The Advancement of Grace

Several thousand years ago, just outside of Egypt, the patriarch Isaac saw the birth and rising of his two sons, Jacob and Esau.

“And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob.” Genesis 25:27-28

Both children eventually became men. Esau was deemed a “man of the field,” but why the association with the field? Why not refer to him as a person of the field or a child of the field? Verse 28 teaches us that Esau’s mastery of the field provided for the lips and eager tastes of his father. He was a man of the field because his proficiency in the field made him profitable for someone other than himself.

Jacob’s manhood revolved around something very different. He was a “plain man” because he did little more than sit and wait for life to come his way. By today’s standards, we might call him a momma’s boy (or as my wife said the other day, “a sissy”). In the very next verse (25:29), we see Jacob cooking soup that appeals to his brother who has been working tirelessly in the field. When asked for a portion of the food that has been prepared, Jacob manipulates his brother into giving away the birthright.⁴ Why, then, is Jacob a plain man and not a “man of the kitchen?” All of his work is a means toward personal gain. Jacob does what he does to profit himself.

A second example can be found in the Book of Ruth when we encounter Boaz in chapter 2.

“And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband’s, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name [was] Boaz.” Ruth 2:1

Boaz was the recipient of an inheritance passed along to him from several generations of Hebrew captains. His father, Salma, had arguably founded the city of Bethlehem after being born to Nahshon, the prince of the children of Judah.⁵ So when we read about Boaz being a “man of wealth,” it might be easy to presume that his nature could be that of a spoiled rich kid. Yet, the Scriptures lead us to see that anyone noted as a “man of this” or a “man of that” is such a man because their strength is made profitable to others. In this case, Boaz becomes the hero of the remaining text. Some have often used the phrase of “kinsman redeemer” when speaking of this man’s heroism.⁶ He was profitable to the community and all those who entered the gates of his city.

On the off chance that this point hasn’t begun to sink in, let’s consider one more very popular example located in the Book of I Samuel.

“And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring [him] to me. Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, [that is] cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the Lord [is] with him.” I Samuel 16:17-18

David was the youngest of eight children to Jesse.⁷ So by what measure could he be known as a man of war? David himself provides the answer.

“And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered [it] out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught [him] by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.” I Samuel 17:34-35

David was a “man of war” because he kept his father’s sheep by protecting the flock when they were attacked. In order to become proficient in this, he would have had to learn about war and battle, but the “man of war” in him would only become evident when he actually exercised the actions of war that would profit someone other than himself. In this case, he profited his father.

You may now be feeling as though the point is overdone and more than clear. If this is the case, then I’m grateful to the Scriptures that they might lead us to something much more close to home. For in seeing all these stories that some of us learned as children, you have every reason now to ask yourself whether the Hebrew experience can actually be our tutor with regard to manhood. If we are the Body of Christ in a new dispensation, hasn’t the life story of Israel been put on hold therefore to become irrelevant?⁸ The continuing drama has indeed been set aside for a time, but the past now serves as an illustration to lead us into becoming the very “man of God” that we were intended to be.

“All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” II Timothy 3:16-17

By now, if you’ve truly grasped the message and content of this running theme, two terms should quickly jump out at you from II Timothy 3. Let’s look at it again together.

The man of God is to be profitable. In one sense, we are profitable to ourselves in that we are to be made perfect, but when we are furnished unto good works, we are not furnished for works that feed our own glory. We are furnished to the betterment of the Body. We are furnished that we might edify others. And in the end, a man is most profitable when he has been of aid to those who needed what he could provide.