A major theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. The promises in Genesis 12:1-3 and 7 are the fountainhead from which the rest of the Pentateuch flows.397Walter Kaiser labeled the three things promised Abram as an heir, a heritage, and an inheritance.398David Clines called them posterity, relationship with God, and land.399J. Dwight Pentecost and Robert L. Saucy referred to them as seed, blessing, and land.400
God progressively revealed more information about each of these promises. He gave more information about the land promise in 13:15, 17; 15:7-8, 18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3-4 (plural "lands"); 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4; and 50:24. Repetition of the seed promise occurs in 13:15-16; 15:5; 17:2, 5-10, 13, 16, 19-20; 18:18; 21:12; 22:17-18; 26:3-4, 24; 28:13-14; 32:12; 35:11-12; 46:3; and 48:4 and 16.
"A line of successive representative sons of the patriarchs who were regarded as one with the whole group they represented matched the seminal idea already advocated in Genesis 3:15. Furthermore, in the concept of seed' were the two aspects of the seed as a future benefitand the seed as the present beneficiariesof God's temporal and spiritual gifts. Consequently, seed' was always a collective singular noun; never did it appear as a plural noun (e.g., as in sons'). Thereby the seed' was marked as a unit, yet with a flexibility of reference: now to the one person, now to the many descendants of that family. This interchange of reference with its implied corporate solidarity was more than a cultural phenomena or an accident of careless editing; it was part and parcel of its doctrinal intention."401
The promise of universal blessing recurs in 18:18; 22:18 9 (to Abraham); 26:4 (to Isaac); and 28:14 (to Jacob).402
"While this promissory triad of blessing, seed, and land is the thematic cord binding the Book of Genesis, we find that the counterthemes of fratricide, violence, uncreation, and expulsion are the literary-theological foil for the promissory blessing."403
Genesis 12-50 focuses on the promise of posterity (an heir, seed), though the other promises receive much attention. Exodus and Leviticus center on the promise of worldwide influence (relationship with God, heritage, blessing), and Numbers and Deuteronomy emphasize the promise of real estate (land, inheritance, rest).
In Genesis 12-25 the problems of possessing the land and obtaining an heir dominate the story of Abram's life. How will Abram obtain the land, and who will be Abram's heir? These are the great questions that the thoughtful reader continually asks himself as he reads the story of Abram. At least one of them is central in every incident in his life that God has chosen to record in Genesis. These questions form the unifying theme of the Abram narrative.404
One writer called the form in which Moses revealed the Abram cycle of stories an "obstacle story."
"Few literary techniques have enjoyed so universal and perennial a vogue as the obstacle story. It is found in ancient and modern literature from the Gilgamesh epic and the Odyssey to the Perils of Pauline and the latest novel. Its character is episodal in that it is not self-contained but finds its raison d'etrein its relation to the larger story or narrative of which it is a part. Its purpose is to arouse suspense and sustain interest by recounting episodes which threaten or retard the fulfillment of what the reader either suspects or hopes or knows to be the ending of the story."405
Twelve crises arise as the story of Abram's life unfolds. Each of these must be overcome and is overcome by God who eventually does provide Abram's descendants. Each of these problems constituted a challenge to Abram's faith. Is God faithful and powerful enough to provide what He has promised? In the end we can see that He is.
Each problem Abram encountered is typical of problems that every believer has to deal with in seeking to live by faith. Consequently each episode in Abram's life teaches us something about God's power and faithfulness and should enable us to live by faith more consistently. Moses originally recorded these lessons for Israel's benefit.
The problems Abram's faith encountered were these.
1. Sarai was barren (11:30).
2. Abram had to leave the Promised Land (12:10).
3. Abram's life was in danger in Egypt (12:11-20).
4. Abram's nephew, Lot, strove with him over the land (ch. 13).
5. Abram entered a war (14:1-16).
6. Abram's life was in danger in the Promised Land (15:1).
7. God ruled Eliezer out as Abram's heir (15:2-3).
8. Hagar, pregnant with Abram's son (heir?), departed (16:6).
9. Abimelech threatened Sarai's reputation and child (heir?) in Gerar (ch. 20).
10. Abram had two heirs (21:8-11).
11. God commanded Abram to slay his heir (ch. 22).
12. Abram could not find a proper wife for his heir (24:5).
". . . the narrator has skillfully woven this material together in such a way as to involve the reader/listener in a drama of increasing tension between, on the one hand, the promise of Yahweh that Abram would have an heir and, indeed, would become the father of many nations, and, on the other, the threat to the fulfillment of this promise by a series of crises."406
All that Moses wrote in this pericope (11:27-12:9) deals with Abram and his future in the Promised Land. Abram obeyed the Lord's command to leave his homeland for a land God would provide with the promise that he would be a blessing to the rest of the world. Abram's example of obedience is a model for all believers to forsake all else to obtain the promised blessings of God and to serve Him by becoming a blessing to others.
"Within the book of Genesis no section is more significant than 11:27-12:9."407
The second crisis Abram faced arose because of a famine in Canaan. Abram chose to sojourn in the Nile Valley until it was past. In this incident Abram tried to pass Sarai off as his sister because he feared for his life. By doing so, he jeopardized his blessing since he lost his wife temporarily to Pharaoh. However, Yahweh intervened to deliver Abram and Sarai from Egypt.
"The account of Abraham's sojourn' in Egypt bears the stamp of having been intentionally shaped to parallel the later account of God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Gen 41--Exod 12). Both passages have a similar message as well. Thus, here, at the beginning of the narratives dealing with Abraham and his seed, we find an anticipation of the events that will occur at the end. . . . Behind the pattern stands a faithful, loving God. What he has done with Abraham, he will do for his people today and tomorrow."430
There is not enough information in the text to condemn Abram for leaving Canaan and entering Egypt, as some commentators have done.431Moses did not record a divine prohibition. Furthermore, God blessed Abram in Egypt and then returned him to the Promised Land. Another severe famine (v. 10) later forced Jacob and his family to sojourn in Egypt (47:4). It was evidently necessity rather than choice that made Abram leave the Promised Land.
"It is unrealistic to regard Egypt as necessarily forbidden territory to God's people at this stage, for it was soon to be expressly allotted to them as a refuge and their presence there would not invalidate their claim to Canaan. Abraham had to feel his way forward (vv. 8, 9) without a special revelation at every step, guided like us largely by circumstances (cf. Ruth 1:1; Matt. 12:14, 15). In a famine it might well seem of providence that Egypt was nearby, watered by the flooding of the Nile."432
"Throughout Gen. 12-50 Egypt is a symbol of safety and provision for the patriarchs and their families. If anything, Egypt is the oppressed in Genesis. Note that it is Sarai who dealt harshly' with her Egyptian maidservant, forcing her to flee' (16:6). Later she urges her husband to cast out' this Egyptian."433
Allen Ross charted several parallels between the experiences of Abram and the nation of Israel as follows.434
Some commentators have concluded that in dealing with Sarai as he did Abram was relying on a custom of the land from which he had come to protect him. They suggest that this custom was evidently unknown in Egypt. Because he failed to perceive this, Abram got into trouble.
"The thrice repeated story [involving Abraham in 12:10-20 and 20:1-18, and Isaac in 26:6-12] has been the subject of much discussion by commentators through the ages, but only with the discoveries at Nuzi has it become clear that Abraham and Isaac were not involved in any trickery, but were endeavoring to protect their respective wives from molestation by invoking the Hurrian custom or law of wife-sistership. According to the Nuzi tablets a woman having the status of wife-sister rather than that of just an ordinary wife, enjoyed superior privileges and was better protected. The status was a purely legal one, a wife-sister being quite distinct from the physical relationship usually understood by the word sister.' In order to create the status of wife-sistership two documents were prepared--one for marriage and the other for sistership. Thus, we find a Nuzi tablet, according to which a person by the name of Akkuleni, son of Akiya, contracted with one Hurazzi, son of Eggaya, to give to Hurazzi in marriage his sister Beltakkadummi. Another tablet records that the same Akkuleni sold his sister Beltakkadummi as sister to the same Hurazzi. If such a marriage was violated, the punishment was much more severe than in the case of a straightforward ordinary marriage. It would appear that the actions of Abraham and Isaac reflect this custom."435
In the Hurrian culture from which Abram came people evidently viewed the husband wife-sister relationship as even more sacred than the husband wife relationship. According to this view, when Abram went to Egypt he assumed that the Egyptians also regarded the husband wife-sister relationship as more sacred than the husband wife relationship. Therefore he presented Sarai as his wife-sister and expected that the Egyptians would not interfere with his relationship with Sarai. However proponents of this view assume the husband wife-sister relationship was foreign to Pharaoh. He took Sarai because he believed that she was Abram's physical sister. When he discovered that Sarai was also Abram's wife he returned Sarai to Abram because Pharaoh regarded the husband wife relationship as sacred. He was angry with Abram because in Pharaoh's eyes Abram had misrepresented his relationship with Sarai.
Those who hold this view see this incident as an example of failure to adjust to a foreign culture and failure to trust God. They usually understand Abram's motivation as having been confidence in a cultural custom from his past rather than faith in God.436
Most interpreters have concluded that Abram, on the contrary, was not being completely honest and straightforward about his relationship with Sarai, but was telling a half-truth to save his own life (cf. 20:12). Evidently it was possible for brothers to fend off suitors of their sisters with promises of marriage without really giving them away (cf. 24:55; 34:13-17). How would God fulfill His promises if Abram died now? His fears were understandable; Pharaoh did take Sarai into his harem. Nevertheless God intervened supernaturally to reunite Abram with Sarai and to return them to the Promised Land (by deportation).437
Abram's fear for his physical safety in a strange land (v. 2) led him to take an initiative that was not God's will. He should have told the truth and kept trusting God. Yet even in his disobedience and lack of faith God blessed Abram (v. 16) and preserved him (v. 20) because of His promises (12:1-3).
"One cannot miss the deliberate parallelism between this sojourn of Abram in Egypt and the later event in the life of the nation in bondage in Egypt. The motifs are remarkably similar: the famine in the land (12:10; 47:13), the descent to Egypt to sojourn (12:10; 47:27), the attempt to kill the males but save the females (12:12; Ex. 1:22), the plagues on Egypt (Gen. 12:17; Ex. 7:14-11:10), the spoiling of Egypt (Gen. 12:16; Ex. 12:35-36), the deliverance (Gen. 12:19; Ex. 15), and the ascent to the Negev (Gen. 13:1; Num. 13:17, 22). The great deliverance out of bondage that Israel experienced was thus already accomplished in her ancestor, and probably was a source of comfort and encouragement to them."438
We sometimes feel tempted to fear for our welfare, especially in a foreign environment. This fear sometimes leads us to seize the initiative and disobey God. We can count on God to fulfill His promises to us in spite of threatening circumstances. We should remain faithful and honest.
"The integrity and honesty of a child of God are among his most potent weapons in spreading the gospel."439
The Pharaoh Abram dealt with in Egypt was probably Inyotef II (2117-2069 B.C.), a ruler of the eleventh dynasty, Middle Kingdom period. His capital was in Memphis, very near modern Cairo.
