# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ship, even every animal of the earth</em>- God is in covenant relationship with the animals. But such a covenant was obviously unilateral. Perhaps the information about the animals was added in order to underline how God’s covenant with man was likewise unilateral; it was what God wanted to do for man, rather than a demand from man. This is grace. And although we have no contractural duty to respond, yet we do respond; we cannot be passive to such grace; see on :9.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those within the ark represented those saved in Christ. It's difficult to work out the difference in symbology between the animals, and Noah and his family. But the animals also were finally included in the new covenant made after the ark had performed its saving purpose. So we are led to speculate that there is a class of people other than those secured "in Christ" who will somehow be finally saved, having been preserved from the latter day judgments which the flood waters represent. This same teaching is found in the way that the blood of the Passover lamb seems to have secured the salvation of the firstborn of both Israel and the animals who were brought (by others) within the blood covered houses (<em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will establish My covenant with you: all flesh will not be cut off any more by the waters of the flood, neither will there ever again be a flood to destroy the earth</em>- "Ever again" or "any more" (AV) sounds as if destruction of the earth by flooding had happened several times before. It's almost as if the God of all grace is showing Himself progressively gracious to earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it before several times, but now I promise you humans, you new race of inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be shown through My Son, that I'll never do it again'. 2 Peter 3 alludes to the flood, but says that the agent that will be used to destroy the <em>eretz </em>or land of the last days will be fire. A similar level of destruction is coming, but by fire and not water.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations</em>- Covenants of those days had a token or material symbol associated with them. But they also featured requirements from both sides; as noted on :9, God’s grace is such that the covenant He now made was simply a requirment on His side. The covenant was with the animals too- and clearly that too was a one-sided agreement. The token of the new covenant would be the blood of God’s Son, just as the blood of the lamb was a "token" (<em><a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a></em>), perhaps memorialized in the communion bread and wine, just as circumcision was the token of the covenant with Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 17:11'>Gen 17:11</a></em> s.w.).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth</em>- The sign of the rainbow is described as God hanging up ('setting') His bow. To hang up your bow was an idiom for ceasing from conflict (<em><a href='B:420 3:9-11'>Hab 3:9-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 7:13'>Psa 7:13</a></em>). It was as if Yahweh the warrior was laying aside His bow, ending His conflict with mankind. The contemporary flood myths articulate all this in terms of there being a dispute amongst the gods; some wanted to destroy mankind, others wanted to show mercy; some regretted the earlier judgments against mankind, others didn’t; some wanted to assure mankind that he wouldn’t be destroyed; others argued that he must face the consequences of his sin. Here the Biblical record is so amazingly different. All these emotions are portrayed as occuring within the one and only God. As humanly incomprehensible as it is, that an all powerful, all knowing Being could have such conflicting emotions, this is without doubt the God whom the Bible reveals to us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Babylonian Epic Of Creation (6:82) claims that after Marduk's victory, he set his bow in the sky and it became a constellation. He also supposedly used his bow to shoot arrows at the clouds which caused the deluge. "So, too, the pagan Arabs related of one of their gods that after discharging arrows from his bow, he set his bow in the cloud". These myths are alluded to and corrected by the statement that God’s bow is simply the rainbow, a purely natural phenomenon which is merely an optical feature and certainly not a literal bow of any god. Yahweh's bow, the rainbow, is a symbol of His grace and love towards His creatures. The later Old Testament repeatedly uses the idea of the true God shooting His arrows as a figure of His judgment of His enemies and salvation of His people (<em><a href='B:420 3:9'>Hab 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 3:11'>Hab 3:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:2'>Psa 38:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 64:8'>Psa 64:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:17'>Psa 77:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 144:6'>Psa 144:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:4'>Lam 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 3:12'>Lam 3:12</a></em>). The whole mythical, pagan idea of a god having a literal bow and arrows is thereby deconstructed. The question arises, however, as to why Moses is alluding to Babylonian myths which were current only centuries after his time. My response is threefold. Firstly, God could have inspired Moses to speak in terms which would later take on relevance to the myths which God foresaw would arise. Secondly, the Babylonian myths may well have developed from myths which were current in Moses' time. A third possibility is that the Pentateuch was re-written under Divine inspiration whilst Judah were in captivity in Babylon, and the historical accounts presented in such a way as to have relevance to the Marduk worship and other Babylonian mythology which surrounded God’s people in Babylonian captivity.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rainbows being experienced worldwide doesn't mean that the flood was therefore global. Moses under inspiration wrote for the Israelites, to enable them to make sense of their world, and he explained to them that they were to understand that the world wouldn't be destroyed by water again. However 2 Peter 3 seems to say that the heavens and earth of Peter's time would be destroyed not by water but by fire, after the pattern of what God did at Noah's time. This passage has some relevance to AD70- which was a destruction of the Jewish system in the land of Israel, not worldwide. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There's another way to read <em><a href='B:10 9:13-17'>Gen 9:13-17</a></em> which I offer not in any dogmatism but for reflection. It may not mean that God intends us to look at rainbows and remember His covenant; it may be that God sealed the covenant He made at that time by bringing a cloud over the earth and displaying in it a bow or arrow (the Heb. translated "bow" also means an arrow and is thus translated in places). God set or "hung up" (the Hebrew is translated that way elsewhere) His bow- as if to say, 'My bow and arrows are now hung up. I'm through with judgment by this flood. It's over. I've hung up My bow / arrows'. YHWH shooting arrows is a figure for His judgment in later Scripture. So it's a bit of an assumption that God’s talking about rainbows here. A Divine covenant was typically sealed by a one-time token, e.g. His covenant with Abraham by the token of passing between the animal pieces. The token of a covenant was therefore a one-time act, not something like rainbows which are ongoing. The covenant was between God and Noah and also all animal flesh on the earth at that time. The token of that covenant was therefore relevant to Noah not humanity generally. So it would make sense if there was some theophany to Noah involving awesome clouds and a special display of God’s now hung up bow / arrow over it. God set His bow in that cloud, the record states. But rainbows don't exist at any location in the clouds; they are an optical phenomenon in the eye of the observer. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God did this so as to "remember" His covenant; but "remember" carries the idea of God marking it, this is what He did to mark the covenant He had just made as a one time demonstration to Noah. Surely it can't mean that whenever God sends rain, He sees the rainbow and remembers in the sense of "Ah yes, now I remember, I'm not supposed to use rain to kill people". People still die by flooding today and I guess some of them drown within sight of rainbows... and the survivors likely watch rainbows as they mourn their dead. The literalistic readings of the rainbow seem to create more questions than they solve. They also depend upon the assumption that there were no rainbows before the flood, and this was a special creation; but rainbows are observed in mist (e.g. over waterfalls or wave spray) as well as rain clouds so I somewhat doubt there were no rainbows seen before the flood. It's also an assumption that there was no rain before the flood- <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> simply states that before the creation of Adam there was no rain, possibly implying that the created plants didn’t grow until Adam was created to tend them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud</em>- The Hebrew doesn't have to mean 'whenever'. As suggested on :13, this could have been a one time event. Perhaps it was some foreshadowing of the bringing of a cloud at the crucifixion? </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the rainbow being a ‘reminder’ to God not to destroy the earth again with a flood is rather hard to understand when applied to God. But if this is a reminder to the Angels, who brought the flood in the first place, this makes more sense (<em><a href='B:10 9:16'>Gen 9:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh- </em>"To destroy" is Heb. 'to cut off'. Having crossed the Red Sea, God sealed His covenant with Israel at Sinai. After emerging from the ark, God made a covenant with Noah. And circumcision was the entry point of covenant relationship with God. The record of these Old Testament occurrences also brings out the converse- what happened to all those who were not in covenant with God, who had not received the typical 'baptism'. The unbaptized Egyptians were "cut off"" (<em><a href='B:20 9:15'>Exo 9:15</a></em>); "all flesh" that was not baptized into the Christ-ark was "cut off" (<em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em> AV). "The uncircumcised man child... that soul shall be cut off" (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>). The New Testament matches this by the oft repeated teaching that outside of Christ, there can be no salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth</em>- The rainbow is to remind men of the essential salvation and patience of God. And yet He describes it as reminding<em> Him</em> of His promise of salvation- as if He might forget. This is the kind of language of limitation which is so common in the Bible. It could be explicable by referring it to Angels; or it could be that God presents Himself in human terms, without strict attention to who He actually is. For by nature He does not "forget" or need reminding. This would mean that those who may misunderstand God in some theological areas can still have a legitimate relationship with Him; just as God presented Himself here as 'needing a reminder'.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God set the rainbow in the sky so that when <em>He </em>looks upon it, He will remember His covenant with Noah. The pronouns seem wrong; we would expect to read that the rainbow is so that when<em> Noah</em> looked upon it, he would remember... but no. God condescends to man to such an extent that He invites Noah to understand that when <em>he</em> remembered the covenant with Him, God does likewise. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to Noah, This is the token of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth</em>- I have suggested above that the bow was displayed at just one time, or just in the experience of Noah and his sons, as a token of the covenant God had made with them. The covenant was between God and "all flesh that is on the earth / <em>eretz</em>", at that time. God is not in covenant relationship with literally all people upon the planet. This leads us to again conclude that the idea is not that whenever rainbows appear anywhere on earth, this is a reminder that God is in covenant relationship with all people on earth. Rather was the bow (which may not have been a rainbow as we now understand them) revealed in some kind of special theophany to assure Noah and his family that there would never again be a flood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Noah who went out from the ship were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham is the father of Canaan</em>- This may be in order to emphasize that Canaan was born after the exit from the ark; and therefore the incident involving him and Noah's drunkenness would have occurred quite some years afterwards.