the
field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths
of the seas" (vv. 5-8). As God would have it, and as ultimately
accountable to him.
Finally, humanity's
astonishing endowments–in keeping with its demanding calling. For
instance, a highly developed use of language. Such as allows humans to
reflect on things that have transpired in the past, anticipate the future, and
make decisions that will impact on life. In addition, all that permits
them to bond together in some corporate endeavor that will far exceed
individual efforts.
Then, in conclusion,
Mary Douglas confirms that holiness requires that different classes of
things shall not be confused. Initially, such as distinguishes one
creature (or set) from another. As an example, "Of all the creatures living
in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and
scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and
scales–whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living
creatures in the water–you are to detest" (Lev. 11:9-10).
The clean species are
those with fins and scales. These as a rule "swim at various depths in the
water, whereas the unclean species tend to have their habitat in shallow
water. Unclean fish would include the edible crustaceae such as lobster,
crab, shrimp and similar species that feed from decaying flesh, where it
happens to be available, and can transmit infection readily."20
Since this is not necessarily a health problem, it may suggest a precautionary
consideration.
Secondarily, such as recognizes
a proper distinctive among those who constitute a given kind. In some
detail, "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.
...Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself
with her. ...Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable" (Lev. 18:6, 20, 22). Holiness can thus be seen as
maintaining not only the integrity of the kind, but the person.
As promised earlier,
we return to the second quote. The holiness principle can well be regarded
as the watchword of the covenant people. It qualifies as their modus
operandi. As such, it is the source of their effectiveness. Apart from
it, they lose credibility.
The Jewish sages have long
speculated concerning why God chose Israel from among the nations. Given
their waywardness, it did not seem due to some intrinsic merit. Perhaps
because of the patriarchs, they reasoned. This seemed more plausible,
although not altogether convincing. Perhaps because only Israel would
embrace the challenge, since it would entail hardship and suffering.
Whether for these reasons or for some other, only God knows for certain.
While the discussion takes different directions, it seems to end with the same
conclusion. In biblical perspective, holiness is what I long for and
holiness is what I need.
R. K. Harrison
identifies four ethical attributes associated with holiness. I will briefly
touch on each in order. Righteousness implies conformity to God's
will. Conversely, sin is characterized as any lack of conformity. This might
take the form of commission or omission.
Righteousness brings to mind
the rugged terrain of the Judean hill country. The rock strewn paths are
not easy to make out, and can prove treacherous. Given the
circumstances, one is well-advised to have a capable guide. It should be
someone who knows the way from beginning to end. Moreover, one who
accompanies you along the way. This seems an especially suitable
metaphor for reflecting on the admirable character of righteousness.
Aheb is the
prime Hebrew term for love. It is used in a variety of contexts: as
concerns parental love (Gen. 37:4), affection for friends (1 Sam. 20:17), and
sensual desire (2 Sam. 13:1-15). The term hesed is also employed, as
when contrasting God's steadfast love to human undependableness (cf. Job
6:14-15).
The
multi-faceted character of love can be further illustrated by the four
associated Greek terms: storge, eros, philos, and
agape. Storge is the least familiar. While not expressly used in
the biblical text, the notion is indirectly acknowledged. As an example,
Jesus inquired: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a
stone? ...If you, then though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to
your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to
those who ask him!" (Matt. 7:9, 11). Storge focuses our attention on
filial devotion. As illustrated in conventional wisdom, "Blood is thicker
than water."
Eros is
reserved for the attraction one feels for someone of the opposite gender.
"The ideal hinges on the complementary character of the couple. Each could
contribute to the relationship something lacking in the other. As a result,
both would be fulfilled. Conversely, neither should be reduced to simply an
object for sexual gratification."21
Philos closely
approximates friendship. "Wounds of a friend can be trusted," the sage
cogently concludes, "but an enemy multiplies kisses" (Prov. 27:6). This is
because the friend wishes us well, while the enemy means to deceive us. In
antiquity, philos was sometimes used concerning persons bonded in a
common intellectual pursuit. Currently, it might be more appropriate for
persons sharing an athletic activity or interest.
Agape was
singled out to express God's love for fallen humanity. As such, it is not
solicited by human merit but volunteered as an expression of God's grace. It,
nonetheless, constitutes what we have come to call hard love. That is,
it insists on personal integrity and moral rectitude.
The latter two terms
are featured in one of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. "Simon son of
John," Jesus inquired of Peter, "do you truly love (agape) more than
these" (John 21:15). These is not identified, but might refer to others
or the accruement of his fishing vocation.