Identifications of Significant Pharaohs in the Genesis Period440
PREHISTORY (to ca. 3100 BC)
EARLY DYNASTIES (dynasties 1-2; ca. 3100-2686 BC)
Menes(first Pharaoh) united upper and lower Egypt.
OLD KINGDOM (dynasties 3-6; ca. 2686-2181 BC) Capital: Memphis (Noph). Period of absolute power. Age of pyramid building (archaeologists have identified almost 80).
Djoser(Zoser; 2nd Pharaoh of 3rd dynasty) built the first stepped pyramid (south of Cairo).
Cheops(Khufu; 2nd Pharaoh of 4th dynasty) built the Great (largest) Pyramid at Gizeh (near Cairo).
Chephren(Khafre; 4th Pharaoh of 4th dynasty) built the still capped pyramid near the Sphinx (near Cairo).
FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (dynasties 7-10; ca. 2181-2040 BC) Capital: Thebes (No)
MIDDLE KINGDOM (dynasties 11-14; ca. 2033-1603 BC) Capital: Memphis (Noph). Period of culture and civilization.
Inyotef II(2117-2069 BC; 3rd Pharaoh of 11th dynasty) entertained Abram (Gen. 12:15).
Ammenemes II(1929-1895 BC; 3rd Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) ruled when Joseph arrived in Egypt (Gen. 37:36).
Sesostris II(1897-1878 BC; 4th Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) had his dreams interpreted by Joseph and exalted Joseph (Gen. 40:2; 41:1).
Sesostris III(1878-1843 BC; 5th Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) ruled when Jacob entered Egypt and received a blessing from Jacob (Gen. 46:31; 47:10).
Ammenemes III(1842-1797 BC; 6th Pharaoh of 12th dynasty) ruled when Joseph died (Gen 50:26).
The first reference to camels in Scripture occurs in verse 16. For many years, scholars believed that the ancients did not domesticate camels until much later in history than the patriarchal period. They believed that references to camels in Genesis indicated historical inaccuracies. However, the archaeological evidence for the early domestication of camels has proved these critics wrong.442
God will protect His plan even when His people complicate it with deception. Consequently believers should not try to deliver themselves from threatening situations by deceptive schemes but should continue to trust and obey God.
"Here Abram's failure in the face of hostility, like Israel's sinfulness in the wilderness, is surely recorded as a warning for later generations (cf. 1 Cor 10:11) and as an illustration of the invincibility of the divine promises (cf. Rom 11:29)."443
This chapter records how Abram, though threatened with major conflict with Lot because of their herdsmen's strife, magnanimously gave his nephew his choice of what land he wanted. Lot took an area that was very fertile, though inhabited by wicked people. In return God blessed Abram with a reaffirmation of His promise. This was the fourth crisis Abram faced.
13:1-4 Abram returned from Egypt through the Negev and settled down near his former location between Bethel and Ai.
"Of special interest is that in Genesis 12:10-13:4 Lot occupies the same position as that of the mixed multitude' (Ex 12:38) in the narrative of Genesis 41--Exodus 12. In other words the author apparently wants to draw the reader's attention to the identification of Lot with the mixed multitude.' It is as if Lot is seen in these narratives as the prefiguration of the mixed multitude' that comes out of Egypt with the Israelites."444
13:5-7 When it became clear that there was not enough pasture to sustain all the flocks of both Abram and Lot, Abram suggested that Lot separate from him. He gave his nephew the choice of where he wanted to settle. This was a magnanimous gesture on Abram's part. If he was older than Lot, which is probable, it shows even greater graciousness.
Lot would have been the most likely candidate for the role of Abram's heir since Sarai was barren. He was a part of Abram's household and a blood relative (nephew). Abram probably regarded Lot at this time as the heir through whom God would fulfill His promises.
13:8-10 In offering Lot either the "left"or the "right"(v. 9) Abram was evidently suggesting that he and Lot partition the Promised Land; he would take one part and his nephew the other (cf. 22:3-10). Important to our appreciation of Abram's offer is knowledge of the fact that the Hebrews, as well as other ancient peoples, were eastern oriented (as contrasted with northern oriented, as we are). Abram and Lot were probably looking east when Abram made his suggestion (v. 9). Thus "Lot lifted up his eyes and saw the valley of the Jordan"(v. 10), which was to the east of where they stood (perhaps on Mt. Asor, the highest point in that part of Canaan, and only a short walk from both Bethel and Ai). Thus when Abram offered Lot what was on his left he was referring to northern Canaan, the area around Shechem (cf. 12:6; 33:18-34:31; 37:12-17) as far south as Bethel and Ai. The other choice was what was on their right: southern Canaan including Hebron and the Negev (cf. 13:6, 9; 13:1, 18; 20:1; et al.). Both men had previously lived in both regions.
Moses' description of the Jordan valley as being similar to Egypt (v. 10) should have warned the Israelite readers of Genesis against desiring to return to Egypt (cf. Exod. 16:3; Num. 11:5; 14:2-3).
13:11-13 Lot, however, chose neither of these options, north or south. Instead he decided to move east into the valley of the Jordan (v. 11). Earlier we read that Adam, Eve, and Cain traveled east after they sinned (3:24; 4:16) and that the people of Babel went east and rebelled against God (11:2). Thus Lot's move east makes us a bit uneasy (cf. 12:3). At this time the Jordan River was the eastern border of Canaan that continued south from the southeastern end of the Salt (Dead) Sea and southwest toward Kadesh Barnea (10:19). It then proceeded to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea along the Wadi el Arish (Brook of Egypt; cf. Num. 34:1-29; Josh. 15:1-14). The text contrasts "the land of Canaan"with "the cities of the Valley"(v. 12). The place Lot chose to settle was on the eastern frontier of the Promised Land (v. 11).
". . . this choice by Lot made rather final the rupture between him and Abram."445
Lot's choice erected another hurdle for Abram's faith in the promises of God and precipitated another crisis in the "obstacle story"of how God would fulfill His promises to Abram. Lot chose the Jordan Valley.
"Due to the combination of water (emerging from underground springs fed by the limestone hills farther west [of Jericho]), soil (deposited on the plain from the same hills) and climate (warm and sunny during most of the year), the region is known for all types of agricultural products, especially dates and balsam (used in ancient ointments). . . . It is not surprising that Lot, who with Abraham had lived for a short time in the lush Nile Valley of Egypt [chose as he did] . . . His choice appears to have been made from the mountains northeast of Bethel, with a view of the Jericho oasis or the Plains of Moab."446
Lot's choice seems to have been influenced to some extent by a desire to ally himself with the native inhabitants (cf. 13:7, 12; 19:1-26) as well as by the natural fruitfulness of the Jordan Valley (v. 10).
"In any given situation, what you are determines what you see, and what you see determines what you do."447
"The close parallels between the two [cities, i.e., Babylon and Sodom] which are created in the narrative of chapter 13 suggest that the author intends both cities to tell the same story. As in the case of parallels and repetitions throughout the book, the double account of God's destruction of the city in the east' is intended to drive home the point that God's judgment of the wicked is certain and imminent (cf. 41:32)."448
13:14-17 Abram was now without an heir. However, Yahweh appeared to him at this crucial time (v. 14) and reconfirmed the promise of land that, He said, He would give to Abram's offspring (v. 15).
Abram "lifted up his eyes"also (v. 14), but he saw the whole land as far as he could see in every direction. God repeated His promise to give him and his descendants all the land he saw. This promise was more specific than God's previous promises regarding the seed and the land (12:2, 7). This was God's third revelation to Abram. It contained three specifics.
1. Abram's heir would be his own seed(offspring; vv. 15-16).
2. God would give the land to Abram and his descendants forever(v. 15).
3. Abram's descendants would be innumerable(v. 16).
The figure of "dust"suggests physical seed (v. 16; cf. 2:7). The "stars"figure given later (15:5) suggests heavenly or spiritual seed, in addition to physical seed.
God's encouragement to walk through the land (v. 17) suggested that Abram should claim the promise by treading the land under his feet. In the ancient Near East victorious armies claimed defeated territory by marching through it.
"The divine promise of land and other blessings (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21; 17:1-8) is in the form of a covenant known technically in ancient Near Eastern studies as a covenant of grant.' It was made at the initiative of the granter and often with no preconditions or qualifications."449
13:18 Abram later relocated near Hebron where he built another altar and worshipped again (v. 18).
Many of the commentators have seen two types of believers in Abram and Lot. One commits himself completely to trusting and obeying God though not without occasional failures in his faith. The other wants both what God and what the world can give him. These correspond to a spiritual and a carnal believer, a single-minded and a double-minded believer. When Abram gave Lot the choice of where he wanted to live, Abram was giving up any claim to temporal advantages and was trusting God to bless him as God had promised He would. This step of faith led to greater blessing by God (vv. 14-17). Abram's response to this fresh revelation was again worship.
People who truly believe God's promises of provision can be generous with their possessions.
A powerful coalition of kings from Mesopotamia invaded Canaan and in the process took Lot captive. Abram retaliated with a surprise attack at night and recovered Lot and the possessions those kings had taken. Upon his return to his home Abram received a blessing from Melchizedek, king of Salem, and received an offer of reward by the king of Sodom, Bera (v. 2). Abram declined to accept the reward because he did not want to tarnish God's promised blessing of him. Abram's realization that victory and possessions come from God alone enabled him to avoid the danger of accepting gifts from the wicked and to wait for God to provide what He had promised.
Abram asked God to strengthen his faith. In response Yahweh promised to give the patriarch innumerable descendants. This led Abram to request some further assurance that God would indeed do what He promised. God graciously obliged him by formalizing the promises and making a covenant. In the giving of the covenant God let Abram know symbolically that enslavement would precede the fulfillment of the promise.
From chapters 12 through 14 issues involving God's promise to Abram concerning land have predominated. However from chapter 15 on tensions arising from the promise of descendants become central in the narrative.
Abram was legitimately concerned about God's provision of the Promised Land as well as his need for an heir. He had declined the gifts of the king of Sodom and had placed himself in danger of retaliation from four powerful Mesopotamian kings. God had proven Himself to be Abram's "shield"(defender) in the battle just passed. Now He promised to be the same in the future and to give Abram great "reward."This was God's fourth revelation to Abram.
This episode consists of two scenes that are parallel: Yahweh's word (vv. 1, 7), Abram's word (vv. 2-3, 8), Yahweh's reaction (vv. 4, 9), a public act (vv. 5, 16-17), Yahweh's word (vv. 5, 13-16), and a conclusion (vv. 6, 18-21).470
15:1 "The word of the LORD came.' This is a phrase typically introducing revelation to a prophet, e.g., 1 Sam 15:10; Hos 1:1; but in Genesis it is found only here and in v 4 of this chapter. Abraham is actually called a prophet in 20:7. It prepares the way for the prophecy of the Egyptian bondage in vv 13-16."471
Visions were one of the three primary methods of divine revelation in the Old Testament along with dreams and direct communications (cf. Num. 12:6-8).
"By his bold intervention and rescue of Lot, Abram exposes himself to the endemic plague of that region--wars of retaliation.472This fear of retaliation is the primary reason for the divine oracle of 15.1 which could be translated: Stop being afraid, Abram. I am a shield for you, your very great reward.' Yahweh's providential care for Abram is to be seen as preventing the Mesopotamian coalition from returning and settling the score."473
15:2-3 Abram used a new title for God calling Him Master (Adonai) Yahweh. Abram had willingly placed himself under the sovereign leadership of God.