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These three were the sons of Noah, and from these, the whole earth was populated</em>- This makes more sense when understood as referring to the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. Genesis 10 provides the details; all the listed descendants of Noah refer to peoples dwelling within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah began to be a farmer, and planted a vineyard</em>- It could be argued that <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> was commanding Noah to cease being a crop farmer and instead dominate and eat animals. One disobedience, or taking of a lower spiritual level, often leads to greater temptation in other areas. And this is what happened with Noah. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Gilgamesh Epic specifically records that Utnapistim gave the workmen wine to drink whilst they built the ark (Tablet 9, lines 72-73). The Biblical account appears to consciously contradict this by stating that Noah was the first to make wine- and he did this <em>after</em> the flood. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He drank of the wine and got drunk. He was uncovered within his tent</em>- Noah was a survivor, and all survivors struggle with "Why me?". In his case, he now had no competition. He was ruler of the world. There was no man to oppose him as king of the world. But he couldn't handle such great salvation. He got drunk. Lot likewise got drunk after his salvation by grave from Sodom. Man cannot handle well these ultimate realities, and often turns away from the good news of them and even the experience of them.
See on <em><a href='B:10 8:10'>Gen 8:10</a></em>. There's a juxtaposition here between God’s wonderful covenant being followed by Noah getting drunk in response to it. Despite having been given a wonderful, one sided covenant of Divine grace. We too find it hard to cope with the huge import of God’s grace. It’s not something we merely accept with a smile, thinking “Oh how sweet”. The enormity of it is riveting and very demanding. And Noah couldn’t handle it. Surely Noah knew all about alcohol, for his generation were partying right up until the flood came. If they had developed iron smelting technology by Genesis 5, they surely knew about alcohol. It is stressed that only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives entered and left the ark. By the time Noah gets drunk, Canaan had been born to Ham and was at least a young adult. So we cannot think that Noah got drunk from ignorance as to the effect of wine, nor that it happened immediately after leaving the ark. Noah maybe had weaknesses which aren't recorded in the record of his earlier life. Peter reasons that God saved Noah by the flood (<em><a href='B:670 3:20-21'>1Pe 3:20-21</a></em>); God saved Lot by destroying Sodom and Noah by destroying his surrounding world, because He knows how to deliver the godly from temptations (<em><a href='B:680 2:5-9'>2Pe 2:5-9</a></em>). It could be that had God not done this, they too would've been caught up in the evil around them, so powerful was it. Hence <em><a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a></em> speaks of the flood as "the waters of Noah". It was Noah's flood, the flood required for him, as well as to judge the world. HE was saved by grace rather than his good works (<em><a href='B:10 6:8'>Gen 6:8</a></em>). The Mesopotamian myths speak of how the hero of the flood (cp. Noah in the Biblical account) was raised to divine, immortal status. <em><a href='B:10 9:29'>Gen 9:29</a></em> comments simply upon Noah: "And he died". In the myth of Utnapishtim, the one who survives the flood &nbsp;is turned into a hero and becomes a god. But of course Moses’ inspired record is different. The flood story ends with Noah dying- not becoming a god. And Noah not only remains human, but he remains <em>very</em> human- because he goes out and gets blind drunk after he comes out of the ark. Moses’ point is surely to show that real human lives really do intersect with Almighty God’s work, words and actions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside-</em> The sin of Ham in relation to Noah's drunkenness included the fact that he told his brothers about Noah's shame (<em><a href='B:10 9:22'>Gen 9:22</a></em>). This incident seems to be alluded to by Paul when he says that it is a shame to speak of what sinners do in secret (<em><a href='B:560 5:12'>Eph 5:12</a></em>). A large amount of the communication which would be called 'gossip' includes the communication of sinful things which would be better not entering the minds of saints in any case- one tends to gossip about a neighbour's adultery rather than his lost cat. The sin of Ham is presented as telling his brothers about their father’s sin. The word "outside" gives the impression of seeing something in privacy, and then going outside and telling it to others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it on both their shoulders, went in backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were backwards, and they didn’t see their father’s nakedness- </em>"Covered" is a related word to the ‘covering’ of the ark (<em><a href='B:10 8:13'>Gen 8:13</a></em>). As they had been covered by God and thus saved, so they sought to cover the sin of another. Our experience of covering in Christ should be similar, not gossiping of others’ sin but seeking to cover it (s.w. <em><a href='B:240 17:9'>Pro 17:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 10:12'>Pro 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:13'>Pro 11:13</a></em>). There is a direct allusion to this incident in <em><a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a></em>: “A prudent man covers (s.w.) shame”. What they did to Noah is what we should do in response to our covering / atonement in Christ. Covering others’ sin isn’t the same as turning a blind eye to it; it involves conscious forgiveness, but then the covering of it in the sense that God also covers sin and doesn’t mention it against us ever again.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Their faces were backward" uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:20 33:23'>Exo 33:23</a></em>, where God hides His face from Moses and only His "back" is seen. The verbal similarities between the two incidents are pointed. Perhaps Moses in recording this incident is suggesting that he felt like drunken Noah, and God showed the same grace to him as Noah's sons showed to their drunken father by not looking upon his sin and nakedness.</p><p>Uncovering of nakedness was an idiom for incest. Possibly Ham slept with Noah's wife, Ham's own mother, whilst Noah was drunk. This would explain the otherwise strange cursing of Canaan for Ham's sin; although this requires us to understand this as uttered after the child was born. Of this was the outcome of the incest, then all makes sense. This would then be the situation of Dt. 23:1 "A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt". To uncover your father's nakedness was to uncover your mother's nakedness: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is the nakedness of your father" (Lev. 18:7,8). Such things are described as the practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians, the descendants of Ham. Hence Gen. 9:22 stresses how "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father". Mem slept with their fathers' wives in order to usurp them. Think of Absalom with David's concubines (2 Sam. 15:20-23), Reuben's relations with Bilhah (Gen. 35:22; 49:3,4), David with Saul's concubines (2 Sam. 12:8), and Adonijah's attempt to acquire David's wife Abishag (2 Kings 2:13-25). This is also condemned in Ez. 22:10. So we can conclude Ham was trying to do this to Noah. He showed no gratitude for the great salvation his father had achieved. Surely the roots of this tension with his father would have been there whilst the ark was being built and during the time of living in the ark. And yet for all this, Ham was one of those reoresenting the faithful who will be finally saved, according to Heb. 11. The ungodly world was destroyed but Noah and his family saved, Peter argues. Ezekiel likewise implies that Noah saved his family. And so Ham will be saved, despite all this. Just as Noah himself after the flood was set up as a second Adam but failed like Adam. Yet he will be saved. It's all of grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done to him</em>- There is a clear similarity with Lot, who got so blind drunk that he didn’t realize what was happening whilst his daughters had sexually abused him. And yet Lot, like Noah, is still presented as "righteous" overall. The similarities may suggest that there was some kind of sexual abuse of Noah by his grandson Canaan. To uncover or 'see (a relative's) nakedness' is an idiom used for sexual relations throughout Leviticus 18. The fact Ham and Japheth <em>covered</em> his nakedness may mean that they did <em>not</em> 'uncover his nakedness' in the sense the idiom is used in Leviticus 18; they didn’t participate.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Canaan is cursed</em>- As suggested on :24, this could be because Canaan had sexually abused him. But another approach is possible. Noah thrice rails against Canaan (:26,27). Why, seeing that the shame had been done to him by Ham, Canaan's father? This seems a classic example of transference- people often focus their anger not against the one who has hurt them, but against that person's relative, family or cause. We should deal with persons directly, perceiving the value and meaning of the human person; and not deflect the relationship onto others as Noah appears to have done. The curses placed by Noah have no fulfilment (contrary to many racist and misguided attempts to force such a fulfilment). The story ends with a huge spiritual anticlimax, although later reference to Noah shows that he was judged faithful overall. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will be servant of servants to his brothers</em>- If this is addressed to Canaan, then we can assume that Ham had had other children by this stage, placing the incident some time after the exit from the ark. But as noted above, Noah appears to be talking to Ham, when he is referring to Canaan; he was making the son guilty for the father’s sin, and vice versa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant</em>- According to :25, Canaan was to be the servant of his brothers. But here he is to be servant to Shem. Again we see a confusion between Ham and his son Canaan. It could simply be because Noah was drunk and confused when he uttered these words; or he could be practicing some kind of guilt by association, making the son suffer for the father’s sins, or vice versa. The Hebrew could mean 'May Shem be blessed by Yahweh, his God'. We wonder why Shem is singled out for the highest and first blessing; for Japheth is to be enlarged, but to still dwell in the tents of Shem (:27). Perhaps Noah was elevating Shem to the status of firstborn which Ham had previously enjoyed. Or maybe Shem did some specific act of kindness in trying to shield Noah's shame.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>May God enlarge Japheth. Let him dwell in the tents of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant</em>- "Japheth" means 'enlarged', so there is a play on words here. Noah wishes that Japheth experiences what his name meant. But he is still to dwell in the tents of Shem, who was to be blessed above all. To 'dwell in the tent' of someone meant to be subservient to them (<em><a href='B:230 120:5'>Psa 120:5</a></em>). So clearly Noah is establishing a hierarchy here amongst his sons. There is nothing in the record which suggests that Shem did more than Japheth for Noah. But he is given a great blessing here; and again, Canaan was to be servant to Japheth as well as to Shem. The descendants of Japheth and Shem are listed in chapter 10, and there is no particular evidence that these blessings and cursings were actually fulfilled. They were uttered as Noah awoke from his drunken stupour. Likewise not all the blessings uttered by Jacob came particularly true for all his sons. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Noah lived three hundred fifty years after the flood</em>- This meant he died just around the time Abraham was born. We are invited to see an unbroken line of the faithful continuing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years, then he died</em>- The Mesopotamian myths speak of how the hero of the flood (cp. Noah in the Biblical account) was raised to divine, immortal status. <em><a href='B:10 9:29'>Gen 9:29</a></em> comments simply upon Noah: "And he died".