That I may Know HIM - A Devotional

DAY 15: SONS OF NO CONSEQUENCE

DAY 15: SONS OF NO CONSEQUENCE

--------------------------------------------------------

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest… and offer him… for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Genesis 22:2.

Here, God asks for a specific sacrifice from Abraham, to be offered in a specific place. He asks for Isaac "thine only son." But, please, tell me; and every good Sunday school child should be able to answer me. Was Isaac Abraham’s only son at this time? No. Abraham had already had Ishmael fourteen years before Isaac came. Did God not know about Ishmael? Why then would He describe Isaac as Abraham’s "only son"? It is true that Ishmael, one chapter ago, had been sent away with his mother (Genesis 21); but is that why God should speak of Isaac as if Ishmael never existed?

 It seems God was saying to Abraham, "As far as I am concerned; as far as My covenant with you is concerned, Ishmael does not exist."

Is it possible to father Ishmaels, with whom God does not reckon? Ishmaelitish ministries? Ishmaelitish businesses? Ishmaelitish sons? Gigantic Ishmaelitish projects?

If we should go a few chapters back, to Genesis 17, we would discover that God had been greatly involved in Ishmael’s matters even before he had been born. About Ishmael, God had said to Abraham, "I have heard thee"; then God had proceeded to give a pledge about the lad, saying, "I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly" (v.20). How then could God sound as if He did not know of Ishmael, and describe Isaac as Abraham’s "only son"?

Before Ishmael was born, his mother, like the Virgin Mary, had had an angelic encounter (Genesis 16:9). Somewhat like Jesus also (Matthew 1:18-21), Ishmael had his name proclaimed by an angel before he had been born (Genesis 16:11). When, as a youth, he cried as a result of the thirst that almost killed him in the wilderness, God had to open the eyes of his mother to see a miraculous spring of fresh water, by which intervention their lives were spared (Genesis 21:15-21). Maybe we could also draw a parallel between that and the preservation of Baby Jesus and mother from Herod. How then could a person like that, who had had spectacular encounters with God right from the womb, so suddenly sink into spiritual in-consequence? It seems to say to me that God could overflow a person with great showers and sunshines of grace (Matthew 5:45), yet not reckon with that person in deep matters of divine significance. Therefore, one’s spectacular experiences of life, or the abundance of one’s miraculous provisions in the deserts of life, are never the measure of God’s endorsement. God could pamper a person with fish and bread today, only to declare to that person on the Last Day, "I never knew you."

As if God was not yet done with the matter, we read in I Chronicles 1:28, "the sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael." Something is not right with that verse, somebody would say. Why list the name of Isaac the younger (according to man’s calendar) before Ishmael who was older by as many as fourteen years?

When "the sons of Israel" are mentioned in chapter 2, verse 1, the list begins with Reuben the first son. When "the sons of Judah" are listed in verse 3, the first son Er, is put at the top of the list. But between Ishmael and Isaac…. It seems God was saying, "Chronological age does not always represent spiritual status."

A few verses later, God seemed to have been saying again, "Well, for the records, let it be stated that Abraham fathered other sons; however, this is what I think about those sons: they are sons without a father." God proceeded to describe them as "the sons of Keturah," not the sons of Abraham (1 Chronicles 1:32). Keturah was Abraham’s concubine after the death of Sarah. Her sons were six times more than Sarah’s one son, yet those many sons did not count so much to God as Sarah’s one son of covenant.

The usual thing is to describe sons by their fathers. For example, David is often called the son of Jesse (1 Samuel 17:58; 20:31). In fact, in the very book of 1 Chronicles, we read of "the sons of Esau" (1:35), "the sons of Israel" (2:1), "the sons of Judah" (2:3); yet those that Keturah bore for Abraham, unlike the one seed of Sarah, are listed without reference to Abraham. They were a multitude without a father, the many sons of a concubine, a crowd without inheritance.

Whose son are you? Whose sons are your sons? The right to the blessings is not determined by how many sons a Keturah has, more than a Sarah. It is determined by whether or not they are endorsed by the Covenant.

If God were to list the members in my ministry, will He really list my ancient name before every other person? Is it possible that our church registers are spiritually incorrect, being at variance with God’s listing? Is it possible that some of the names in first and second positions in our eminent Parish Diary do not occupy the same place in the Register above? Is it even possible that those names we here celebrate might be altogether absent from the Register in heaven?

Those who lobby and battle to secure for their names the eminent positions in the church register, or who must carve their names conspicuously on every pew donated to the church, should pause to cross-check if Heaven endorses their billboards and membership registers, in the first place.

How sad, to have been the object of as great divine visitations as Ishmael had had from birth through youth, yet be sidelined when it mattered most! How sad, if your father should address your younger brother as an only son, while you still live! God anointed David as king while Saul still lived, declaring a vacancy on the throne, while Saul was still incumbent! How sad...!

Not how many sons, but whom God has endorsed. Not how old, but how known. Not size; not age; but covenant.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine ONLY son Isaac…