"A childless couple adopts a son, sometimes a slave, to serve them in their lifetime and bury and mourn them when they die. In return for this service they designate the adopted son as the heir presumptive. Should a natural son be born to the couple after such action, this son becomes the chief heir, demoting the adopted son to the penultimate position."474
15:4 Abram assumed that since he was old and childless and since Lot had not returned to him, the heir God had promised him would be his chief servant Eliezer.
". . . under Hurrian law a man's heir would be either his natural-born son--a direct heir--or, in the absence of any natural-born son, an indirect heir, who was an outsider adopted for the purpose. In the latter case, the adopted heir was required to attend to the physical needs of his parents' during their lifetime."475
God assured Abram that the descendants He had promised would come through a "natural-born son,"not an adopted heir (cf. 12:7; 13:15-16).
15:5 To the promise of descendants as innumerable as the dust (physical descendants from the land? cf. 13:16) God added another promise that Abram's seed would be as countless as the stars. This is perhaps a promise of Abram's spiritual children, those who would have faith in God as he did. Abram may not have caught this distinction since he would have more naturally taken the promise as a reference to physical children.
15:6-7 Moses did not reveal exactly what Abram believed for which God reckoned him righteous. In Hebrew the conjunction wawwith the imperfect tense verb following indicates consecutive action and best translates as "Then."When wawoccurs with the perfect tense verb following, as we have here, it indicates disjunctive action and could read, "Now Abram had believed . . ."(cf. 1:2). God justified Abram (i.e., declared him righteous) because of his faith, evidently when he left Ur. Abram's normal response to God's words to him was to believe them. Abram had trusted the person of God previously, but he evidently had not realized that God would give him an heir from his own body (v. 4). Now he accepted this promise of God also (cf. Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23).
"In the middle of this chapter occurs what is perhaps the most important verse in the entire Bible: Genesis 15:6. In it, the doctrine of justification by faith is set forth for the first time. This is the first verse in the Bible explicitly to speak of (1) faith,' (2) righteousness,' and (3) justification.'"476
Trust in God's promise is what results in justification in any age. The promises of God (content of faith) vary, but the object of faith does not. It is always God.477Technically Abram trusted in a Person and hoped in a promise. To justify someone means to declarethat person righteous, not to makehim or her righteous (cf. Deut. 25:1). Justification expresses a legal verdict.
Moses probably recorded Abraham's faith here because it was foundational for making the Abrahamic Covenant. God made this covenant with a man who believed in Him.
James 2:23 suggests that Abram was justified when he offered Isaac (ch. 22). James meant that Abram's work of willingly offering Isaac justified him (i.e., declared him righteous). His work manifested his righteous condition. In Genesis 15 God declared Abram righteous, but in Genesis 22 Abram's works declared (testified) that he was righteous.
"In the sacrifice of Isaac was shown the full meaning of the word (Gen. 15:6) spoken 30 . . . years before in commendation of Abraham's belief in the promise of a child. . . . It was the willing surrender of the child of promise, accounting that God was able to raise him up from the dead,' which fully proved his faith."478
15:8 Abram requested a sign, a supernatural verification that God would indeed fulfill the distant promise.
"Requests for signs were not unusual in Old Testament times. They were not so much to discover God's will as to confirm it."479
God responded by making a covenant with Abram (vv. 9-12, 17).
"Only after he had been counted righteous by his faith could Abraham enter into God's covenant."480
"Four rites are mentioned [in the Old Testament] as parts of the covenant making event. They are the setting of a stone or a group of stones, the taking of an oath, the sacrifice of animals, and/or a communal meal."481
This rite (the sacrifice of animals) normally involved two parties dividing an animal into two equal parts, joining hands, and passing between the two parts (cf. Jer. 34:18-19). On this occasion, however, God alone passed between the parts indicating that Abram had no obligations to fulfill to receive the covenant promises (v. 17).
15:9-10 The animals used were standard types of sacrificial animals and may have represented the nation of Israel, "a kingdom of priests"(Exod. 19:6).
"The use of five different kinds of sacrificial animals on this occasion underlines the solemnity of the occasion."482
"We suggest that the animal cutting in Gen. 15:9-10, 17 is designated a covenant ratification sacrifice' . . . The killing and sectioning of the animals by Abram is the sacrificial preparatiofor the subsequent divine ratificatioof the covenant by Yahweh who in passing between the pieces irrevocably pledges the fulfillment of his covenant promise to the patriarch. The initiative of Yahweh remains in the foreground both in the instruction for the covenant ratification sacrifice' (Gen. 15:9-10) and in the act of berit[covenant] ratification itself (v. 17). . . .
"Gen. 15:7-21 contains covenant-making in which Yahweh binds himself in promise to Abram in the passing through the animals in the act of covenant ratification. Abram had prepared the animals for this ratification act through the covenant ratification sacrifice' which involved both killing and sectioning of the victims. Certain basic features of this covenant ratification rite are most closely paralleled only in aspects of the function of animal rites of the extant early second millennium treaty texts."483
15:11 "The birds of prey are unclean (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:12-18) and represent foreign nations (Ezek. 17:3, 7; Zech. 5:9), most probably Egypt. . . . Thus Abram driving off the birds of prey from the dismembered pieces portrays him defending his descendants from the attacks of foreign nations. Genesis itself tells of a number of attacks by foreigners against the children of Abraham (e.g. chs. 26, 34) and it already looks forward to the sojourn in Egypt (chs. 37-50 [cf. Exod. 1:11-12]). But in what sense can Abraham's actions be said to protect his offspring? Genesis 22:16-18; 26:5 suggest it was Abraham's faithful obedience to the covenant that guaranteed the blessing of his descendants. . . . Exodus 2:24 and Deuteronomy 9:5 also ground the exodus in the divine promises made to the patriarchs. The bird scene therefore portrays the security of Israel as the consequence of Abraham's piety."484
15:12 Abram's terror reflects his reaction to the flame that passed between the parts and to the revelation of the character of God that the flame represented (cf. v. 17).
15:13-14 Moses gave more detail regarding the history of the seed here than he had revealed previously (cf. vv. 14, 16). The 400 years of enslavement were evidently from 1845 B.C. to 1446 B.C., the date of the Exodus.
15:15 The ancients conceived of death as a time when they would rejoin their departed ancestors. There was evidently little understanding of what lay beyond the grave at this time in history.485
15:16 The Hebrew word translated "generation"really refers to a lifetime, which at this period in history was about 100 years.486This seems a better explanation than that four literal generations are in view. The writer mentioned four literal generations in Exodus 6:16-20 and Numbers 26:58-59, but there were quite evidently gaps in those genealogies.487
15:17 The smoking oven and flaming torch were one. This was an intensely bright, hot flame symbolic of God in His holiness. The flame is a good symbol of God in that it is pure, purges in judgment, and provides light and warmth.
"This act is . . . a promise that God will be with Abraham's descendants (e.g. 26:3, 24; 28:15; 31:3; 46:4, etc.). Indeed the description of the theophany as a furnace of smoke and a torch of fire' invites comparison with the pillar of cloud and fire that was a feature of the wilderness wanderings, and especially with the smoke, fire and torches (Exod. 19:18; 20:18) that marked the law-giving at Sinai. These were visible tokens of God's presence with his people, that he was walking among them and that they were his people (Lev. 26:12).
"In this episode then Abram's experience in a sense foreshadows that of his descendants. He sees them under attack from foreign powers but protected and enjoying the immediate presence of God. Elsewhere in the Abraham cycle, his life prefigures episodes in the history of Israel. Famine drove him to settle in Egypt (12:10; cf. chs. 42-46). He escaped after God had plagued Pharaoh (12:17; cf. Exod. 7-12), enriched by his stay in Egypt (13:2; cf. Exod. 12:35-38) and journeyed by stages (13:3; cf. Exod. 17:1; etc.) back to Canaan. In Genesis 22 Abraham goes on a three-day journey to a mountain, offers a sacrifice in place of his only son, God appears to him and reaffirms his promises. Sinai is of course a three-day journey from Egypt (Exod. 8:23), where Israel's first-born sons had been passed over (Exod. 12). There too sacrifice was offered, God appeared and reaffirmed his promises (Exod. 19-24).
"Finally, it may be observed, the interpretation of Gen. 15:9-11, 17, that I am proposing on the basis of other ritual texts in the Pentateuch is congruent with verses 13-16, which explain that Abraham's descendants would be oppressed for 400 years in Egypt before they come out with great possessions. Whether these verses are a later addition to the narrative as is generally held, or integral to it as van Seters asserts . . ., they do confirm that at a very early stage in the history of the tradition this rite was interpreted as a dramatic representation of the divine promises to Abraham. It is not a dramatized curse that would come into play should the covenant be broken, but a solemn and visual reaffirmation of the covenant that is essentially a promise . . . ."488
15:18 This was the formal "cutting"of the Abrahamic Covenant. God now formalized His earlier promises into a suzerainty treaty since Abram now understood and believed what God had promised. God as king bound Himself to do something for His servant Abram. The fulfillment of the covenant did not depend on Abram's obedience. It rested entirely on God's faithfulness.489
". . . it is fitting that in many respects the account should foreshadow the making of the covenant at Sinai. The opening statement in 15:7: I am the LORD, who brought you up out of Ur of the Chaldeans,' is virtually identical to the opening statement of the Sinai covenant in Exodus 20:2: I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.' The expression Ur of the Chaldeans' refers back to Genesis 11:28, 31 and grounds the present covenant in a past act of divine salvation from Babylon,' just as Exodus 20:2 grounds the Sinai covenant in an act of divine salvation from Egypt. The coming of God's presence in the awesome fire and darkness of Mount Sinai (Ex 19:18; 20:18; Dt 4:11) appears to be intentionally reflected in Abraham's pyrotechnic vision (Ge 15:12, 17). In the Lord's words to Abraham (15:13-16) the connection between Abraham's covenant and the Sinai covenant is explicitly made by means of the reference to the four hundred years of bondage of Abraham's seed and their subsequent exodus' (and after this they will go out,' v. 14). Such considerations lead to the conclusion that the author intends to draw the reader's attention to the events at Sinai in his depiction of the covenant with Abraham.
"If we ask why the author has sought to bring the picture of Sinai here, the answer lies in the purpose of the book. It is part of the overall strategy of the book to show that what God did at Sinai was part of a larger plan which had already been put into action with the patriarchs. Thus, the exodus and the Sinai covenant serve as reminders not only of God's power and grace but also of God's faithfulness. What he sets out to accomplish with his people, he will carry through to the end."490
Moses revealed the general geographical borders of the Promised Land here for the first time. Some scholars interpret the "river of Egypt"as the Nile.