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now this is the history of the generations of the sons of Noah and of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood</em>- Thoughtful readers of Genesis must have wondered at the rubric "Now these are the generations of...". This phrase, the <em>toledoth </em>(Hebrew for "generations") formula, is used to introduce both genealogies and also narratives. Why not say "Now this is the story / account / history of Joseph"? Why describe a narrative as a genealogy? Why preface genealogies and narrative histories as if they are one and the same? I suggest that the inspired writer of the Bible's opening book wished to establish the point that history gives birth to the future, history is pregnant, and not dry, dead and finished. And God’s history especially demonstrates that the "generations" somehow repeat themselves over history, in that situations and character types recur over time in a Divinely planned manner.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It has been observed that in none of the flood myths is there anything like the table of nations of Genesis 10, which seeks to explain how the area affected by the flood was subsequently repopulated. However, the 70 peoples mentioned in Genesis 10 are clearly meant to be understood as representative of the wholeness of peoples. The point is being made that all tribal groups have one common origin, either in Adam or in one of Noah’s sons. Remember that Moses was writing against a background of tribalism, where groups were persuaded that their group alone was the master race, and all foreigners were to be despised. The value of persons inspired by the Genesis record rose far above this petty tribalism. And for all our apparent sophistication, it’s evident that our world is just as much full of tribalism as it ever was. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The surrounding myths all emphasize how depleted humanity after the flood started to re-grow in size by miraculous means- the Atrahasis Epic claims that magic incantations of the god Ea over 14 lumps of clay gave birth to many new humans after the flood; the Greek flood tradition asserts that Deucalion threw stones which turned into men. The Biblical record states simply and realistically how the population re-grew through natural procreation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Genesis 10 lists 70 nations- see on <em><a href='B:20 24:9-11'>Exo 24:9-11</a></em>. Luke records that the Lord sent out 72 preachers (<em><a href='B:490 10:1'>Luk 10:1</a></em>). The Jews understood that there were 72 nations in the world, based on the LXX of Genesis 10. Surely Luke’s point is that they went only to the Jews, thus highlighting the gap between the disciples’ understanding at the time, and the Lord’s further reaching intention of a mission to the Gentiles.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>After the flood, we come to the record of Babel. This is prefaced by some genealogies. The record speaks as if Shem, Ham and Japheth were the only people living on ‘earth’. Once we take this to mean ‘the land’, things are much easier. These three men were ancestors of the Middle Eastern races (as provable within the pages of the Bible itself), but not of any others. The idea that the black peoples descended from Ham / Canaan and were to be servants is sadly a 19th century piece of racism, that has far too much acceptance in our community. The tension between the children of&nbsp; Shem and Canaan has been worked out between the Jews and Canaanites, not white and black. The Canaanites which we read of in the Bible as dwelling in the land were quite simply the descendants of Canaan / Ham. Interestingly, we read of men like Magog, Gomer, Meshech, Tarshish, Asshur, Elam, Aram… all of which occur in prophecies like Ezekiel 38, as the latter day enemies of Israel. The origin of these peoples is not in Eurasia; they are the ‘people of the land’, the neighbours and relatives of Israel. The peoples of the land spoke one language in the sense that they all had the same intentions- to build a tower, and live together in one place, in Babylon / Babel. Previously we have been informed that the sons of Noah were divided “in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families” (<em><a href='B:10 10:5'>Gen 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 10:31'>Gen 10:31</a></em>). So when in chapter 11 we are told that they had “one language” this must refer to their unity of intent rather than them all using the same lexical items. They were scattered from Babylon / Babel into all parts of the land (i.e. that promised to Abraham). The descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth weren’t literally scattered into the whole planet. If the flood was local, then there would have been plenty of other people alive in other parts of the planet. </p><p>Gen. 12:1-3, the promises to Abraham, has a clear connection with the language repeatedly found in the table of nations in Gen. 10. "Country" (:1), "peoples" (:3), "nation" (:2) and "people/ race" (:1) are terms used throughout Gen. 10. The idea seems to be that all those nations are listed in Genesis 10 in order to help us understand what God promised Abraham. He was promised the inheritance of all the people, nations, countries and races of Gen. 10. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras</em>- These and other names here occur in the list of nations in Ezekiel 38 who will invade Israel in the latter days, and we see that they are therefore all within the territory of the<em> eretz</em> promised to Abraham. And that is precisely the situation we see developing there today. The idea that "Japheth" refers to western Europe is mere fancy; the context here clearly explains that these are the nations living in the <em>eretz</em>. "Madai" refers to the Medes. "Tiras" is Tyre; and clearly Meshech refers to an area within the <em>eretz</em> and not to Moscow; and likewise with Tubal.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that out of Noah's three sons, fewest descendants are listed for Japheth. And there is no suggestion in this genealogy that they lived "in the tents of Shem", as Noah had predicted in his half drunken cursing of Ham and blessing of Japheth. This would suggest that his cursings were just that, the cursings of a man awaking with a hangover... and are not to be taken as actual prophecies of the future relationships between the sons.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah</em>- Ashkenaz was one of the nations which overthrew Babylon (<em><a href='B:300 51:27'>Jer 51:27</a></em>). Again, we're dealing with a people within the <em>eretz</em> and not outside of it. I would argue that the Bible has very little to specifically say about the peoples beyond the <em>eretz</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim</em>- Tarshish is a relative of Togarmah (:3), Meshech and Tubal (:2). This confirms my suggestion on Ezekiel 38 that Tarshish is with the other invaders and not against them. Tarshish may be another name for Tyre. The Tel Amarna tablets mention some of these names as peoples in the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of these were the islands of the nations divided in their lands, everyone after his language, after their families, in their nations</em>- The same idea of nations, languages and families is found in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> and <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; the converts from them may refer therefore to latter day converts made within the <em>eretz</em> from all the nations and families found there. "The islands" is an idiom and not to be taken literally. Some interpret it as meaning a people who could be reached by sea, or "coastlands". But not all the nations listed inhabited coastlands, and so I don't find this satisfactory. "Islands" is literally "spots", we might better understand it as meaning simply "locations". The same Hebrew word is translated "country" in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:300 47:4'>Jer 47:4</a></em>, and is parallel with "places" in <em><a href='B:430 2:11'>Zep 2:11</a></em>. <em><a href='B:290 11:11'>Isa 11:11</a></em> lists a number of nations and summarizes them as being "the isles". And <em><a href='B:290 20:6'>Isa 20:6</a></em> apparently speaks of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as "the inhabitants of this isle", meaning 'this place'. "The isles" are "the ends of the land", the areas on the borders of the <em>eretz</em>, in <em><a href='B:290 41:5'>Isa 41:5</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's possible that :5 refers to all the descendants of Noah; that they were the sole origin of the nations in the <em>eretz</em>. But it could also be that :5 refers specifically to how Japheth was indeed "enlarged" and spread abroad as defined here.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan</em>- The Canaanites were therefore under Noah's curse to be subservient to Shem. But as discussed on Genesis 9, it's hard to know whether to take Noah's cursings as any more than the cursings of a man awaking from a drunken stupor. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pan-Arabism will in the end come to its full term (however short-lived), in the final invasion of Israel. The Hebrew word translated “Libya” is also translated “Phut” or “Put”, which was another name for Libya in Bible times. “Mizraim” likewise is the Biblical name for Egypt. Significantly, Phut, Mizraim and Canaan were brothers (<em><a href='B:10 10:6'>Gen 10:6</a></em>). There is therefore a strong and valid idea of Arab brotherhood between the Palestinian Arabs (i.e. the Arabs living in Canaan or the land of Israel) and the Arabs of Libya, Egypt and the other countries in the surrounding Arab world. The Babylonian invasion of Judah was a type of the invasion of Israel by latter day ‘Babylon’, which will bring on the return of Christ. But this invasion (as at the time of the Assyrian invasion of Israel) was really by a confederacy of nations- including the Ethiopians, Lydians, Egyptians and Libyans (<em><a href='B:300 46:8-9'>Jer 46:8-9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:410 3:9'>Nah 3:9</a></em>). And history will repeat itself- in that these nations along with Babylon will invade Israel in the last days. But where history shall stop, the red line of human time come to a terminus, will be in the simple fact that this time, the Lord Jesus shall return to earth to establish God’s Kingdom here. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan</em>- Sheba and Dedan are found in Ezekiel 38 as amongst the enemies of Israel in the last days; see on <em><a href='B:330 38:13'>Eze 38:13</a></em>. The impression is given that all the nations surrounding Israel in the <em>eretz</em>, descendants of all three sons of Noah, will invade her in the last days.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Cush became the father of Nimrod. He began to be a mighty one in the land</em>- Nimrod founded Babel or Babylon (:10). The "top" or<em> rosh</em> of the Babel tower was to reach to heaven; as in <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, the <em>rosh</em> refers to a person who was being elevated, and we assume this person was Nimrod. Ham and his descendants were not therefore black Africans, as proposed by 19th century racist theologians. The connection is clearly with the "mighty ones" of <em><a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a></em>, for whose sake the earth was destroyed by the flood. Again, the potential for restoring Eden was messed up by human dysfunction. The term is used of the 'mighty ones' of Canaan who were to be subdued (<em><a href='B:60 6:2'>Jos 6:2</a></em>; Jdg . 5:13,23). Israel in the wilderness listening to Moses' teaching would have learnt that there had been 'mighty ones in the land', the very land they were now approaching, who likewise would ultimately come to nothing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He was a mighty hunter before Yahweh. Therefore it is said, Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before Yahweh</em>- Nimrod "the mighty hunter against the Lord" (Heb.) uses a word related to 'Gibbor', the title of Christ used in <em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em>.&nbsp;Nimrod appears to be a prototype anti-God and anti-Christ, and for this he was well known even then.&nbsp; <em><a href='B:10 10:10-11'>Gen 10:10-11</a></em> shows his characteristic of building cities in the Babylon/Assyria area.&nbsp;Seeing that "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel" (<em><a href='B:10 10:10'>Gen 10:10</a></em>), it is not unreasonable to assume that when "a man said to his neighbour, Go to, let us make brick" to build the tower of Babel, this is in fact referring to Nimrod (<em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em> A.V. mg.).