"Yes, Lord," he
replied, "you know that I love (philos) you."
Jesus said, "Feed my
lambs."
"Simon son of John,"
Jesus asked him a second time, "do you truly love (agape) me?"
He answered, "Yes,
Lord, you know that I love (philos) you."
"Take care of my
sheep," Jesus enjoined him.
Jesus questioned him a
third time, "Simon son of John, do you love (agape) replaced by
(philos) me?"
Peter was hurt because
Jesus had pressed the issue. "Lord," he said, "you know all things; you know
that I love (philos) you."
"Feed my sheep," Jesus
insisted. "I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself
and went where you wanted, but when you are old you will stretch out your
hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to
go." John adds by way of explanation, "Jesus said this to indicate the kind
of death by which Peter would glorify God."
Now the interchange of
terms may or may not be significant. Some suppose it simply a literary
device. On the other hand, Jesus means to prepare the apostle for the
critical times that lay ahead. Moreover, he employs in the first two
instances the term that roughly corresponds to unconditional love (agape).
After that, he shifts to philos, perhaps to accommodate to Peter's
cautious reply. In any case, he highlights the importance of love to the
holiness tradition.
Harrison adds
goodness to the growing list of ethical attributes. In this connection,
we read: "God saw all that he had made and it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). Two
implications readily surface. First, that creation was aesthetically
pleasing. We would gather as much from observing a splendid sunset, a colt
frolicking in a pasture, or young lovers walking hand in hand.
Nevertheless, the
appeal is not simply superficial. The sage observes, "Like a gold ring in a
pig's snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion" (Prov. 11:22).
Consequently, she is not a good candidate for marriage. As it is sometimes
alleged, "Genuine beauty is not skin deep."
Second, the creation was
eminently functional. While we tend to take this for granted, the
prospect of life developing in so fortuitous a fashion is virtually
non-existent. It might be said to constitute a cosmic miracle.
Along this line, "every good
tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit. ...Thus by their fruit
you shall know them" (Matt. 7:17, 20). "The acts of the sinful nature
are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and
witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition,
dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like" (Gal.
5:19-21). Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
self-control." Goodness can be known by the company it keeps.
Purity rounds
out the list of ethical virtues. There appears to be a consensus that it is
linked to ritual observance. For instance, "The precepts and ceremonies alike
are focused on the idea of the holiness of God which men must create in their
own lives. So this is a universe in which men prosper by conforming to
holiness and perish when they deviate from it."22
If in
fact a picture is worth a thousand words, then ritual plays a critical role in
religious practice. If for no other reason, it serves as a dramatic reminder
of the foundational facets of one's faith and commitment.
Ritual, however, is not
meant to substitute for moral rectitude, but to require and enhance it.
As cited earlier, "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand
your assemblies. ...But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness
like a never-failing stream" (Amos 5:21, 24).
It can be readily seen
from the prior discussion that these virtues are derived from a vibrant
relationship with the Almighty. This, in turn, is cultivated in a
corporate setting.
Then, too, biblical
holiness is not realized in isolation from the world, but in engagement.
It is not passive, but militant. In this and other regards, holiness
commends life in its fullness. It is not willing to settle for less.
Baal (master) was the Canaanite fertility god of great renown. In particular, he was associated with the winter rains and periodic storms. Baal worship was especially degrading, and involved sacred prostitution. This was perhaps intended to incite the deity to inseminate the land. Baalism likely appealed to the Israelites both for its intrinsic character, and what it was reputed to offer concerning agricultural productivity.
* * *
Omri assumed the
throne in the Northern Kingdom following fifty years of instability. He set
out to rectify the problem through an alliance with Tyre. The latter was at
the height of its colonial expansion, and offered Israel an outlet for
agricultural produce and enhanced commercial opportunities. However, the
situation continued to degenerate.
Then, too, Baalism
flourished with royal patronage. The king of Tyre had sealed the alliance by
giving his daughter Jezebel to Omri's son Ahab. She, along with her retainers
and associates, were allowed to retain the worship of Tyrian deities.
Wholesale apostasy soon threatened.
It was said of Ahab that he
"did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him" (1 Kings
16:30). The narrator singles out his marriage to Jezebel and devotion to
Baal as evidence of his defection from the faith of his fathers.