"The argument is usually based on the fact that the Hebrew word naharis consistently restricted to large rivers. However, the Hebrew is more frequently nahal(= Arabic wady) instead of the naharof Genesis 15:18 which may have been influenced by the second naharin the text.491In the Akkadian texts of Sargon II (716 B.C.) it appears as nahal musar."492
God later specified the Wadi El Arish, "the geographical boundary between Canaan and Egypt,"493as the exact border (Num. 34:5; Josh. 15:4, 47). That seems to be the river in view here too. The Euphrates River has never yet been Israel's border. These borders coincide with those of the Garden of Eden (cf. 2:10-14).
15:19-21 Here Moses named several of the native tribes then inhabiting the Promised Land. "Canaanites"is both a general name for all these tribes and, as here, the name of one of them. These "Hittites"lived near Hebron (23:10); they are probably not the same Hittites that lived in Anatolia (Asia Minor, modern western Turkey; cf. 10:15).
The Abrahamic Covenant is basic to the premillennial system of theology. This covenant has not yet been fulfilled as God promised it would be. Since God is faithful we believe He will fulfill these promises in the future. Consequently there must be a future for Israel as a nation. Amillennialists interpret this covenant in a less literal way. The crucial issue is interpretation. If God fulfilled the seed and blessings promises literally, should we not expect that He will also fulfill the land promises literally?
The Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants are outgrowths of the Abrahamic Covenant. Each of these expands one major promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Now that God had given Abram the covenant the author proceeded to show how He would fulfill the promises. This is the reason for the selection of material that follows. So far in the story of Abram, Moses stressed the plans and purposes of God culminating in the cutting of the covenant. Now we learn how Abram and his seed would realize these plans and purposes. This involves a revelation of God's ways and man's responsibilities.494
God's people can rely on His promises even if they have to experience suffering and death before they experience them.495
Sarai and Abram tried to obtain the heir God had promised them by resorting to a culturally acceptable custom of their day even though it involved a failure to trust God. This fleshly act created serious complications for Abram and his household that included Hagar fleeing into the wilderness. Nevertheless God proved faithful to His promises and responded to Hagar's cries for help. He provided for her needs and promised her many descendants through Ishmael since he was Abram's son.
"The account of Sarah's plan to have a son has not only been connected with the list of nations in chapter 15, but also appears to have been intentionally shaped with reference to the account of the Fall in Genesis 3. Each of the main verbs (wayyiqtolforms) and key expressions in 16:2-3 finds a parallel in Genesis 3."496
The writer continued to focus increasing attention on the problem of an heir. Sarai had born Abram no children (v. 1). She therefore suggested a plan to obtain an heir from his own body (15:4). It looked as if everything would work out well until a conflict developed between Sarai and Hagar (v. 4). This conflict grew into a major crisis when Hagar fled the encampment pregnant with Abram's unborn child (v. 6). Yahweh intervened again to resolve the crisis (v. 7). He instructed Hagar to return to Sarai (v. 9). Thus Hagar bore Ishmael in Abram's house, but later God revealed that he would not be the heir.
Using a concubine (v. 2) was a method of providing an heir in the case of a childless marriage apart from adoption.497
"It was a serious matter for a man to be childless in the ancient world, for it left him without an heir. But it was even more calamitous for a woman: to have a great brood of children was the mark of success as a wife; to have none was ignominious failure. So throughout the ancient East polygamy was resorted to as a means of obviating childlessness. But wealthier wives preferred the practice of surrogate motherhood, whereby they allowed their husbands to go in to' . . . their maids, a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. 6:4; 30:3; 38:8, 9; 39:14). The mistress could then feel that her maid's child was her own and exert some control over it in a way that she could not if her husband simply took a second wife."498
The people in Abram's culture regarded a concubine as a secondary wife with some, but not all, of the rights and privileges of the primary wife.499
". . . one Nuzi tablet reads: Kelim-ninu has been given in marriage to Shennima. . . . If Kelim-ninu does not bear children, Kelim-ninu shall acquire a woman of the land of Lulu (i.e., a slave girl) as wife for Shennima.'"500
Not only was using a concubine an option, but in Hurrian culture husbands sometimes required that if their wife could not bear children she had to provide a concubine for her husband.501
". . . any child of the bond-slave would necessarily belong to the mistress, not the mother."502
This custom helps explain why Abram was willing to be a part of Sarai's plan that seems so unusual to us.
Did Sarai mean that she would obtain children through Hagar by adopting them as her own or by becoming fertile herself as a result of Hagar's childbearing (v. 2)? Most interpreters have taken the first position, but some have preferred the second.503The basis of the second view is the not infrequent phenomenon of a woman who has had trouble conceiving becoming pregnant after she has adopted a child.
Though using a concubine was a custom of the day it was never God's desire (2:24; Matt. 19:4-5). This episode ended in total disaster for everyone involved. Hagar lost her home, Sarai her maid, and Abram his second wife and his child by Hagar.
"A thousand volumes written against polygamy would not lead to a clearer fuller conviction of the evils of that practice than the story under review."504
Sarai tried to precipitate the will of God by seizing the initiative from God, as Eve had done (3:17). She and Abram chose fleshly means of obtaining the promised heir rather than waiting for God in faith. They let their culture guide them rather than God.
"It's a shame that she [Sarai] hadn't comprehended the fact that her infertility could be used by the Lord to put her in a place of dependence on Him so that fruit could be born in her life."505
"The prophetic description of Ishmael as a wild ass of a man' [v. 12] (RSV) is rather intriguing. The animal referred to is the wild and untamable onager, which roams the desert at will. This figure of speech depicts very accurately the freedom-loving Bedouin moving across vast stretches of land."506
The Lord named Ishmael (v. 11), whose name means "God hears,"and Hagar named the Lord (v. 13) "the One who sees."These two names constitute a major revelation of God: He hears and He sees.507
Abram and Sarai's action proved to be a source of much difficulty for everyone involved. God, however, took care of and blessed Ishmael even though he was the fruit of Abram's presumption. This is another occasion when Abram did not trust God as he should have (cf. 12:10-20).
"Both Hagar and Mary [the mother of Jesus] stand as examples of women who obediently accepted God's word and thereby brought blessing to descendants too many to count."508
Paul wrote that this story contains (not is) an allegory (Gal. 4:24). Hagar represents the Mosaic Covenant, and Ishmael is its fruit (slaves). Sarai is the Abrahamic Covenant, and Isaac is its fruit (free sons). Children of the flesh persecute children of the promise (Gal. 4:29).
Resorting to fleshly means rather than waiting for God to provide what He has promised always creates problems. This story also shows that human failure does not frustrate God's plans ultimately.
"If we have made mistakes which have led us into sin, the primary condition of restoration is complete submission to the will of God, whatever that may involve."509
When in great distress, people should pray because God is aware of their needs and will fulfill His promises to them.
The Lord confirmed His covenant with Abram by commanding him to circumcise all the males in his household. Circumcision thereby became the physical demonstration (sign) of the obedient faith of Abram and his descendants.510God further encouraged the patriarch's faith by changing Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's to Sarah. This was an added confirmation that God would indeed give them innumerable seed as He had promised.
"This chapter is a watershed in the Abraham story. The promises to him have been unfolded bit by bit, gradually building up and becoming more detailed and precise, until here they are repeated and filled out in a glorious crescendo in a long and elaborate divine speech. From this point in Genesis, divine speeches become rarer and little new content is added to the promises, but the fulfillment of these promises becomes more visible."511
Abram undoubtedly assumed that Ishmael would be the promised heir until God told him that Sarai would bear his heir herself (v. 16). That revelation is the most important feature of this chapter. God gave the name changes and circumcision to confirm the covenant promise of an heir and to strengthen Abram's faith.
Thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael (16:16) God spoke to Abram again (the fifth revelation; v. 1). God called Himself by a new name: El Shaddai (the Almighty God). This was appropriate in view of the thing God proceeded to reveal to Abram that He would do. It would require supernatural power.
The references to the "covenant"in this chapter have caused some confusion. The Abrahamic Covenant (ch. 15) is in view (vv. 4, 7, 11, 19, 21) but also the outward sign of that covenant that was the covenant of circumcision (vv. 2, 9, 10, 13, 14). Thus Moses used the word "covenant"with two different references here. Whereas the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, the covenant of circumcision depended on Abram's obedience (vv. 1-2). God would bless Abram as Abram obeyed God by circumcising his household. This blessing would be in the form of multiplying Abram's descendants "exceedingly,"even more than God had already promised.
The rite of circumcision was to be a continuing sign of the Abrahamic Covenant to all of Abram's descendants. God also gave Abram and Sarai the added assurance that they would have a multitude of descendants by changing their names.512
Abram(high or exalted father) -- Abraham(father of a multitude)
Sarai(my princess) -- Sarah(royal princess [from whom kings would come, v. 16])
Abraham's name emphasized the number of his seed. Sarah's evidently stressed the royal nature of their line (vv. 6, 16, 20; cf. 12:2).
"The choice of the word be fruitfulin verse 6 and multiplyin verse 2 seems intended to recall the blessing of all humankind in 1:29: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land,' and its reiteration in 9:1: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land.' Thus the covenant with Abraham was the means through which God's original blessing would again be channeled to all humankind."513
God wanted Abraham to circumcise his male servants as well as his children. The reason was that the Abrahamic Covenant would affect all who had a relationship with Abraham. Consequently they needed to bear the sign of that covenant. The person who refused circumcision was "cut off"from his people because by refusing it he was repudiating God's promises to Abraham.
"This expression undoubtedly involves a wordplay on cut. He that is not himself cut (i.e., circumcised) will be cut off (i.e., ostracized). Here is the choice: be cut or be cut off."514
There are two views as to the meaning of being cut off from Israel. Some scholars hold it means excommunication from the covenant community and its benefits.515However the better evidence points to execution sometimes by the Israelites but usually by God in premature death.516The threat of being cut off hung over the Israelite offender as the threat of a terminal disease that might end ones life at any time does today.
The person who refused to participate in circumcision demonstrated his lack of faith in God by his refusal. Thus he broke the covenant of circumcision (v. 14).
Only males underwent circumcision, of course. In the patriarchal society of the ancient Near East people considered that a girl or woman shared the condition of her father if she was single, or her husband if she was married.
Circumcision was a fitting symbol for several reasons.
1. It would have been a frequent reminder to every circumcised male of God's promises involving seed.
2. It involved the cutting off of flesh. The circumcised male was one who repudiated "the flesh"(i.e., the simply physical and natural aspects of life) in favor of trust in Yahweh and His spiritual promises.
3. It resulted in greater cleanliness of life and freedom from the effects of sin (i.e., disease and death).
Circumcision was not a new rite. The priests in Egypt practiced it as did most of the Canaanites and the Arabs, but in Mesopotamia it was not customary. Later the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites practiced it, but the Philistines did not.517By commanding it of Abraham and his household God was giving further evidence that he would bless the patriarch. Circumcision has hygienic value since cancer of the penis has a much higher incidence in uncircumcised males.518Circumcision was a rite of passage to adulthood in these cultures.519Normally it was practiced on young adults (cf. ch. 34). Circumcising infants was something new.
"Designating the eighth day after birth as the day of circumcision is one of the most amazing specifications in the Bible, from a medical standpoint. Why the eighth day?