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar- </em>Nimrod was therefore the instigator of the Babel building we read of in chapter 11. Perhaps the allusion is to how God created "in the beginning" (s.w.), as if Nimrod tried to make a new creation of his own device. We can therefore assume that idea of Babel, of building a ziggurat to reach heaven, began with Nimrod. In Isaiah 14, another king of Babylon says the same: "Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:&nbsp; I will sit also in the mount of the congregation (i.e. the temple mount), in the sides of the north (Jerusalem, <em><a href='B:230 48:2'>Psa 48:2</a></em>)... yet thou shalt be brought down... that (his children) do not possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities" (<em><a href='B:290 14:13-15'>Isa 14:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:21'>Isa 14:21</a></em>).&nbsp;This last phrase is definitely alluding to the record of Nimrod's city building program as detailed in <em><a href='B:10 10:9-11'>Gen 10:9-11</a></em>. This "king of Babylon" of Isaiah 14 can refer with equal relevance to either Nebuchadnezzar or Sennacherib,, both of whose invasions of Israel are typical of that which is to occur in the last days.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we note that all these places were within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham (e.g. Calneh is a place in Assyria, see <em><a href='B:290 10:9'>Isa 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 6:2'>Amo 6:2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah</em>- The going out of the land of Shinar (:10) presumably refers to how Nimrod's intention to build Babel was thwarted, and from there he went away from the area (he was scattered away from it, <em><a href='B:10 11:8'>Gen 11:8</a></em>) and built Nineveh, as a kind of replacement Babel. The AV reads "Out of that land went forth Asshur". The reference could therefore be to the son of Shem who had this same name (:22). In this case the point would be that the descendants of Shem and Ham committed apostacy together, lending weight to my suggestion on chapter 9 that Noah's cursing of Ham was but the ravings of an angry man awaking with a hangover.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city)</em>- There is nothing much known about Resen or Calah; yet one or both of them merits the title "the great city". Perhaps this title was because, as noted on :11, Nimrod had been seeking to rebuild Babel there. The same Hebrew term "great city" is used of the cities of Canaan which the Israelites who first heard this Mosaic history were intended to conquer (<em><a href='B:40 13:28'>Num 13:28</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Mizraim- </em>This is the usual word for "Egypt". The <em>eretz</em> extended to the river of Egypt, and so we can assume that this person lived in Egypt east of the Nile, rather than referring to "Egypt" as it is now defined.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Became the father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim</em>- Anamim may be related to the "anakim", the giant people who inhabited Canaan. Again we can discern how Moses was producing this material with the primary intention of explaining to Israel the origin of the peoples they were to encounter in Canaan. These people were mere men, descendants from the same Noah whom they too were descended from; and whatever their size or physical features, they were not to be unduly feared. We note the absence of Divine names in nearly all the descendants of Noah here listed; in contrast to the way that they feature in the names of those before the flood. The impression we get is that Noah's descendants failed to keep the faith, until it had totally died out and God called Abram and revealed Himself to him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pathrusim, Casluhim (which the Philistines descended from), and Caphtorim</em>- As noted on :13, one primary intention of this genealogy was to assure Israel that the enemies they were encountering in the <em>eretz</em>, such as the Philistines, were mere men; there was nothing superhuman about them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Canaan became the father of Sidon (his firstborn), Heth</em>- Sidon is known as a town in northern Palestine. Constantly, we encounter evidence that this genealogy describes the peoples of the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. Heth likewise lived in the land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:10 25:3'>Gen 25:3</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgashite</em>- The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:100 24:18'>2Sa 24:18</a></em>), and so often the Hivites, Jebusites and Amorites are spoken of as the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. There is no way that Canaan therefore refers to Africa and negroid peoples. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite</em>- These were the tribes through whom the Israelites would've travelled on their wilderness journeys; the Sinites lives around mount Sinai. Moses is providing historical and geographical context for the Israelites.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. Afterward the families of the Canaanites were spread abroad</em>- The same word is used for how the builders of Babel feared being "spread abroad" (<em><a href='B:10 11:8'>Gen 11:8</a></em>), and yet they were "spread abroad" after the confusion of languages (<em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>). Again this is evidence that the genealogy of chapter 10 is descriptive of what came to pass after the Babel incident in chapter 11. We read there of how the situation in chapter 10 came about; see on :20. The same word is frequently translated "scattered", and usually refers to Divine judgment. So we could read this as meaning that the Canaanites were scattered, spread abroad, after Babel, in judgment for wanting to resist that judgment; and for wanting to build the blasphemous ziggurat, a massive temple system intending to place themselves as God Himself. There is reason to think that in the last days a similar structure will be built by the same ethnic groups in the same land... and likewise judged.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we include Canaan himself, we have from :15-18 a description of 12 tribes of Canaan. They were a fake, imitation Israel; and were to be superseded by the 12 tribes of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as you go toward Gerar, to Gaza; as you go toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, to Lasha</em>- This note is included to demonstrate how 'their' land was to be later promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their languages, in their lands, in their nations</em>- As noted on :18, we are reading here of a situation which came about as a result of the judgment on Babel. For here we read of division according to their languages; and this was achieved through the judgment upon the Babel builders in chapter 11. We can conclude that the builders of Babel were all the peoples listed in chapter 10, who as a result of Babel were divided according to different languages. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Shem, the father of all the children of Eber-</em> "Eber" is understood as the root of the word "Hebrew". The idea can be 'one who crosses over', which is one of the basic characteristics of all God’s people.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born- </em>Shem, Ham and Japheth are described as all being born in the same year; perhaps Shem was the eldest because he came out first. Or maybe the curse of Noah upon Ham and Canaan was a way of giving the right of the firstborn to Shem, although he may not have been the firstborn at birth. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram</em>- Wherever these peoples later lived, they were at this time all within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash</em>- "Aram" is the word usually translated "Syria". Job lived in the land of Uz. "Mash" is "Meshech" in <em><a href='B:130 1:17'>1Ch 1:17</a></em>; the Meshech of Ezekiel 38 is to be interpretted as some people within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arpachshad became the father of Shelah. Shelah became the father of Eber</em>- "Shelah" like most of the names in this genealogy has a rather negative spiritual meaning; in this case, "missile". The impression given is that spirituality died out over these generations, until God started again with the call of Abram.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Eber were born two sons. The name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided. His brother’s name was Joktan</em>- This "division" refers not to plate tectonics, but to the division of the earth according to language which we will read of in chapter 11. Several times here in chapter 10, we find reference to the division which is described in chapter 11. The division of the <em>eretz</em> at Babel is therefore presented here as occurring four generations after the flood; although the Biblical genealogies frequently skip generations, and in this case, they must be compared with the information provided in 1 Chronicles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joktan became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah</em>- More sons of Joktan are recorded than for any other in this genealogy. Yet his name means "made little"; perhaps we are to understand that the one who was somehow made little was the one who became great, in terms of descendants. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah</em>- "Hadoram" meaning "high place", we again get the impression of unspirituality amongst these peoples. I have mentioned that this genealogy is explaining how indeed the descendants of Noah were scattered throughout the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham after Babel; where they later may have migrated to isn't in view here. But it is also noteworthy that the children of Joktan would appear to be located in the Arabian peninsular and what is now Yemen. The southern borders of the <em>eretz</em> are hard to define; perhaps we are to include these areas within it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Obal, Abimael, Sheba</em>- Most commentaries focus upon where these tribes ended up living later. But let's remember that we are here reading of how the descendants of Noah were scattered throughout the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham after the events of Babel. Where they may have migrated to afterwards is not what is in view here. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan</em>- There is a "Havilah" in :7, which may suggest that the lines of Ham and Joktan intermarried. This again would be evidence that the curses of Noah didn’t come into effect; for he presupposed that the lines of descent from his sons would be distinct, especially between Ham and the others. According to LXX notes, this "Jobab" is the Job of the book of Job. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their dwelling was from Mesha, as you go toward Sephar, the mountain of the east</em>- This could as well be translated "the mountain of ancient time". Perhaps the contrast is with Mount Zion; this was perhaps a centre of idolatry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their languages, in their lands, after their nations</em>- As noted on :18, the point is being made that the splitting up of the families was on the basis of language; and chapter 11 will explain how that came about. Chapter 11 is not therefore strictly chronological, but as often in the Hebrew Bible, a step backwards to explain how a situation just described has come about. The way that language differences were eclipsed within the true Israel by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost is another case of where the Genesis curses for disobedience are mitigated for God’s people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations. Of these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood</em>- As noted on :18, we have here a description of the scattered abroad ("divided") descendants of Noah in the <em>eretz</em>, but now in chapter 11 we will read how that division or scattering abroad came about- through the division of languages at Babel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The whole earth was of one language and of one speech</em>- "Language" could possibly refer to one language root. I have suggested that the Genesis history concerns the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham, and the peoples living upon it. This is not to say that there were not other peoples living elsewhere on the globe, with their languages. But those in the<em> eretz</em> had one language root; and this was miraculously broken up into various dialects to the point of being confusing. The Hebrew for "speech" here is not the same word used for "speech" later on in this record - this word can more suggests a purpose/desire, often a wrong one.