Morphemics

Called From Egypt

The twelfth chapter of Genesis opens with one of those milestones of Covenant theology. Paul reads it and sees the foundation of the gospel as it was preached to Abraham, “In you shall all the nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8). This covenant is the foundation of his argument against works righteousness. It is that promise, which the Law, given 430 years later, cannot annul. This passage must not, however, be thought of as a proof text; nor does the Apostle use it as such. His argument arises out of the fabric of revealed truth and the historical narrative is used to illumine this.

Genesis 12 ends with the account of Abram’s journey into Egypt. While there, he makes a pact with Sarai his wife that they will claim to be nothing more than brother and sister. This is enough. Lying is bad. Consequently, time after time, many congregations, who on one Lord’s Day are elevated into the glories of the Covenant of Grace, spend the next with nothing more than the admonition to never ever tell a fib. God, they are told, simply cannot bless such violations of proper morality. Never mind that the text does nothing to support such conjectures. In fact, Abram ends up better off than he was before. Conversely, there are those that pick up on this last fact and choose to emphasize the grace of God in spite of Abram’s ethical breech. Both have this in common: a particular event in the life of the patriarch is understood in terms of its practical application to the contemporary individual. The legalist and the antinomian have found common exegetical turf. Dare, or, perhaps not, to be an Abram.

A better approach sees the narrative as an account of God’s preservation of the messianic line in order that he might fulfill the Covenant just articulated. Even though this too is often mixed in with observations and applications about the propriety of Abram’s lie, it does have the advantage of keeping the Covenant before our eyes. Christ has been preached. Or has he?

Jesus made the rather bold claim that Moses was writing about him and, therefore, if any one believed Moses, he would also believe him (John 5:46). This is not to say that, somewhere in the Mosaic writings, there are Christological references. Rather, Jesus was proclaiming himself the subject of all that Moses wrote (and, for that matter, of the Word of God entire). And it is this claim that, I believe, exposes as false the idea that noting God’s preservation of the messianic line is the same thing as preaching Christ. Aside from being presented as an afterthought to what is otherwise a morality tale, one could just as validly make the claim that God was preserving the line of James. Make no mistake, there is no attempt here to assert that scripture does not teach, even emphasize, that God will work in history to bring about the fulfillment of his Covenant; only that, to make this the point, misses the point.

Enough then of ways not to handle the text; how should the second half of Genesis 12 be approached? I suggest, first of all, that this text does not constitute an adequate pericope. It needs to be considered in conjunction with that which precedes it. The chapter opens with the call of Abram; however, it does not go on to other things. The subject matter of the entire chapter is this call. Indeed, the first half of the chapter is to be understood in light of the second. Before we can do this, though, we should consider that the chapter divisions can be somewhat arbitrary. A more natural starting point is given by the author in Genesis 11:27 when he begins the section of the generations of Terah. Immediately, we learn that Terah fathered Abram. Soon thereafter, Abram is called Terah’s son. In our hurry to rush through this connecting material, we have missed the obvious. Although we are inclined to think of Abraham in terms of a father, and this rightly so, he is first presented to us as a son. The significance of this will be made apparent.

Leave Abram for now and jump ahead in the Mosaic narratives. Joseph is second in command over Egypt. He has just overseen a massive food storage project, which has assured that Egypt is not subject to the famine now gripping the rest of the world. Among those entering Egypt in search of food are his brothers, the children of Israel. Joseph recognizes them and arranges for the entire family to be brought down to Egypt to live. A Pharaoh who does not know Joseph ascends to the throne. He subjects the Israelites to slavery, but God brings them out of Egypt by means of plagues upon the Egyptians; the last one, especially, touching the house of the Pharaoh himself. The prophet Hosea comments on the situation, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1).

Familiar? And no, I am not asking for a show of hands from those who have heard the stories of Joseph and of the Exodus. Recall that our text is Genesis 12. There is a famine in the land and so Abram and Sarai go down to stay in Egypt. Sarai is brought into Pharaoh’s house. God brings Abram and his wife out of Egypt by means of plagues upon Pharaoh and his house. This episode in Abram’s life foreshadows the paradigmatic redemptive event of Old Testament Israel. Abram, the son, has been called out of Egypt.

It is not enough to make a parallel between the call of Abram and the Exodus and then just leave it at that. This simply invites the abuses of the second text. If God can get Israel out of Egypt and across the Red Sea, then he should have no problem getting you out of a tight spot. Only believe.

Further revelation is needed. Matthew provides this when he explains why Joseph had to take the young child Jesus and his mother down into Egypt, “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’” (Mt. 2:14). In other words, the experiences of the nation of Israel (and, by extension, Abram) testify to, and are fulfilled in, Christ.

We cannot suppose, however, that Matthew meant to imply that the Exodus and the call of Abram find their ultimate meaning in the fact that, one day, a little boy would be rescued from Herod; even if that boy is Jesus. This only serves to put us back into the “God will preserve his Covenant line” mode of interpretation.

Just as these Old Testament events were fulfilled in the work of Christ, even so, his own sojourn into the land of Egypt foreshadowed that greater Exodus, which he would accomplish for his people in his death and resurrection. This would be that final redemption in which the Son, and all those in faith union with him, would leave the temporal plains of Egypt and enter into their eternal rest. Note the idea of this union echoed in the Covenant given to Abram, “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).

The call of Abram does not exist as a morality tale, nor is it a doctrinal primer on divine providence. It is a tale of the Christ and of his Gospel, which God has seen fit to reveal to the nations through Abraham’s greater Son.

Posted by kcourter at agosto 14, 2003 8:32 AM