"At birth, a baby has nutrients, antibodies, and other substances from his mother's blood, including her blood-clotting factors, one of them being prothrombin. Prothrombin is dependent on vitamin K for its production. Vitamin K is produced by intestinal bacteria, which are not present in a newborn baby. After birth prothrombin decreases so that by the third day it is only 30 percent of normal. Circumcision on the third day could result in a devastating hemorrhage.
"The intestinal bacteria finally start their task of manufacturing vitamin K, and the prothrombin subsequently begins to climb. On day eight, it actually overshoots to 110 percent of normal, leveling off to 100 percent on day nine and remaining there for the rest of a person's healthy life. Therefore the eighth day was the safest of all days for circumcision to be performed. On that one day, a person's clotting factor is at 110 percent, the highest ever, and that is the day God prescribed for the surgical process of circumcision.
"Today vitamin K (Aqua Mephyton) is routinely administered to newborns shortly after their delivery, and this eliminates the clotting problem. However, before the days of vitamin K injections, a 1953 pediatrics textbook recommended that the best day to circumcise a newborn was the eighth day of life.520
"Research indicates that other Middle Eastern cultures practiced circumcision . . . However, the Hebrews were unique in that they practiced infant circumcision, which, though medically risky if not properly performed, is less physically and psychologically traumatic than circumcisions performed at an older age."521
God has not commanded circumcision of the flesh for Christians. Some Christians in the reformed traditions of Protestantism regard baptism as what God requires of us today in place of circumcision. They practice infant baptism believing that this rite brings the infant into the "covenant community"(i.e., the church) and under God's care in a special sense. Some believe baptism saves the infant. Others believe it only makes the infant a recipient of special grace. The Bible is quite clear, however, that baptism is a rite that believers should practice after they trust Christ as their Savior as a testimony to their faith. There are parallels between circumcision and baptism, but God did not intend baptism to replace circumcision. God did command circumcision of the Israelites in the Mosaic Law, but He has not commanded it of Christians. We do not live under the Mosaic Law (Rom. 4:10-13; 6:14-15; 7:1-4; 10:4).
Abraham's laugh (v. 17) seems to have been a joyful response to God's promise.522Sarah's laugh (18:15) seems to have arisen from a spirit of unbelief. The basis of this distinction is God's response to the two laughs.
The writer's use of the phrase "the very same day"(v. 26) points to a momentous day, one of the most important days in human history (cf. Noah's entry into the ark, 7:13; and the Exodus, Exod. 12:17, 41, 51).
The fifth revelation from God advanced God's promises in five particulars.
1. Part of God's blessing would depend on Abraham's maintaining the covenant of circumcision though the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole did not depend on this (vv. 1-2).
2. Many nations would come from Abraham (vv. 4-6).
3. The Abrahamic Covenant would be eternal (vv. 7-8).
4. God would be the God of Abraham's descendants in a special relationship (vv. 7-8).
5. Sarah herself would bear the promised heir (v. 16).523
"Abraham's experiences should teach us that natural law [barrenness] is no barrier to the purposes and plans for [sic] God."524
"Thus Abraham and Noah are presented as examples of those who have lived in obedience to the covenant and are thus blameless' before God, because both obeyed God as he commanded them' (17:23; cf. 6:22; 7:5, 9, 16)."525
God requires a sanctified life of those who anticipate His promised blessings.
Chapters 18 and 19 constitute one integrated story, but we shall consider it section by section. Like the Flood story, it has a chiastic structure this time focusing on the announcement of the destruction of Sodom (19:12-13).526Again there is a mass destruction with only one man and his family escaping. Both stories end with intoxication and shameful treatment by children that has consequences for future generations.527
We perceive the Lord's gracious initiative toward Abraham in His visit to eat with the patriarch in his tent. This was a sign of intimate fellowship in Abraham's culture. On the basis of that close relationship God guaranteed the soon arrival of the promised heir. In response to Sarah's laugh of unbelief the Lord declared that nothing would be too difficult for Him.
This chapter and the next may seem at first reading to be extraneous to the purpose of the Abraham narrative, which is to demonstrate God's faithfulness to His promises to the patriarch. Notwithstanding they are not. Chapter 18 contributes the following.
1. It records another revelation (the sixth) in which God identified for the first time when the heir would appear (vv. 10, 14). With this revelation God strengthened Abraham's and especially Sarah's faith.
2. It fortifies Moses' emphasis on God's supernatural power at work to fulfill His divine promises (vv. 9-15).
3. As a literary device it provides an interlude in the story line and heightens suspense by prolonging the climax. We anticipate the arrival of the heir with mounting interest.
4. It presents Abraham as an intercessor, one of the roles of the prophets of whom Abraham was one of the first (cf. 20:7).
5. It records God's announcement of judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (vv. 16-33), which follows in chapter 19.
"The noon encounter in this chapter and the night scene at Sodom in the next are in every sense a contrast of light and darkness. The former, quietly intimate and full of promise, is crowned by the intercession in which Abraham's faith and love show a new breadth of concern. The second scene is all confusion and ruin, moral and physical, ending in a loveless squalor which is even uglier than the great overthrow of the cities."528
"There is also a blatant contrast between how Abraham hosted his visitors (ch. 18) and how the Sodomites hosted the same delegation (ch. 19)."529
18:1 Abraham was living near Hebron at this time (cf. 13:18).
18:2 The "three men"were "the Lord"(the Angel of Yahweh, vv. 13, 17, 20, 33) and the "two angels"(19:1; 18:22) who later visited Lot. If Abraham had previously met the Angel of the Lord it seems likely that he would have recognized Him at once (cf. 17:1, 22). If he had not, Abraham became aware of who this Angel was during this interview (cf. v. 25).
18:3-11 Abraham's hospitality reflects oriental custom as practiced in his day and, in some respects, even today in the Middle East.530He was behaving more wisely than he realized since he did not yet know that his guests were divine visitors (v. 8). "Where is Sarah?"(v. 9) recalls God's earlier questions about Adam (3:9) and Abel (4:9).
18:12 Sarah's laugh sprang from a spirit of unbelief due to long disappointment as is clear from the Lord's response to it (v. 14). Abraham's laugh (17:17) did not draw such a response.
18:13 The fact that the Lord knew Sarah had laughed and knew her thoughts demonstrated his supernatural knowledge to Abraham and Sarah. This would have strengthened their faith in what He told them.
18:14 The Lord's rhetorical question, one of the great statements of Scripture, reminded the elderly couple of His supernatural power and fortified their faith further (cf. Jer. 32:17, 27).
18:15 Sarah evidently denied that she had laughed from fear of the Lord's powers or from fear of offending Him. Again God built confidence in His word.
Believers should never doubt God's promises because nothing is impossible for Him.
After God reviewed the reasons for sharing His plans for the destruction of Sodom with Abraham, He told the patriarch that He was about to investigate the wicked condition of that city. This news moved Abraham to ask God to be just in His dealings with the righteous there.
"A rhetorical question in each section--'Is anything too demanding for Yahweh?' [v. 14]; Shall not he who judges all the earth give right judgment?"[v. 25]--sounds the major motif of each unit [vv. 1-15 and vv. 16-33]. . . . In both units it is some kind of noise that provokes Yahweh--Sarah's laugh and Sodom's groans."531
18:16-21 God chose to reveal His intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah to Abraham. He did so because of His plans for Abraham.
"In this section [vv. 1-21] we have an illustration of fellowship with God and some of its essential features. Fellowship is the crowning purpose of God's revelation (1 John 1:3). There is nothing higher than this, for man's life finds its complete fulfillment in union and communion with God. Notice the following elements:
"1. Sacred Intimacy. . . .
"2. Genuine Humility. . . .
"3. Special Revelation. -- Fellowship with God is always associated with the knowledge of His will. Servants do not know their master's purposes, but friends and intimates do. . . .
"4. Unique Association. -- The man who is in fellowship with God does not merely know the Divine will, but becomes associated with God in the carrying out of that will. . . ."532
18:22-33 This is the first time in Scripture that a man initiated a conversation with God. He prayed for the people of Sodom, not just Lot. Abraham's intercession raises several questions in the minds of thoughtful Bible students. Did Abraham succeed in his intercession since God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Some interpreters believe he did not because he quit too soon.
". . . Abraham ceased asking before God ceased giving."533
This conclusion assumes that Abraham's primary purpose was to get God to demonstrate mercy and to spare the cities for the sake of their few righteous inhabitants (v. 24). While this idea was obviously in Abraham's mind, his primary purpose seems rather to have been to secure justice (i.e., deliverance) for the righteous minority in their wicked cities (vv. 23, 24). Secondarily, he wanted God to spare the cities. This interpretation finds support in Abraham's appeal to the justice of God rather than to His mercy (v. 25). This appeal was the basis of his intercession. Abraham was jealous for the reputation of Yahweh among his neighbors. If this was his primary purpose Abraham succeeded in obtaining justice for the righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah.
A second question arises from Abraham's method of interceding. Is his haggling with God an example we should follow? Evidently Abraham was not trying to wear God down by pressuring Him. Instead he was seeking clarification from God as to the extent of His mercy. He wanted to find out how merciful God would be in judging these cities.
Why did Abraham stop with 10 righteous people (v. 32)? Probably he thought there would be at least 10 righteous in those two cities. He overestimated righteous Lot's influence over his neighbors.
Will God spare a city or nation today because of the Christians in it? This passage is helpful in answering this question because in it we can see that a godly minority does play a role in influencing God's judgment. It can delay judgment by promoting godliness. However a godly minority may not prevent God's judgment if "sin is exceedingly grave"(v. 20). God does not always choose to remove the righteous from the wicked before He judges the wicked as He did in Lot's case. Nevertheless the Judge of all the earth does deal justly. We can see this when we take the long view. People alive now have yet to receive their final judgment from the divine Judge.
Abraham's shameless, bold persistence with God illustrates what Jesus had in mind when he taught the importance of these qualities in prayer (e.g., Luke 11:5-10; 18:1-8). Threefold repetition is common in Scripture, but Abraham's doubling of it gives his request even more solemnity and weight.
This chapter illustrates a progression in Abraham's relationship with God that is normal for those who have a relationship with Him.
1. God revealed Himself to Abraham (v. 1).
2. Abraham welcomed God's revelation (vv. 2-3).
3. Fellowship resulted (vv. 4-8). They ate together.
4. This fellowship led to further revelation and greater understanding of God's will (vv. 9-22).
5. Having learned of God's purpose to judge the sinners Abraham's response was to intercede for those under God's judgment (vv. 23-33).
"It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pray effectively for lost souls if one is not convinced that lostness will ultimately result in literal, eternal punishment."534
The outstanding lesson of this section is probably that since God is a righteous Judge He will not destroy the righteous with the wicked.535
Chapters 18 and 19 "paint a vivid contrast between the respective patriarchal ancestors, Abraham and Lot, with an obvious moralistic intent (i.e., a demonstration that human initiatives--Lot's choice--always lead to catastrophe)."536
"In the development of the story two of the themes in counterpoint with Abraham and the Promise--the theme of Lot, the righteous man without the pilgrim spirit, and of Sodom, the standing example of worldly promise, insecurity (chapter 14) and decay--are now heard out to their conclusion. By a master-stroke of narrative, Abraham, who will outlive all such time-servers, is shown standing at his place of intercession (27), a silent witness of the catastrophe he has striven to avert. It is a superb study of the two aspects of judgment: the cataclysmic, as the cities disappear in brimstone and fire, and the gradual, as Lot and his family reach the last stages of disintegration, breaking up in the very hands of their rescuers."537
"Lot's move from a tent pitched near Sodom (13:12, 13) to a permanent residence in the city showed his willingness to exist with unbridled wickedness."538
The men of Sodom wanted to have homosexual relations with Lot's visitors (v. 5). The Mosaic Law later regarded all homosexual behavior as a capital offense (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; cf. Rom. 1:26-27).539Their lack of hospitality contrasts with Abraham's hospitality (18:1-8) and reflects their respective moral states.