&nbsp;The implication is that this one desire was to build the tower of Babel;&nbsp; the confounding of languages affecting all inhabitants of the earth shows that all the families of the earth were either in the Babel region or represented there.&nbsp;Truly it was a tower "which the children of men builded" (<em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>), bound together in unity by a common allegiance to this renowned king of Babylon.</p><p>If we take eretz as referring specifically to the land promised to Abraham, the idea could be that there were other languages on the earth; chapters 9 and 10 have explained there were already nations divided according to languages. But within the eretz there arose a policy of "one language" in order to unite the people who came to Shinar. Rather like Russian became the "one language" of the disparate peoples bound together within the Soviet Union. Thus we read that "it came to be" (:1) that they had one language. This was part of their intention to create "one name", one set of characteristics and values. Which were the antithesis of the YHWH Name. This was the essence of their sin- the making of an alternative Name, rather than the act of building a city and tower. The idea of a ziggurat was not to challenge the gods. Rather was the idea that at the top of it, there was an altar or some symbol intended to reach out to the god in heaven. This was seen as a 'gate' for the gods to come down to men upon. Akkadian babilu means 'gate of the gods'; but this was it seems turned into 'Babel', 'confusion'. And Yahweh alludes to this by saying that He will indeed come down- in judgment. They created their own system, their Name, their city, and their tower reached out to their god. They built the city from fear, "lest we be scattered abroad on the surface of the whole earth". The Hebrew has been rendered “so that we will not be captured and carried away to other lands”.  They clearly feared invasion and scattering into exile. The connection of course is with how Israel were to later do this, reaching out to other gods, rather than to Yahweh; making their own Name, rather than accepting His Name. Babel would have required many slaves to build; and we see from Gen. 10:8-10 that this was one of a series of cities founded by Nimrod, who was a warrior and "hunter", possibly of men. So we have the impression of an entire system and "name" developing, based upon aggression and conquest, seeking to solidify and defend itself through building a city and reaching out to their god through the ziggurat tower. We note that Nimrod was from Ham, who was cursed as a slave (Gen. 9:25; 10:6-8). It was as if he wished to uproot his Divine destiny by hunting and forcing others into slavery. So we can understand the reasons why Yahweh was to judge his system. They all had the same language, but they were cursed with division- which is typical of how God curses those who displease Him. "Babel" means 'confusion'. The divisions between them were so legendary that it was the name folks gave to the ruined city. Division and destruction are connected throughout the Bible. A house divided falls. And it is why any divided community is in fact experiencing God's displeasure. Having destroyed those who were attempting to make their name great, Yahweh will go on to choose Abram and make his name great (Gen. 12:3) through inserting the central part of the Yahweh Name into 'Abram', making him 'Abraham'. This is one of the connections between the Babel account and the story of Abraham which begins straight afterwards. The Babel builders wanted to make their name great, as do all unbelievers in some way. Whereas God's people ant to make His Name great, and to subsume themselves within that Name. The record of Babel leaves the earth's peoples divided and judged. But the purpose of God through Israel was to reunite them. Sadly Israel forsook the Name of their God, and became elitist and xenophobic, rather than including the Gentiles within the Yahweh Name. And so "Israel" was redefined to refer to all baptized into the seed of Abraham, the Lord Jesus. And that is why the table of nations in Gen. 10 is alluded to in the record of representatives of "all nations" who were baptized in Acts 2. All three branches [Shem, Ham and Japheth]  are represented in the Acts 2 list. The point of Acts 2 is that the people of different languages were united in Christ by baptism into the Name. Babel was undone- for those within the Israel of God. But yet again, the "Israel" of God divided and became exclusive and divisive. All who uphold that division amongst the seed of Abraham have therefore not grasped the intention of God in actually uniting people. Israel were a nation taken out of another nation (Dt. 4:34). The nations were to come in to them- not them to the world. The fulfilment of the promises to Abraham will therefore only be when representatives of "all nations" have entered into "Israel" and are united therein. And the Lord Himself predicates the time of His return upon the Gospel going into "all the world... to all nations" (Mt. 24:14), to all those in the table of nations of Gen. 10. Paul therefore states that the 'coming in' of "the full number of the Gentiles" will lead to the Deliverer coming to Zion; "and in this way all Israel shall be saved" (Rom. 11:25-27). The coming "in" of the Gentiles, into the Hope of Israel, thereby creates the true Israel, which shall thereby be saved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, as they travelled east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they lived there- </em>Moses' words in Genesis deconstruct later Babylonian myths. Perhaps the clearest case of this is in the record of Babel. The Babylonian myths boasted of the building of the city of Babylon and its tower / ziggurat. The tower of Babel was built in a plain (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>); and both Strabo and Herodotus mention that Babylon was built in a wide plain. The record of the tower being built with bricks is so similar to the Babylonian <em>Epic Of Creation</em>, Tablet 6, lines 58-61, which held that "For a year (the gods) made bricks" to build the ziggurat of Babylon. Their myths claimed that after the deluge, humanity came to Babylon and the Anunnaki deities, who had supported Marduk in his battle, built the city. But <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em> labours that it was "the sons of men" who built Babel. Cassuto describes the Genesis record as "a kind of satire on what appeared to be a thing of beauty and glory in the eyes of the Babylonians" (Umberto Cassuto,<em> A Commentary On The Book Of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992) Vol. 2 p. 227). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'coming down' of Yahweh to destroy man's evil intentions at Babel, points forward to His future intervention to judge the wickedness of men.&nbsp;&nbsp; The record of this in Genesis 11 is set against the background of Genesis 10. "As <em>they</em> journeyed from the east...<em>they</em> found a plain..." (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>) is in the context of the record of the growth and rapid expansion of the tribes of the <em>eretz</em> in Genesis 10. We recall that Adam was banished eastwards from Eden; this impression of eastward movement may suggest they were getting further and further from the sanctuary in Eden, and also moving eastward from Ararat ('holy mount'). I have suggested that the ark rested on mount Zion; eastward from there would lead to Babylon, or Babel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Travelled" means specifically to take up tent pegs, and the word is used multiple times later in the Pentateuch for the travellings of the Israelites in the wilderness. And it was at exactly that period when Moses was composing the Pentateuch, with the nomadic Israelites as the primary audience. The warning was not to commit idolatry as these earlier rebels had done; and to accept that keeping on a journey was part of God’s plan, rather than seeking to remain in one place. And in essence, that lesson needs to be learned by us today.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They halted their migration in a plain, the Hebrew suggesting a flat area bounded by rivers- which would fit Babylon. They had been commanded to spread over the land and subdue it; but like Adam with the same commandment, they decided not to. The descendants of Noah, which after a few generations would have numbered maybe 30,000 people, wanted to resist this; just as the early Christians resisted the command to take the Gospel into all the earth, despite the gift of languages giving them the opportunity to overcome language barriers. We see in these observations the power of conservatism within human nature; the desire for stability, the old and familiar, rather than the new. The Lord commented upon this (<em><a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a></em>). No matter how liberal and open minded we may consider ourselves to be, there is an almost overpowering inertia within us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A man said to his neighbour-</em> The origin of the sin punished at Babel was a man suggesting something to his neighbour. The record of the lies of Cain and the sins of the people at the time of the flood and later at Babel all clearly locate human beings as responsible for the very sins which the pagan myths blamed upon the gods, with the implication in the Gilgamesh Epic that man was created an inevitable sinner by nature and therefore not fully culpable for his sin. Such ideas have in their essence re-appeared in mistaken Christian theologies of later millennia. Sin and death were blamed upon the gods. Thus Gilgamesh was told by Siduri: “When the gods created mankind, they allotted death to mankind, but life they retained in their keeping” (Tablet 10, col. 3, 3-5). In these kinds of pagan ideas we see the essence of common ideas about Satan; the blame for sin and the human condition that arises from it is blamed upon some superhuman being.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Come- </em>Three times in this record (<em><a href='B:10 11:3-4'>Gen 11:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>) we read the phrase "Come" or "Go to" (AV) in the contexts of the men 'going to' in the building, and of God 'going to' in His dramatic intervention. It cannot be coincidence that this rare idiom occurs twice close together in <em><a href='B:660 4:13'>Jas 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:1'>Jas 5:1</a></em>.&nbsp;The context there is of warning believers not to build their own 'Babels' of wealth and monuments to human achievement, seeing that they would be suddenly destroyed by the Lord's coming.&nbsp;&nbsp; This in itself points to a latter-day application of this Genesis record-&nbsp; indicating that weak believers will get caught up in the latter day Nimrod's unity movement, and will benefit from it materially?&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let’s make bricks, and burn them thoroughly. They had brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar- </em>The record of the tower being built with bricks is so similar to the Babylonian <em>Epic Of Creation</em>, Tablet 6, lines 58-61, which held that "For a year (the gods) made bricks" to build the ziggurat of Babylon. Their myths claimed that after the deluge, humanity came to Babylon and the Anunnaki deities, who had supported Marduk in his battle, built the city. But <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em> labours that it was "the sons of men" who built Babel. Cassuto describes the Genesis record as "a kind of satire on what appeared to be a thing of beauty and glory in the eyes of the Babylonians". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The building materials here listed are appropriate to Babylon. I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 10:9-10'>Gen 10:9-10</a></em> that it was Nimrod who began the building project, and who was the <em>rosh </em>or head of the tower which was to be exalted to heaven. There is in the Babylon area a ruined tower which the Arabs call 'the tower of Nimrod'.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Let us make brick" is literally 'let us make ourselves Laban'.&nbsp; 'Laban' meaning 'white' came to be associated with 'brick' because the bricks were presumably made from white clay.&nbsp;This created the picture of a dazzling white tower, gloriously reflecting the desert sun - which suggests that the tower was a piece of religious symbolism, perhaps a mock temple. This impression receives Biblical confirmation in Zechariah 5.