"Towering over all of
Jezebel's foes...was the prophet Elijah (Yah is God)–a figure so eerie
and so awe-inspiring that his deeds became legendary in Israel. ...He is
depicted as a dour, lonely figure clad with the hair mantle of his austere
calling, possibly a Nazirite in perpetual fitness for war."23 In
any case, he assumed the role of an uncompromising prophet of the Lord.
What sort of a person
was the prophet? "To us a single act of injustice–cheating in business,
exploitation of the poor–is slight; to the prophets, a disaster. To us
injustice is injurious to the welfare of the people; to the prophets it is a
deathblow to the to existence: to us, an episode; to them, a catastrophe, a
threat to the world."24 In brief, they exhibited a keen
sensitivity to the seriousness of sin for the individual and society as a
whole.
Elijah, the Tishbite
(from the Transjordan region), made a dramatic entrance. "As the Lord, the
God Israel lives," he announced, "there will be neither dew nor rain in the
next few years except at my word" (17:1). This would be taken as a pointed
challenge to Baal's prerogative.
"Leave here," the Lord
urged, "turn eastward and hide in the Kerith Ravine; east of the Jordan. You
will drink from the brook and I have ordered the ravens to feed you there."
The Lord was apparently concerned for his prophet's safety.
This appears as the first
time God miraculously provided for the prophet's need. It, no doubt, was
intended to prepare him for the confrontation that lay ahead.
Some time later the
brook dried up. "Go at once to Zarephath of Sidon and stay there," the Lord
directed Elijah. "I have commanded a widow in that place to supply you with
food."
Once again, he was
obedient. Upon his arrival, he inquired of the woman: "Would you bring
me a little water in a jar so I may have a drink?" After that, he called
after her, requesting a piece of bread.
"As surely as the
Lord your God lives," she replied, "I don't have any bread–only a handful of
flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug. I am gathering a few sticks to
take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it–and die."
"Don't be afraid,"
Elijah encouraged here. "Go home and do as you have said. But
first make a small cake of bread for me from what you have and bring it to
me... . For this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'The jar of
flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day
the Lord gives rain on the land.'" It was a severe test of her faith,
which she passed with flying colors. God provided as he had done on the
precious occasion.
Some time later, the
woman's son became ill, and got progressively worse. Finally, he stopped
breathing. The woman inquired of Elijah, "Did you come to remind me of my sin
and kill my son?" Sin and death are associated in her thinking,
but the connection seems imprecise.
When the prophet had
carried the limp body of her son to the upper room where he was staying, he
interceded: "O Lord my God, let this boy's life return to him!" The Lord
honored his petition.
"Now I know that you are
a man of God," the woman responded, "and that the word of the Lord from your
mouth is true." Thus are we primed for what follows.
During the third
year of the drought, the Lord again spoke to his prophet: "Go and present
yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain to the land" (18:1). Meanwhile
the famine was severe throughout the land.
Ahab summoned
Obadiah, who was in charge of his palace. Obadiah was a devout person,
who had once hidden away a hundred prophets in two caves, and supplied them
with food and water–so that they might escape Jezebel's purge. The king
instructed him to search for grass for the horses and mules, so they would not
have to be slaughtered.
As Obadiah was walking
along, Elijah met him. "Is it really you?" Obadiah asked in seeming
disbelief.
"Yes," the prophet
replied. "Go tell your master, 'Elijah is here.'"
Obadiah protested,
"I don't know where the Spirit of the Lord may carry you when I leave you.
If I go and tell Ahab and he doesn't bind you, he will kill me."
Elijah reassured
him, "As the Lord Almighty lives, whom I serve, I will surely present myself
to Ahab today."
When the king saw
Elijah, He inquired: "Is that you, you troubler of Israel?"
"I have not made
trouble for Israel," the prophet countered. "But you and your father's family
have. You have abandoned the Lord's commands and have followed the Baals.
Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And
bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred
prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table." While Baal was in essence a
singular deity, he was identified with various locations. So Ahab sent word
throughout all Israel.
Elijah went before
the people, and inquired: "How long will you waver between two opinions?
If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." His
challenge was met with silence. "I am the only one of the Lord's
prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets," Elijah observed.
Get two bulls for us. Let
them choose one for themselves, and let them cut
it into pieces and put it on
the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the
other bull and put it on the
wood and not set fire to it. Then you will call
on the name of your God, and I
will call on the name of the Lord. The god
who answers by fire–he
is God.