Hospitality was more sacred than sexual morality to Lot (v. 8; cf. Judg. 19:23-25). Compromise distorts values. He considered his duty to his guests greater than his duty to his children.
"When a man took in a stranger, he was bound to protect him, even at the expense of the host's life."540
"In order to show that the rescue of Lot was in response to the prayer of Abraham, the narrative reads so that the words of the messengers ["swept away,"vv. 15, 17] recall explicitly the words of Abraham's prayer in behalf of the righteous in the previous chapter ["sweep away,"18:23]."541
Probably the burning sodium sulfate that was raining down covered Lot's wife as she lingered behind (v. 26).542
All that Lot had gained by living in Sodom burned up like wood, hay, and stubble (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15).
The Apostle Peter cited Lot as an example of the Lord's deliverance of the godly from trails that He uses to punish the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:6-10). John called believers not to love the world or the things in the world because they will pass away (1 John 2:15-17).
As in the Flood story, the writer focused the reader's attention on the response of individuals to the judgment rather than on the destruction itself. Here those individuals are Lot's wife and Abraham. The picture of Abraham in verses 27-28 is similar to that of Moses interceding for Israel in the battle with the Amalekites (Exod. 17:11-12).543Lot's prayer concerning Zoar (vv. 18-20) contrasts with Abraham's for Sodom (18:23-32).
"The substitution of Abraham for Lot in this sentence ["God remembered Abraham,"v. 29] makes an important theological point. Lot was not saved on his own merits but through Abraham's intercession."544
Moses evidently included the account of Lot's incest (vv. 30-38) for at least two purposes.
1. It gives the origin of the Moabite and Ammonite nations that played major roles as inveterate enemies in the history of Israel. Moab sounds like the words translated "from the father,"and Ammon means "son of my kin."
"His legacy, Moab and Ammon (37f.), was destined to provide the worst carnal seduction in the history of Israel (that of Baal-Peor, Nu. 25) and the cruelest religious perversion (that of Molech, Lv. 18:21)."545
2. It illustrates the degrading effect that living in Sodom had on Lot's daughters. His older daughter was so desperate to marry that she exaggerated the effects of the recent catastrophe (v. 31).
"Lot was able to take his daughters out of Sodom, but he was not able to take . . . Sodom out of his daughters."546
"Throughout the ancient Near East, incest between father and daughter was regarded as wrong, and OT law punishes more remote forms of incest with death (Lev 20:12). . . . The fact that his daughters had to make him drunk shows that they were consciously flouting normal conventions. Because of his readers' moral assumptions, the narrator did not feel it necessary to excoriate Lot's daughters' behavior. The facts spoke for themselves."547
"The story of Lot and his family should provide a sobering reminder that all of our decisions are significant, even that of where we live. Our moral environment significantly influences our lives. For this and many other reasons the New Testament constantly implores the believer to fellowship with those of like precious faith."548
"There are lives recorded in the Bible which have well been called beacons. There are men like Balaam, Saul, and Solomon, who started well, with every possible advantage, and then closed their careers in failure and disaster. Such a life was that of Lot. . . . There is scarcely a life recorded in Scripture which is fuller of serious and solemn instructions for every believer."549
"The impact of the unit focuses more directly on a characterization of the father. The one who offered his daughters for the sexual gratification of his wicked neighbors now becomes the object of his daughters' incestuous relationship . . . . To be seduced by one's own daughters into an incestuous relationship with pregnancy following is bad enough. Not to know that the seduction had occurred is worse. To fall prey to the whole plot a second time is worse than ever."550
"In tragic irony, a drunk Lot carried out the very act which he himself had suggested to the men of Sodom (19:8)--he lay with his own daughters.
"The account is remarkably similar to the story of the last days of Noah after his rescue from the Flood (9:20-27). There, as here, the patriarch became drunk with wine and uncovered himself in the presence of his children. In both narratives, the act had grave consequences. Thus at the close of the two great narratives of divine judgment, the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, those who were saved from God's wrath subsequently fell into a form of sin reminiscent of those who died in the judgment. This is a common theme in the prophetic literature (e.g., Isa 56-66; Mal 1)."551
From 2 Peter 2:6-9 we know that Lot was a righteous man. Yet he chose to live as, what the New Testament calls, a "carnal"believer (1 Cor. 3:3). First, he lifted up his eyes and saw Sodom (13:10). Then he chose for himself (13:11). Then he moved his tent as far as Sodom (13:12). Then he sat in the gate of Sodom as one of its judges (19:1, 9). Then he hesitated as Sodom's destruction loomed (19:16). Finally he ended up committing incest with his daughters in a cave (19:30-38). How far it is possible for a believer to depart from God's will when we keep making carnal decisions!
The major revelation of this chapter is that it is foolish for a believer to become attached to the things of this world. They will corrupt him, and God will destroy them swiftly and suddenly.
The writer composed chapter 20 as another chiasm with the focal point being Abimelech warning his servants (v. 8). Two dialogues dominate the story: the one between God and Abimelech (vv. 3-7) and the one between Abimelech and Abraham (vv. 9-13).
"The focus of the narrative of chapters 20 and 21 is on the relationship between Abraham and the nations. Abraham's role is that of a prophetic intercessor, as in the promise all peoples on earth will be blessed through you' (12:3). He prayed for the Philistines (20:7), and God healed them (v. 17). In the narrative Abimelech plays the role of a righteous Gentile' with whom Abraham could live in peace and blessing. There is, then, an implied contrast in the narratives between chapters 19 (Lot, the one who pictures the mixed multitude) and 20 (Abimelech, the righteous sojourner)."552
Abraham lied about his relationship with Sarah again (cf. ch. 12). Abimelech took her into his harem as a consequence of the patriarch's deception. Nevertheless God intervened to preserve Sarah's purity. He warned Abimelech to restore Sarah to her husband, to make restitution to Abraham, and to ask Abraham the prophet to intercede with God for him.
This chapter records another crisis in the story of God's providing an heir for Abraham.
"Apparently, shortly after the announcement of a birth one year hence, Sarah is again taken into another man's harem. The reader is to infer that if there is an heir, he is in danger of being reckoned as Abimelech's not Abraham's. But Yahweh intervenes once again and preserves Sarah (20.6b) and restores her to Abraham."553
". . . the episode is chiefly one of suspense: on the brink of Isaac's birth-story here is the very Promise put in jeopardy, traded away for personal safety. If it is ever to be fulfilled, it will owe very little to man. Morally as well as physically, it will clearly have to be achieved by the grace of God."554
Abraham naturally moved frequently since he had to find pasture for his flocks and herds (v. 1). He lived a semi-nomadic life.
". . . his house and family remained at Gerar while he was down in Sinai . . ."555
"Abimelech"was a title rather than a proper name (cf. 26:1; Judg. 8:31; 1 Sam. 21:10; Ps. 34 title). It meant "royal father"or "the king [Milku, a Canaanite deity mentioned in the Amarna letters] is my father."556
Dreams were one of the primary means by which God revealed Himself to individuals in the Old Testament along with visions and personal encounters (cf. 15:1; Num. 12:6-8). Adultery commonly drew the death penalty in the ancient Near East, which the Mosaic Code later reflected (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Abimelech claimed to head a blameless nation (v. 4), so we expect God to be gracious since Abraham had prayed that the Lord would not destroy the righteous with the wicked (18:23-32). God was gracious with Abimelech and his people (v. 6).
Moses identified Abraham here (v. 7) as a "prophet."This is the first explicit reference to a prophet in the Old Testament. Prophets received direct revelations from God and spoke to others for God. Here the role of the prophet includes that of intercessor, as it does elsewhere in Scripture.
"In king Abimelech we meet with a totally different character from that of Pharaoh [ch. 12]. We see in him a heathen imbued with a moral consciousness of right, and open to receive divine revelation, of which there is not the slightest trace in the king of Egypt."557
"Like the sailors and the king of Nineveh in the book of Jonah (1:16; 3:6-9), the Philistines responded quickly and decisively to God's warning. Like Jonah, however, Abraham in this narrative was a reluctant prophet."558
Fear for his safety evidently led Abraham to act as he did even though his experience with Pharaoh in Egypt had been unsuccessful. Even the repeated promises of God did not drive fear of potential danger from Abraham's heart. God used a pagan king to rebuke the righteous prophet, who had boldly pleaded for Sodom, when Abraham's faith failed.
This incident shows God's faithfulness to Abraham compared to Abraham's unfaithfulness to God (cf. 2 Tim. 2:13). God's chosen ones cannot destroy His ultimate plans for them by failing. Abraham learned that Yahweh can maintain His covenant and fulfill His promises in spite of the opposition and interference of influential and powerful individuals.
God requires His people to maintain purity in marriage and to look to Him to provide what He has promised.
God proved faithful to His promise by providing Isaac. Abraham and Sarah responded with obedience and praise. Ishmael, however, became a threat to Abraham's heir and consequently his father sent him away into the wilderness where God continued to provide for him and his mother.
God's blessing of Abraham resulted in his material prosperity. In response to Abimelech's initiative Abraham agreed to make a covenant of peaceful coexistence. This treaty enabled Abraham to serve and worship God freely in the Promised Land.
The writer may have included this incident in the text because it records the testimony of a Gentile king to God's faithfulness (v. 22) and Abraham's strong testimony to God's faithfulness (vv. 32-33). It also sets the stage for Isaac's dealings with Abimelech (ch. 26).
Since Abraham had become a powerful individual in the land by God's blessing, Abimelech initiated a treaty with him for his own protection. This was evidently the same Abimelech that Abraham had dealt with previously (ch. 20). They made a parity covenant (i.e., between equals, vv. 31-32). This was a remarkable admission of Abraham's standing and blessing by God and an expression of Abimelech's confidence in the future existence of the patriarch's family.
The birth of Isaac seems to have produced a much stronger faith in Abraham (cf. v. 14). Note his immediate response to God's instructions to him from then on (cf. 22:3).