&nbsp;This chapter describes the corruptions of the Jewish and Christian apostasies;&nbsp;chapter 4 speaks of the building of the true temple in Jerusalem, whilst chapter 5 matches this with a description of a false temple being built "in the land of Shinar" (<em><a href='B:450 5:11'>Zec 5:11</a></em>).&nbsp;'Shinar' being used rather than 'Babylon' must be in order to take us back to the tower/temple which men built "in the land of Shinar" in <em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The religious associations of the tower are strengthened by the similarity of this tower built by the first king of Babylon on a plain and the statue built by Nebuchadnezzar on the plain of Dura, also in Babylon.&nbsp;&nbsp; It may be that the locations are identical.&nbsp;And there is a continuity of theme to be found in Arab leaders (kings of Babylon) showing a distinct liking for large monuments and religious imagery expressed in big building projects.&nbsp;Saddam Hussein, claiming to be the latter day Nebuchadnezzar, tried to rebuild Babylon and fill the area with quasi-religious towers and obelisks glorifying himself.&nbsp;"Let us make ourselves Laban" (v. 3) continues the Arab connections, seeing that Laban's persecution of Jacob typifies that of Israel by the Arabs, especially in the last days.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are other references to the persecution of Israel in the Babel record - the using of bricks and mortar to build a huge piece of religious symbolism recalls the work of Israel in Egypt (the same Hebrew word for 'bricks' occurs in the Exodus record).&nbsp;&nbsp;"Slime had they for mortar" (<em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em>) also contains echoes of Israel in Egypt.&nbsp;&nbsp;"Slime" is the same word as "mortar" in <em><a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a></em>, and "mortar" in <em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em> is the word translated "pitch" concerning how Moses' bulrush basket was made (<em><a href='B:20 2:3'>Exo 2:3</a></em>).&nbsp;This conjures up the picture of Amram bringing home some mortar from the building site in order to make that ark.&nbsp;These echoes of Israel under persecution are hard to make sense of until it is recognized that the context of this Babel passage is the account of Arab growth in Genesis 10, and that Babel was built under Arab auspices.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bearing in mind the certain Arab domination of Israel in the last days, it is surely justifiable to see in this record a hint of a latter day Arab-led coalition, which will perhaps express its grandeur in physical terms by the building of a structure.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This colossus being built of baked clay and mortar and being effectively destroyed by the Lord's 'coming down' inevitably connects with the feet of the statue which Daniel interpreted, also seen in Babylon. The feet were made of "miry clay", "mixed" (Heb. 'Arab').&nbsp; <em><a href='B:290 41:25'>Isa 41:25</a></em> also springs to mind, speaking of the second coming, "He shall come... he shall come upon princes as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay". It has been suggested that the image of Daniel 2 can be interpreted in a primarily Arab context, and we have shown that the Babel-builders are also primarily Arab.&nbsp;&nbsp; "<em>They </em>journeyed from the east... <em>they</em> said... <em>they</em> builded" in Genesis 11 refers to the people of the<em> eretz </em>listed in Genesis 10.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, Come, let’s build ourselves a city, and a tower- </em>The phrase "city and tower" is so often found in Babylonian writings with reference to Babylon; but the phrase is used of Babel in <em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>. The temple of Marduk in Babylon had a sanctuary, the Esagila- "the house whose head is in heaven" and a tower called Etemenanki, "the house of the foundation of heaven and earth". Marduk supposedly lived on the seventh storey. The Babylonian inscriptions speak of the ziggurat tower as having its top in Heaven. The Genesis record deconstructs all this. The tower of Babel was built by sinful <em>men</em> and not gods; the one true God came <em>down</em> to view the tower- its top did <em>not</em> reach to Heaven, and there is a powerful word play on the word Babylon, meaning 'the gate of Heaven' in their language, and yet 'Babel', the equivalent Hebrew word, means 'confusion'. What the Babylonians thought was so great was in God’s eyes and those of His people the Hebrews simply confusion and failure. The Genesis record goes on to show how that it was Abraham who had a great name made for himself (<em><a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a></em>), whereas the Babel builders failed in their desire to make a permanent name for themselves. God’s intention that mankind should spread out and fill the earth after the flood did eventually triumph over the builders of Babel-Babylon who tried to thwart it. <em><a href='B:430 3:9-11'>Zep 3:9-11</a></em> allude to the Babel record- at the time of Judah's restoration from Babylon, it was God’s intention to undo the effects of Babel and "change the speech of the peoples to a pure (united) speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve Him with one accord. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed ones, shall bring my offering". Those dispersed would then gather as one, i.e. Babel would be reversed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Our Lord appears to refer to the temple as "a tower" in <em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>, supporting the previous suggestion that there was a religious aspect to this tower.&nbsp;It is hard to avoid emphasizing that in our last days Arab leaders are eager to rebuild Babylon and other historic cities, seeing them as a token of their unity and common connection with a glorious Babylon of old which subdued Israel.&nbsp;The original Babel was built with "slime" (<em><a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a></em>);&nbsp; the Hebrew seems to refer to bitumen, literally meaning 'that which is brought up,' and today it is Arab oil money which is financing such building schemes.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is good internal reason to think that the Pentateuch likewise was re-written in places to bring out the relevance of Israel's past to those in captivity. Consider the use of the word <em>pus</em>, 'scatter'. It was God’s intention that mankind should scatter abroad in the earth and subdue it (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>); but it required the judgment of the tower of Babel to actually make them 'scatter' (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>). Thus even in judgment, God worked out His positive ultimate intentions with humanity. And this word <em>pus </em>is the same word used with reference to Judah's 'scattering' from the land into Babylonian captivity (<em><a href='B:330 11:17'>Eze 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:25'>Eze 28:25</a></em>). The intention, surely, was to show the captives that they had been scattered as the people had at the judgment of Babel / Babylon, but even in this, God was working out His purpose with His people and giving them the opportunity to fulfil His original intentions for them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whose top reaches to the sky- </em>This is a poor translation - the A.V. putting "may reach" in italics indicates that these words are not in the original.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Hebrew for "top" is <em>rosh</em>, familiar to students of <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, which correctly translates it as "chief prince".&nbsp;The chief leader of this tower was to reach unto and into heaven, and I suggested on <em><a href='B:10 10:9-10'>Gen 10:9-10</a></em> that Nimrod was this individual.&nbsp;Every Bible-minded student will race to Isaiah 14, where another king of Babylon says the same: "Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:&nbsp; I will sit also in the mount of the congregation (i.e. the temple mount), in the sides of the north (Jerusalem, <em><a href='B:230 48:2'>Psa 48:2</a></em>)... yet thou shalt be brought down... that (his children) do not possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities", as Nimrod had done (<em><a href='B:290 14:13-15'>Isa 14:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:21'>Isa 14:21</a></em>). The connection with Isaiah 14 confirms that this tower had religious symbolism, and that with the image of Daniel 2 suggests that the chief prince (<em>rosh</em>) of the image is based on Nimrod, the first king of Babylon.&nbsp;Daniel, of course, also made it clear that the head of the image was the king of Babylon, who was then Nebuchadnezzar.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When we read that the summit of Babel was to touch the heavens (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>), we find that the Hebrew phrase refers usually to persons, elevating their head. There are many uninspired parallel accounts of the building of Babel in contemporary literature- the Enuma Elish speaks of how the builders “raised high the head of Esagila toward the Heaven”. Clearly the tower was seen as headed up by a person, just as was the image of Daniel 2 and also that built by Nebuchadnezzar. These all indicate that the Lord Jesus will return to destroy a human system headed up by a specific, antiChrist individual.&nbsp;The Canaanite tribes were noted for the very high walls of their cities - "unto heaven" (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;This shows a continuity of theme between Babel and the tribes of Canaan.&nbsp;Significantly, God decided that nothing would be "restrained" from these people if their tower were completed - using the same Hebrew word translated "walled up" in <em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em> concerning the cities of Canaan.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole prophetic meta narrative of the Bible is in many ways a tale of two cities- Babylon and Jerusalem. There are times when Babylon masquerades as Zion- a false city of God with a false Messiah leading her. Babylon / Babel was a city built to reach unto Heaven, in contrast to the true city of God which comes down from Heaven (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em> cp. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>). And there are times when Zion in her apostacy has appeared as Babylon. But in the final conflict of the last days, these two cities will be literally pitted against each other. Zion will briefly succumb under the might and pride of Babylon, to rise again in eternal glory. It was in Babylon where Nimrod first built the tower of Babel, the first organized rebellion against God; and it was there that God first entered into open judgment of flesh and humanity <em>en masse</em>. And it is here likewise that His purpose with sin and His true people will likewise be fulfilled. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let’s make ourselves a name</em>-&nbsp; The new religious system was to replace God’s Name with their own. The image of Daniel 2 is fundamentally concerning the domination of Israel (the earth / land), and we have connected that image with the tower of Babel. The building of the tower is also linked to the persecution of Israel through various allusions to Exodus.&nbsp;The motive for building Babel (i.e. dominating Israel in the typology), is to stop the builders being scattered and to make them a common name (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;Prophecies like Psalms 83, as well as an awareness of current Arab politics, indicate that the motive for the final Arab invasion of Israel will be in order to unite the naturally disparate Arab peoples. But it is twice emphasized that the Lord's 'coming down' resulted in their being "scattered abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 11:8-9'>Gen 11:8-9</a></em>), using the very language which they used in v. 4 - "lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." This clearly connects with the little stone destroying the desolating image and scattering the remains of it worldwide.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lest we be scattered abroad on the surface of the whole earth</em>- Their conscious intention was to disobey the command to Noah's descendants to spread throughout the <em>eretz </em>&nbsp;and subdue it. The memory of the Flood would still have been reasonably fresh with the generation of Babel.&nbsp;&nbsp; After the Flood the nations were "divided in the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 10:25'>Gen 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 10:32'>Gen 10:32</a></em>); so perhaps the Canaanites building the city and tower so that they would not "be scattered abroad upon the earth" was a conscious effort to resist the judgments brought about by the Flood and its effects.