In this manner, Elijah
set the conditions of the contest to favor the prophets of Baal. "(1) They
could be first to choose the sacrifice. (2) They could pray first and for as
long as they wished. (3) The proof-sign was to be fire. Since Baal was
supposed to be the god of the sun, the god of the storm, they could not
object."25 In particular, fire would bring to mind
lightning.
The people were
convinced. "What you say is good," they acknowledged.
So the prophets of Baal
prepared their altar, and called upon the name of Baal from morning to noon.
"O Baal, answer us!" they shouted–as they danced around the altar they had
constructed.
At noon Elijah began to
taunt them. "Shout louder!" he admonished. "Surely he is a god!
Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is
sleeping and must be awakened."
So they shouted louder, and
slashed themselves–as was their custom. Midday passed, and they
continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the eve
Then Elijah summoned the
people. He repaired the altar of the Lord, and prepared the sacrifice.
"Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood,"
he instructed them. "Do it again," he added. "Do it a third time,"
he ordered. The water ran down around the altar, and filled the trench.
"O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac and
Israel," the prophet petitioned, "let it be known today that you are God in
Israel and that I am you servant and have done all these things at your
command. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people will know that
you, O Lord are God, and that you are turning their hears back again."
Then the fire of the Lord fell, consumed the sacrifice, altar, and even licked
up the water in the trench.
When all the people saw this,
they prostrated themselves. "The Lord–he is God!" they cried out.
"The Lord–he is God!" The prophets of Baal were summarily executed.
Elijah advised the king,
"Go, eat and drink, for there is the sound of a heavy rain." Then when
Ahab had left, the prophet climbed to the peak of Carmel, bent down to the
ground, and put his face between his knees. "Go and look toward the
sea," he instructed his servant.
"There is nothing there,"
the servant reported back. Seven times the prophet repeated his
instruction. On the seventh occasion, his servant observed: "A cloud as
small as a man's hand is rising from the sea."
So Elijah told him to
inform Ahab, "Hitch up your chariot and go down before the rain stops you."
Meanwhile, the sky grew ominous, the wind rose, and a heavy rain pelted down
on the fleeing ruler. The power of the Lord came upon the prophet, and he ran
ahead–all the way to Jezreel. It serves as a fitting climax to one of the
most dramatic episodes in the biblical narratives.
In retrospect,
For although Obadiah
builds Ahab up as one to be feared (18:9-14), from
the moment Elijah meets
the king he dominates him. Ahab speaks but once
in the entire story
(18:17), and having been silenced by Elijah's aggressive
and fearless response, he
spends the rest of the time either doing what the
prophet tells him
(18:19-20, 41-42, 44-45) or watching from the sidelines
so quietly as to be
invisible (18:21-40). He is as impotent as the god he
worships.26
When Jezebel heard
what had happened, she sent word to the prophet: "May the gods deal with me,
be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like
that of one of them (the slain prophets)" (19:2). She likely meant to
intimidate him. If so, she succeeded. Elijah wasted no time in fleeing to
Beersheba. He left his servant there, and continued on alone into the
wilderness.
He soon despaired of life.
"I have had enough, Lord," he concluded. "Take my life; I am no better
than my ancestors." Then he fell asleep.
An angel appeared to
him. "Get up and eat," the celestial visitor encouraged him. He ate and
drank, and lay down again. The angel returned a second time. "Get up and
eat," the visitor insisted, "for the journey is too much for you." After
taking additional nourishment, Elijah traveled for forty days and nights until
he reached Horeb (Sinai)–associated with God's covenanting with his people.
There the Lord inquired of him,
"What are you doing here, Elijah?" It was perhaps in the form of a mild
rebuke. In any case, it invited the prophet to express his concerns.
He replied, "I have been very
zealous for the Lord God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your
covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the
sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too."
The Lord responded,
"Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is
about to pass by." Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart
and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind.
After the wind, there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the
earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in
the fire. After the fire, came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it,
he pulled his cloak over his face, and went out and stood at the mouth of the
cave. Thus are we to gather that God does not always manifest himself in
spectacular fashion, but through his word faithfully ministered.
The Lord again
inquired of him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?" The prophet responds as
before. This time the Lord directed him to return by the way he had come. He
was to anoint Hazael king over Aram, Jehu over Israel, and Elisha as his
successor. "Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel," God said by way of
encouragement, "whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths
have not kissed him."
The last three verses
of Malachi provide a cogent transition between the testaments. In retrospect,
"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel" (4:4). In prospect, "See, I will send you the prophet
Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the
hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to
their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." As in
other contexts,