"Phicol"(v. 22) seems to have been a title rather than a proper name, probably of Anatolian origin.566
Wells were extremely important in the life of semi-nomads like Abraham (v. 25).567
Beersheba, one of the more important sites throughout Old Testament times, meaning "oath-well,"became Abraham's possession with the payment of seven ewe lambs (v. 28; cf. 26:33).568
Critics of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives have pointed out references to the Philistines in Genesis (vv. 32, 34; 26:1) as evidence that the Bible contains errors. It is common knowledge that the Philistines did not invade Palestine until about 1200 B.C. whereas Abraham evidently lived about 800 years earlier. One explanation is that since the Philistines of Genesis were peaceful and those of Judges and later warlike perhaps the same name describes an earlier group of people. They may have resembled the later thirteenth-century Philistines who also emigrated from the Aegean area into Palestine.569On the other hand perhaps the Philistines of 2000 B.C. were Minoan and peaceful whereas those of 1200 were Mycenean and warlike.570
"I suggest that the Philistines of Genesis represent the first wave of Sea Peoples from the Aegean, and that the later Philistines represent the last wave (cf. 1200 B.C.)."571
By planting a tree Abraham indicated his determination to stay in that region. Tamarisk trees (v. 33) were long-lived and evergreen. This tree was an appropriate symbol of the enduring grace of the faithful God whom Abraham recognized as "the Everlasting God"(El Olam). Abraham now owned a small part of the land God had promised him.
"By granting Abraham rights to a well, Abimelek had made it possible for Abraham to live there permanently and had acknowledged his legal right at least to water. In other words, after so many delays the promises of land and descendants at last seem on their way to fulfillment."572
In contrast to Abraham's fear of Abimelech (ch. 20) we now see him boldly standing up to this powerful king. His changed attitude evidently resulted from God's grace in blessing the patriarch as He had promised.
"The reader is forced to ask why the author constantly draws attention to the fact that Abraham was dwelling with the Philistines during this time [cf. v. 34]. The purpose of such reminders may be to portray Abraham as one who had yet to experience the complete fulfillment of God's promises."573
Peaceful interpersonal relationships with those who acknowledge God enable the believer to proclaim his or her faith freely.
In obedience to God's command Abraham took his promised heir to Moriah to sacrifice him to the Lord. Because Abraham was willing to slay his uniquely begotten son God restrained him from killing Isaac and promised to bless him further for his obedience. Abraham memorialized the place as "the Lord will provide."
This incident also demonstrates the strong confidence that Abraham had in God at this time. He believed God was even able to raise Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:19). This is why he was willing to slay him.
"With this chapter we reach the climax of the faith life of Abraham--the supreme test and the supreme victory."574
"The seventh crisis [I believe it is the eleventh] comes at a point in the narrative when we least expect it and is without question the greatest crisis of all. After all obstacles have seemingly been surmounted and all potential rivals eliminated, God now asks for Abraham's only son whom he loves. The gracious intervention of God and the reaffirmation of the basic promise of 12.1-3 in 22.15-18 would seem to conclude the Abraham cycle at the moment when faith triumphs over the greatest obstacle of all, death."575
22:1-8 This incident took place some time after the events recorded in the chapters immediately preceding this one, evidently several years later.
God's revelation to Abraham (His eighth recorded in Scripture) came to test Abraham's faith (i.e., to prove its character and strength; cf. James 2:23).
"Life is a succession of tests, for character is only possible through discipline."576
God was testing Abraham's love for Himself as well as his faith (v. 2). Such testing (Heb. nsh) shows what someone is really like, and it usually involves difficulty or hardship (cf. Exod. 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut. 8:2, 16; 13:3; Judg. 2:22; 3:1, 14; 1 Kings 10:1; Dan. 1:12, 14).
"The . . . best approach to the passage is that God commanded an actual human sacrifice and Abraham intended to obey Him fully."577
The land of Moriah was the mountainous country around Jerusalem. It stood about 45 miles north of Beersheba. On these mountains God later appeared to David who built an altar to the Lord (2 Sam. 24; 16-25). Here also Solomon built his temple (2 Chron. 3:1) and Jesus Christ died. A mountain was a suitable place for Abraham to meet God (cf. v. 14).
Jerusalem's Temple Mount578
It occupies only 140 dunams (35 acres), yet this trapezoid-shaped walled area, hovering over the Old City of Jerusalem, is seldom out of the news. The Mount has been the site of frequent conflicts.
What is so important about the Temple Mount that it arouses such raging passions among Jew and Moslem alike? In Hebrew it is known as Har HaBayet (Mountain of the House) and in Arabic, Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). Within the area of the Temple Mount there are about 100 structures from various periods--great works of art and craftsmanship including open-domed Moslem prayer spots, arched porticos, Moslem religious schools, minarets, and fountains.
Here also is the magnificent Dome of the Rock, the central structure, which was begun by the Ummayyad Caliph, Abd-al-Malik in 684 C.E., and completed in 1033. With the bloody conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, the Dome of the Rock was converted into a church and only re-converted into a mosque after Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem in 1187. With its 45,000 ornamental tiles and 8 graceful arches at the top of the steps leading to the mosque, some observers consider it to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.
The Temple Mount has a very special status and enormous importance to Jews because it was the site of the Temple which stood at its center. Jerusalem, the Holy City, is regarded as the equivalent of the "camp of Israel"that surrounded the sanctuary in the wilderness; and the Temple Mount represents "the camp of the Divine Presence"(Sif. Naso 1:Zev 116b).
Its most sacred section was the Holy of Holies. Only the highest priest was allowed to enter it, and then only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, for the service Isaiah (2:3) tells us that [sic] "it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills, and all nations shall flow to it . . . For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
For Moslems, the Temple Mount also has great sanctity. They have three mosques to which special holiness is attached: the Ka'ba in Mecca, the Mosque of Muhammad in Medina, and the Temple Mount, their third holiest site in Islam. The adoration of the site is based on the first verse of Sura 17 of the Koran, which describes the prophet's Night Journey. They believe that when Muhammad was sleeping near the Ka'ba, the angel Gabriel brought him to a winged creature. Together they rose to heaven and met Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Some Moslems believe that Muhammad made the journey while awake and actually traversed the ground of the Temple Mount.
Because of the special nature of the Temple Mount, it will continue to inflame passions--according to religious Jews until such time as the Messiah comes. Then, according to Jewish belief, He will reign over the restored kingdom of Israel to which all Jews of the Exile will return. It is believed that the foundation of the Messiah's throne will be justice and He will be charismatically endowed to dispense justice both to Israel and its neighboring nations.
Verses 1 and 2 relate another call God gave Abraham that parallels the one in 12:1-3 where God told him to leave where he was and go to another land.
"The repetition of these motifs forms an inclusio in the narrative structure of the Abrahamic narrative, pointing out the complete cycle in the patriarch's experience. The allusion to the former call would also have prompted obedience to the present one, in many ways a more difficult journey in God's direction."579
The Canaanites practiced human sacrifice in the worship of their gods. Consequently the Lord was not asking Abraham to make any greater sacrifices to Him, the true God, than his pagan neighbors were willing to make to their false gods.
"The demand [to sacrifice Isaac] was indeed only made to prove that Abraham was not behind the heathen in the self-denying surrender of his dearest to his God, and that when the demand had been complied with in spirit, the external fulfillment might be rejected."580
The words used to describe Isaac in this chapter, as well as what Moses said of him, indicate that he was probably a young man at this time (v. 6). Josephus said he was 25 years old.581
"There are indications to suggest that the meaning of Abbain Mark 14:36 is to be found in the light of its whole context and Genesis 22. Jesus' final trial in Gethsemane appears to be modelled on the supreme trial of Abraham and Isaac. Despite his horror and anguish before the prospect of an imminent sacrificial death, Isaac calls to Abraham his Abbaand, as a faithful son, obeys the voice of God speaking through his father. Parallel to this, Jesus says Abba to God in the same way that Isaac does to Abraham. In this context, Abbahas the meaning of father' in the sense of a relationship to a devoted and obedient son. In Jesus' supreme hour of trial, it is his trust and obedience to God as Abbathat carries him through, even to the cross. This meaning of Abbamay prompt further study of the significance of sonin other NT texts to discover whether the obediential aspect may be more prominent than has been suspected. The father-son relationship in Genesis 22 may be a far-reaching New Testament model of that between Jesus and God."582
Abraham referred to the sacrifice he would offer, supposedly Isaac, but really God's substitute for Isaac, as "the lamb."This statement (v. 8), of course, proved prophetic of Jesus Christ as well.
22:9-19 Isaac demonstrated his own faith clearly in this incident. He must have known what his father intended to do to him yet he submitted willingly (v. 9).
"If Abraham displays faith that obeys, then Isaac displays faith that cooperates. If Isaac was strong and big enough to carry wood for a sacrifice, maybe he was strong and big enough to resist or subdue his father."583
"The sacrifice was already accomplished in his [Abraham's] heart, and he had fully satisfied the requirements of God."584
"The test, instead of breaking him, brings him to the summit of his lifelong walk with God."585
Abraham gained a greater appreciation of God as the One who will provide or look out for him (Yahweh-jireh, lit. "the Lord sees") as a result of this incident (v. 14). Also, the Lord confirmed His knowledge of Abraham (v. 12; cf. 18:21; Job 1:1, 8; 2:3). Abraham's sacrifice of the ram (v. 13), like Noah's sacrifice after he left the ark (8:18-9:17), expressed thanks and devotion to God and anticipated His benevolence toward future generations. God appeared again to Abraham (the ninth revelation) at the end of His test (v. 15). God swore by Himself to confirm His promises to Abraham (v. 16). God so swore only here in His dealings with the patriarchs. Moses referred to this oath later in Israel's history (24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod. 13:5, 11; 33:1; et al.).
". . . the main point of Genesis 22:9-14 is not the doctrine of the Atonement. It is portraying an obedient servant worshipping God in faith at great cost, and in the end receiving God's provision."586
One writer suggested that 22:15-18 really ". . . describes the establishment of the covenant of circumcision first mentioned in Genesis 17."587However the lack of reference to circumcision in the immediate context makes this interpretation tenuous.
For the first and last time in Genesis, the Lord swore an oath in His own name guaranteeing His promise (v. 16). God thus reinforced, reemphasized, and extended the promise that He had given formerly (12:1-3) because Abraham trusted and obeyed Him (vv. 17-18).
"Here again God promised Abraham that he would become the recipient of the covenant blessings. The covenant was not based on obedience, nor was the perpetuity of the covenant based on obedience--but rather the reception of covenant blessings was conditioned on obedience. Remember, an unconditional covenant may have conditional blessings."588
Abraham's "seed"(v. 18) refers not only to Isaac but also to Messiah (cf. Gal. 3:16).
Abraham then returned to the well he had purchased at Beersheba and lived there (v. 19).
Moses probably preserved the details of this story because this test involved the future of God's promised seed, Isaac, and, therefore, the faithfulness of God. He probably did so also because this incident illustrates God's feelings in giving His Son as the Lamb of God (cf. John 1:29; 3:16). Other themes in this chapter include testing and obedience, the relationship between God and man, and the relationship between father and son.589
Every time Abraham made a sacrifice for God the Lord responded by giving Abraham more.
1. Abraham left his home; God gave him a new one.
2. Abraham offered the best of the land to Lot; God gave him more land.
3. Abraham gave up the King of Sodom's reward; God gave Abraham more wealth.
In each case God gave Abraham a deeper relationship with Himself as well as more material prosperity. Note the closeness of this fellowship in Abraham's response to God's revelations: "Here I am"(vv. 1, 11).
God has not promised Christians great physical blessings, but whenever we make a sacrifice for Him He gives us a deeper relationship with Himself at least. For this reason we should not fear making personal sacrifices for God.