&nbsp; We have shown that the Flood particularly represents the judgments of the last days, and in the typology of Genesis 11 it is these which the builders of Babel consciously try to avoid.&nbsp; This raises the question of how they will be so convinced that these judgments really are imminent. A display of the cherubim over Jerusalem (or a similar "sign of the son of man in heaven" ), or, of course, the actual second coming of the Lord, seem the only feasible explanations of their convictions.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower</em>- As if He had to search and come to have a closer look; this ‘language of limitation’ may refer to the Angels rather than God personally. "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded" – surely this language of limitation must be concerning the Angels, seeing that God is aware of all things. The Angelic response was "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language" (<em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>). This recalls&nbsp; the Angels' words of <em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em> "Let us make man in our image"- see notes there.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Which the children of men built</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em> above.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is what they begin to do. Now nothing will be withheld from them, which they intend to do</em>- The intentions of the people were clearly far more than simply building a tower. That was but a beginning- towards a fake kingdom of God on earth. The Hebrew for "begin" here is also translated "to profane", again showing the distinctly religious aspect of their actions in building the tower. But God wants to save; and so He didn’t allow such a system to fully develop. But it was not that God was as it were on the back foot; He didn’t want to allow the earth to reach a point where He would have to mass destroy as He had done at the flood. As ever, His judgments were to save, ultimately, rather than to punish for its own sake.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>With the world supporting them, and with a unity of mind never before experienced, the latter day Babel-builders will be able to gleefully relish the prospect of completely destroying the Jews and building their own religious system. <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> describes this period as "a time of trouble (for Israel) such as never was since there was a nation". "Since there was a nation" may well refer to the time of Babel, when the nations became more clearly defined. If this is indeed a Babel allusion, then the suggested connection between the building of Babel and the persecution of Israel is indeed confirmed. Yet Babel appears to be a symbol of apostate Israel in <em><a href='B:290 24:1'>Isa 24:1</a></em>: "The Lord maketh the earth (land) empty, and maketh it waste... and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof". The judgments to come upon the Babel builders will also come upon the faithless Israel of the last days.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Come, let us go down- </em>The same kind of language found in <em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>; see notes there. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech</em>- The languages of the peoples in the <em>eretz </em>were and are confused, words from one language are found in the others, but with different meanings. Arabic and Hebrew would be the classic example. And it was this closeness yet distance which created the interpersonal problems with which we are now familiar, and which led to the dispersal of the peoples from Babel. But comparing, say, Chinese with an Amazonian language doesn't yield that same sense. Again, it is the situation within the<em> eretz</em> which is always in view here. In God’s bigger purpose, the misunderstandings and divisions between persons were used to set the scene for Abraham's calling. And He works similarly today.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a definite similarity between the account of God’s intervention at Babel and that of His 'coming down' to Sodom. "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower (and 'noticed' how evil their aims were)... Let us go down..." (<em><a href='B:10 11:5-7'>Gen 11:5-7</a></em>). This is matched by “I will go down now, and see whether they (Sodom) have done altogether according to the cry of it... and there came two angels to Sodom" (<em><a href='B:10 18:21'>Gen 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:1'>Gen 19:1</a></em>).&nbsp;We have our Lord's authority for seeing this 'coming down' of the Lord to Sodom as typical of the second coming; the designed similarity with His 'coming down' to Babel indicates that we can read that incident likewise.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Yahweh scattered them abroad from there on the surface of all the earth. They stopped building the city</em>- As noted on :4, the scattering abroad was God’s intention, so that the <em>eretz</em> would be subdued. They had built Babel specifically so that they would not be scattered. So here we see God using judgment and division between persons in order to achieve His purpose. And likewise the endless divisions amongst God’s children, with each making their own missionary efforts, has in a strange way resulted in the wider spread of the Gospel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>How God 'came down' to destroy their plans is revealing as to His methods in the last days.&nbsp;There is no indication in Genesis 11 that the tower was actually destroyed, indeed, "Therefore <em>is</em> the name of it called Babel" (<em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>) implies that at least part of the building was still standing when the record was written.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was the very action of confounding their language that resulted in their scattering, "<em>so</em> (i.e. because of the confounding of their language) the Lord scattered them abroad" (<em><a href='B:10 11:7-8'>Gen 11:7-8</a></em>).&nbsp;"They left off" building (<em><a href='B:10 11:8'>Gen 11:8</a></em>) uses a Hebrew word meaning strictly 'to grow flabby', implying a gradual cessation rather than a momentous destruction.&nbsp;Likewise the persecutors of angel-protected Lot in Sodom (a certain type of the last days) "wearied themselves" in their efforts as a result of the Lord's 'coming down'.&nbsp;One of the 'plagues' that God threatens the Arab invaders of Israel with is that "a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them;&nbsp; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour" (<em><a href='B:450 14:12-13'>Zec 14:12-13</a></em>).&nbsp; This is how previous invasions had been overcome (<em><a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a></em>). Psalms 83 perfectly describes the Arab unity as they attack Jerusalem in the last days (vs. 3-5, 12), but concludes with the Psalmist praying that God would destroy them as He did Oreb and Zeeb (v. 11) - who were defeated as a result of God making their troops turn on each other (<em><a href='B:70 7:22-25'>Jdg 7:22-25</a></em>).&nbsp; It will largely be through this means that the image will be broken up and scattered worldwide, as the Babel builders were.&nbsp;&nbsp; In its continuous historic fulfilment, the different parts of the image subdued each other;&nbsp;for them to stand together in the last days shows that a unity must be placed upon them by their head and also the feet upon which they stand; only for this unity to be destroyed by the Lord's coming.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore its name was called Babel, because there Yahweh confused the language of all the earth. From there, Yahweh scattered them abroad on the surface of all the earth</em>- The stress that "there" the confusion occurred makes us wonder how exactly it occurred. The act of confusion occurred at a specific point in space and time, and yet affected all the descendants of Noah; who by that time might have been around 30,000. Perhaps all of them listed in Genesis 10 were present at Babel, which would mean that a fair "city" already existed there. They would have scattered from each other due to their misunderstandings and arguments- and yet this was God’s scattering of them. His judgments work in accord with human freewill. Thus God threw Pharaoh into the Red Sea; but he himself charged in there of his own free volition.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the history of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood- </em>The genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according to the same outline schema. See on :13,14. Abraham and Shem both had sons at 100 years old. And it is the very nature of Christian fellowship that God has arranged that our human lives likewise have elements of amazing similarity of pattern. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shem lived five hundred years after he became the father of Arpachshad, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- It should be noted that the Septuagint gives different ages and inserts other generations in genealogies such as this one. Yet the Septuagint is usually the version quoted by the inspired New Testament writers, including for passages where the Masoretic Text reads quite differently. This has large implications for the theory that Adam was created 4000 BC, and the six thousand year plan theory. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arpachshad lived thirty-five years and became the father of Shelah</em>- As noted on :11, the LXX differs here, adding in a generation, of Cainan. And this version is quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:36'>Luk 3:36</a></em>. And according to the LXX genealogies, Adam was not born 4000 years BC. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Shelah, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according to the same outline schema. See on :10,14. Both Arphachsad and Shelad each lived 403 years after the births of the eldest sons.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber</em>- Shelah, Peleg and Serug were each 30 when their first sons were born. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Shelah lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Eber, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- We note the decreasing lifespans as the generations proceed after the flood. We are left with the impression of everything going downhill, morally and physically- until the Lord starts again with humanity, through calling Abram.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eber lived thirty-four years, and became the father of Peleg</em>- Eber is mentioned four times here in :14-17, matching the special emphasis given to him in the genealogy of chapter 10. This was surely because he was the one whose name carried over as "Hebrew". </p><p>The genealogies provided here are not mere background information. When connected with those in Genesis 10, we are left with the impression that God chose one brother over another in the development of His purpose. Thus Peleg and not Joktan was to be the chosen brother. Just as the line of Shem was chosen over that of his brothers. We get no more information about the 'not chosen' line. No intrinsic moral reason is given for this. We are left with the impression of God's sovereign choice. And this sets the path towards God's choice of Abraham, of Jacob over Esau etc. The calling was ultimately of God's sovereign choice. And Paul will later cite this way of 'calling' as the parade example of God's grace. We cannot deny our calling; we have been called, whereas others have not been. And it is for us to respond, as well as never forgetting that responsibility. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eber lived four hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Peleg, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- Peleg was so named because around his birth, the <em>eretz</em> was divided; a reference to the division at Babel. See on <em><a href='B:10 10:25'>Gen 10:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Peleg lived thirty years, and became the father of Reu</em>- As noted on :10,13, the genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according to the same outline schema. Peleg, Serug (:22) and Shelah (:14) were each 30 when their first sons were born. We too can find uncanny similarities between our lives and those of others in the faith; or between our lives and Biblical characters. The same Divine hand is at work.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Peleg lived two hundred and nine years after he became the father of Reu, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The mention of "daughters" here, when this isn't always noted in the genealogy, perhaps suggests that they were significant to the early audience of the Pentateuch. But seeing that significance is now lost, we have no more details.