Note too that what God called Abraham to give back to Him was something that He had provided for Abraham supernaturally in faithfulness to His promise. Sometimes God tests our faith by asking us to give back to Him what He has supernaturally and faithfully provided, not just what He has provided through regular channels.
This test of Abraham's faith is the climax of his personal history. It is the last major incident in the record of his life.
". . . God does not demand a literal human sacrifice from His worshippers, but the spiritual sacrifice of an unconditional denial of the natural life, even to submission to death itself."590
The faithful believer will surrender to God whatever He may ask trusting in God's promise of provision and blessing.
The testing of Abraham's faith was complete with the sacrifice of Isaac. The Author therefore brought the history of his life to a close and began to set the scene for related events in Isaac's life.
This section signals a change in the direction of the narrative. It moves from Abraham to the next generation and its connections with the East. The record of Nahor's 12 sons prepares the way for the story of Isaac's marriage. It also shows that Rebekah ("heifer,"or "soft, supple") was the daughter of Bethuel's wife Milcah (v. 23), not the daughter of Bethuel's concubine (v. 24). Isaac's marriage was very important because Isaac was the heir of the promises (ch. 24).
Only a few of the individuals named as descendants of Abraham's brother Nahor appear elsewhere in Scripture. The most important individuals were Rebekah and her father Bethuel.
Abraham's purchase of a burial site in the Promised Land demonstrated his intention to remain in Canaan rather than going back to his native homeland. Since he was a sojourner in Canaan his friends probably expected him to bury Sarah back in their home area, namely, Mesopotamia.
The two major events contained in this chapter continue Moses' emphasis on God's faithfulness. They do so by recording the death of Abraham's wife, the mother of his heir, and by showing the beginning of the fulfillment of the land promise that God had given to Abraham.
Sarah is the only woman whose age at death the Scriptures record (v. 1). This fact illustrates her importance. Isaac was 37 years old when his mother died. Abraham died at the age of 175 (25:8), 38 years after Sarah.
Abraham and Sarah had moved back near Hebron after having lived at Beersheba for some time (v. 2; cf. 22:19).
"It should be stressed here that the world of the patriarchs was that of a developed and organized society and not what is usually regarded as a simple pastoral-bedouin existence. Throughout Genesis 12-50 there are connections to Mesopotamia and to Egypt as well as negotiations with local political centers (Shechem, Salem and Hebron) as well as Gerar in the Western Negev on a branch of the Coastal Highway.
"Much of the theological relevance of the patriarchs is based upon the fact that there were other more attractive lifestyles available to these early Biblical figures. The option they chose gave them few of the advantages they could have enjoyed elsewhere, especially in Mesopotamia where their family was established. In light of this fact and the great promises made to Abraham during his lifetime, his remark to the leaders of Hebron after the death of his wife, Sarah, takes on new meaning."591
Typically ancient Near Easterners buried family members in their native land.592Abraham's desire to bury Sarah in the Promised Land shows that he had turned his back on Mesopotamia forever (v. 4). Canaan was his adopted homeland.
God had made Abraham a powerful person, which his neighbors acknowledged (v. 6).593
"Their warm and generous reply apparently gave Abraham all he wanted, but permission to bury Sarah was only part of what he had requested. He had asked for a burial plot, not simply for the use of one of their graves. Despite the warmth of their reply, the Hittites, by omitting any mention of this point, probably indicate their reluctance to transfer land to Abraham, for then he would no longer be a landless sojourner."594
Why did Ephron want to sell Abraham the entire plot of ground in which the cave lay rather than just the cave as Abraham requested (vv. 8-11)? Hittite law specified that when a landowner sold only part of his property to someone else the original owner had to continue to pay all taxes on the land. However if he sold the entire tract the new owner was responsible to pay the taxes (cf. 1 Chron. 21:24). Consequently Ephron held out for the entire tract knowing that Abraham needed to make his purchase quickly so he could bury Sarah.595
Abraham's willingness to pay what appears to have been an unusually large price for the land further demonstrates his faith (vv. 15-16). An average field cost four shekels per acre, and garden land cost 40 shekels per acre.596Abraham was willing to pay 400 shekels. Of course, the text does not give the exact area of the property, but it appears to have been relatively small.
"The piece of property was no bargain for Abraham; 400 shekelswould be more than a hundred pounds of silver. David paid only one-eighth that amount--50 shekels of silver--for the purchase of the temple site from Araunah (2 Sam. 24:24)."597
Ephron's responses to Abraham's requests sound very generous, but he was really making it difficult for Abraham to pay less than his asking price. Ephron's object may have been to get a present from Abraham for having given him the field and cave that would compensate for the value of the land. Such a gift was customary. On the other hand he may have wanted to preclude Abraham's offering to pay him less than his asking price (v. 15).598
"Did the patriarchs who forsook everything for the sake of the promises go unrewarded? No, answers our narrative. In death they were heirs and no longer strangers.' A very small part of the Promised Land--the grave--belonged to them; therefore they did not have to rest in Hittite earth' or in the grave of a Hittite (cf. v. 6), which Israel would have considered a hardship difficult to bear."599
"At a time when the children of Israel were on their way to take possession of the land, Moses did well to remind them how in faith their forefathers had secured at least a grave which was his own property,' and thus to arouse in them the desire to finish the work of taking into full possession what had so long ago been promised to them."600
Abraham's purchase of the cave of Machpelah indicates his continuing faith in God's promise to give the land of Canaan to him and his descendants. Similarly Jeremiah purchased property in the Promised Land on the eve of the Babylonian captivity to express his belief that God would bring the Israelites back there eventually (cf. Jer. 32:6-15). One does not usually bury his family in a place unless he considers it his home and plans to be there a long time.
The writer noted twice that Hebron was within the land of Canaan (vv. 2, 19) and stressed repeatedly that the negotiations for the land were official (vv. 10, 13, 16, 18). There was not doubt that this part of the land now justly belonged to Abraham and his heirs.
"This verse [v. 20] is a conclusion to vv. 2-19. It seems strange appearing after v. 19--which would have been a reasonable note on which to conclude. Its placement here points out that the crucial element in this chapter is not Sarah's death, but Abraham's acquisition of land from outsiders. As such, it is a harbinger of things to come."601
"The very fact that Abraham buried Sarah in the land of Canaan is proof of his unwavering faith. Knowing that his descendants would have to endure four hundred years of bitter bondage in a foreign country (15:13), he looked beyond that to the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises."602
Isaac and Jacob as well as Abraham used this burial site. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah were all buried here. Rachel's tomb was near Bethlehem.
The time of death should be the time when the godly proclaim their faith most loudly in view of our hope in God's promises.
Abraham's servant returned to Paddan-aram charged with the duty of finding a suitable bride for Isaac. He faithfully and resolutely fulfilled his task relying on God's faithfulness to prosper his journey and God's providence to guide him. God directed him to Rebekah.
The length of this story and the amount of detail included suggests that this incident played an important part in the fulfillment of the Author's purpose. The details show how God provided a wife and seed-bearer for Isaac and thus remained faithful to His promises to Abraham. God's working providentially through the natural course of events to accomplish His purposes clarifies His ways with humankind.
"The key idea in the passage is in the word hesed, loyal love' or loyalty to the covenant'--from both God's perspective and man's."603
"This . . . narrative is the most pleasant and charming of all the patriarchal stories."604
The structure of the four sections (1-9, 10-28, 29-61, 62-67) is again palistrophic (chiastic). The first and fourth sections take place in Abraham's household in Canaan, and the second and third record events in Rebekah's household in Aram.
The thigh may be a euphemism for the genitals (v. 2).605The ancients considered it to be the source of posterity and the seat of power (cf. 47:29).
"By putting his hand under Abraham's thigh, the servant was touching his genitals and thus giving the oath a special solemnity. In the ancient Orient, solemn oaths could be taken holding some sacred object in one's hand, as it is still customary to take an oath on the Bible before giving evidence in court. Since the OT particularly associates God with life (see the symbolism of the sacrificial law) and Abraham had been circumcised as a mark of the covenant, placing his hand under Abraham's thigh made an intimate association with some fundamental religious ideas. An oath by the seat of procreation is particularly apt in this instance, when it concerns the finding of a wife for Isaac."606
"That act would be significantly symbolic in this instance, for success of the mission would make possible propagation of posterity and fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant."607
"Isaac was not regarded as a merely pious candidate for matrimony, but as the heir of the promise, who must therefore be kept from any alliance with the race whose possessions were to come to his descendants, and which was ripening for the judgment to be executed by those descendants."608
Camels were relatively rare in this era, so the fact that Abraham owned 10 of them reflects his great wealth (v. 10; cf. Job 1:3).609
"Another striking feature of this story is that after introducing the new characters of Laban and his household, the writer allows the servant again to retell the narrative (vv. 34-39). But as with most repetitions in biblical narrative, the retelling is not a mere repeating. It is rather a reassertion of the central points of the first narrative. . . . As we overhear the servant recount more details, we see that the miracle of God's provision was even more grand than that suggested in the narrative itself."610
It was customary in Hurrian society to consult the bride before completing the marriage plans (vv. 58-60). Also the brother took the lead in giving his sister in marriage. Note that Laban, Rebekah's brother, was the principle negotiator who represented the family rather than Bethuel, her father (cf. v. 50), or her mother (vv. 53, 55). Another view is that Bethuel was simply too old or was under his wife's thumb, as Rebekah later "organized"Isaac.611The description of the family farewell also reflects Laban's leadership (vv. 59-60).612
Beer-lahai-roi, where Isaac lived and meditated (v. 62), was a place where God had previously answered prayer (cf. 16:14). This suggests that he may have been praying for God's will to be done in the choice of his wife.
"The final remarks (v. 67) again show that God's guidance in the mundane areas of life is good for those who put their trust in him. When Isaac took Rebekah as his wife, he loved her and was comforted with her after the death of his mother. In other words, Rebekah had taken the place of Sarah in the line of the descendants of Abraham."613
The significance of this long story in the larger context of special revelation is fourfold at least.
1. Primarily it demonstrates God's faithfulness to His promise to provide descendants for Abraham and, therefore, His trustworthiness. Along with this is the assurance that even though Abraham was about to die God would fulfill His promises in the future.
2. It reveals that God guides people who are seeking His will so they discover it.
3. It illustrates God's selecting a bride for His Son out of the world through the agency of His Spirit, which the New Testament teaches.
4. It provides a good model, in the servant, of one who responded properly to the work of God. Abraham's servant prayed before he acted, praised when God answered his prayers, and lived believing that God controls all the affairs of life.
"There are two themes, one more central, one more auxiliary, which are highlighted by the example story [in Genesis 24]: the faithful, prudent and selfless steward acting on behalf of his master as messenger, and the good wife as a gift from the LORD, the theme underlying much of the steward's action."614
Before Abraham died, he made sure that God's covenantal blessing would be Isaac's by sending his other sons away. After he died, God confirmed his decision by blessing Isaac.
"In the short span of one chapter, the writer shows how Isaac's entire life was a repetition of that which happened to Abraham. Thus the lesson is that God's faithfulness in the past can be counted on in the present and the future. What he has done for the fathers, he will also do for the sons."615