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Reu lived thirty-two years, and became the father of Serug</em>- The common approach of seeking to extract meaning from the Hebrew names is in my judgment mistaken. They yield nothing- "Reu" means "friend" and "Serug" means "tendril"- apparently. And who knows what the names originally meant.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Reu lived two hundred and seven years after he became the father of Serug, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- The exact periods given suggest that Moses had access to some oral tradition, which under inspiration he now sets in stone, as it were.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Serug lived thirty years, and became the father of Nahor</em>- For the significance of having a child at 30, see on :18.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Serug lived two hundred years after he became the father of Nahor, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- As noted on :20, there is generally no significance in the meaning of the names. But as we get closer to Abraham, we note that "Nahor", "Terah" and "Haran" all have associations with idolatry. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and became the father of Terah</em>- As noted on :23, the meanings of Abraham's immediate ancestors all have associations with idolatry, confirming the note in <em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em> that Abram and his ancestors were idolaters. Out of that background, God chose a man who had the potential to be different. Another reading of "Terah" is that it means "One who tarries / remains", which would fit with his remaining in Haran and not going further towards Canaan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years after he became the father of Terah, and became the father of sons and daughters</em>- Nahor therefore died at 148, the shortest liver among the post-flood patriarchs. We wonder why exactly that was... seeing that his grandson Abram was to be the one chosen. It perhaps made Abram reflect upon the brevity of life and the failure of idolatry to offer real salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Terah lived seventy years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran</em>- Abram is mentioned first, although Haran was the firstborn (:29). This is a common theme in Genesis- that the younger and weaker is elevated by God’s grace to the place of the firstborn. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now this is the history of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran became the father of Lot</em>- This information is given twice (:26), to set the scene for the momentous event that was to happen- just one man was going to be chosen out of this family, and through his agreement in faith, God was to set up a line leading to salvation of all peoples. We note that there is no hint of an unbroken line of spirituality extending down the generations from Noah to Abram. Quite the opposite. We get the impression of a slide into disbelief and apostacy; and instead of destroying the <em>eretz</em> again, God by grace chooses a singular individual and invites him to be the father of a faithful tribe, which shall expand to fill there <em>eretz</em> and indeed the whole planet, on account of Abram and his seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldees</em>- As noted on :25, these early deaths in Abram's family experience may have all been part of the scene setting required to make Abram open to the idea of new life and realistic salvation. "Ur of the Chaldees" has been excavated, and archaeologists present it as perhaps the most developed and sophisticated city on the globe, and certainly in the area. Every indication is that Abram was from a wealthy family, living in luxury. But that was no barrier in itself to receiving the call. </p><p>The note is made that Haran died earlier than his father, leaving us to understand Lot (Haran's son) as the one without a father who took to Abram as his father. Abram could not have children by Sarai. And so it was natural to adopt Lot. The nephew, Lot, who lacked a father, became the effective son of Abram, the man who lacked children. But the command to separate from all family required this to be broken; and Abram would be given his own actual children. But Abram remained with Lot until Lot took the initiative to separate from Abram. We see in these things how the call of the Gospel is a deep and totally fundamental call to separation, even from some of the closest ties that bind, and from those things which we consider our necessary compensation for that which we lacked. Lot was not Abram's real son, just as Eliezer wasn't, nor was Ishmael. Abram, like us, was tempted to imagine that he had something to fill the voids in his life. But God's true blessings are the real thing, and no secular attempts can ever equal them. Thus the unfilfilled of our age may imagine that they have found some compensation, some filling of the void, in a hobby or career. But the blessings of the Gospel are the only and ultimate fulfilment and filling of the voids.    </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram and Nahor took wives; the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, who was also the father of Iscah</em>- Polygamy was widespread, especially amongst the wealthy. That Abram had apparently only one wife would have been noteworthy. This is not to say that he didn’t have others; the record zooms in upon Abram and Sarai. Likewise Isaac is presented as Abraham's only child, when we know from Genesis 25 that Abraham had a number of children by concubines; and Ishmael had already been born to him. "Iscah" is understood by some as another name for Sarah, seeing that she and Abram had the same fathers (<em><a href='B:10 20:12'>Gen 20:12</a></em>). The question remains as to why she is given a different name here; and yet if she isn't Sarah, then we wonder why one woman should be singled out for mention, when hardly any other women apart from Sarah are mentioned in the genealogies. Such behaviour was condemned under the law of Moses; but we are presented with a man who was in an ongoing situation which broke the law, who attained a righteousness greater than the law. Never was there any hint that Abram should have ended his marriage to Sarah because she was his half sister; and this may have significance for those who consider that marital failure must be put right by separation from current partners.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarai was barren; she had no child</em>- This must have been another factor in Abram's background which prepared him for the call he was to receive. His hopes would have been dashed; but in the promises he received, there was to be hope of a huge family and a "seed". But as with us, the promises of God in the Gospel are only attractive if firstly we have been through experiences which make them attractive. Seeing he married his half sister (<em><a href='B:10 20:12'>Gen 20:12</a></em>), the lack of a child is not surprising. But through all the miscarriages and broken hopes, they were being prepared as fertile ground upon which the seed of the Divine calling would fall. "Sarai" means 'princess'; but she had no child. It was the perceived role of a princess of a nation to bear children, who would become the kings of the nation. But she had none. She was surely suffering from the 'king who was never crowned' syndrome. And yet through her, a huge seed was to come. She was to become 'Sarah', the mother not only of many children within her nation, but of many nations. And this is how God works; for so many feel they are the kings or queens who were never crowned. Life didn't go as expected. But this was used by God, as it has been in countless members of her seed. So many sense they were born and intended to something far better and more significant than they end up getting in life. They will not get that in this life; but they will, if they are Abraham's seed. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Terah took Abram his son- </em>That Terah "took" Abram shows that the call of the Gospel of the Kingdom did not make him free from the ties that bind. The same word is in :29 for Abram 'taking' a wife. But the Gospel is a freedom from those ties; we are not to be taken, but to move freely in response to God's call. </p><p>,<em> Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife. They went from Ur of the Chaldees- </em>The Samaritan Pentateuch adds here that Nahor and Milcah also went with them. This would highlight the disobedience of Abram to the call to leave his family. That Nahor did emigrate to Haran is confirmed in Gen. 24:10; Haran is called "the city of Nahor". The fact has to be faced that Abram was called to leave his country and kindred (his fellow countrymen), but when he left Ur his countrymen came with him. And additionally, "<em>Terah took</em> Abram... to go into the land of Canaan". Abram did not respond <em>immediately</em> and <em>completely</em> to God’s command. The call of Abram is an essay in partial response. Yet we know he had faith. Terah was an idolater (<em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em>); the command to leave was given to Abram, not Terah. Because God was going to promise Abram a massive new family stemming from <em>him</em>, he therefore had to come out from his own natural family. He was going to be promised many descendants- therefore he had to separate himself from his "father’s house" or posterity. He was to be promised a land for eternal inheritance- therefore he had to leave his own native land. And in this life, Abram's seed must separate themselves from their present, worldly inheritance if they are to receive the promised blessings. It was therefore imperative that to receive the promises, Abram must separate from his natural family and land inheritance. There seems little doubt, in the light of this, that it was God’s intention for Abram to leave Ur <em>and</em> his natural family, just taking his wife and their children with them. Yet Abram did not do this. And yet he had faith! &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em> (Gk.) implies that <em>as soon as</em> God called Abram, he got up and left Ur. But a closer examination of the record indicates that this wasn't absolutely the case. It is stressed that both Abram and Sarai left Ur because "Terah <em>took</em> Abram his son... and Sarai his daughter in law" (<em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>). Abram had been called to leave Ur and go into Canaan. But instead he followed his father to Haran, and lived there (for some years, it seems) until his father died, and then he responded to his earlier call to journey towards Canaan. The Genesis record certainly reads as if Abram was dominated by his father and family, and this militated against an immediate response to the call he received to leave Ur and journey to Canaan. At best his father’s decision enabled him to obey the command to leave Ur without having to break with his family. And yet, according to <em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>, Abram immediately responded, as an act of faith.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham believed God, and "when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed" (<em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>). Therefore when his father announced that they were emigrating to Canaan, Abram would have realized that this was the call from God to get up and leave. Unlike the rest of Terah's unrecorded family, who would have mocked such a crazy plan, Abram willingly submitted. But how was he to leave his kindred and father’s house? For they were coming with him! Indeed, Terah "took Abram". Thus Abram had faith in God’s promise, yet may have balked at the command to leave his country and family. Providentially arranged circumstances then resulted in his aging father taking him, implying some degree of compulsion, and leading him out of his native country. Whilst not fully understanding how he could leave his father’s household whilst they looked set to be accompanying him on this journey to a strange land, he went ahead in faith. It is emphasized that <em>God</em> " brought out" (s.w. to lead, pluck or pull out) Abram from Ur (<em><a href='B:160 9:7'>Neh 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:6-7'>Gen 15:6-7</a></em>). The calling came through Abram's hearing of the word of promise, and providentially arranged circumstances encouraging his faithful response to it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham's attachment to his father and father’s house is even indicated in his name, Ab-ram- meaning "my father is exalted" (Gerhard von Rad, <em>Genesis</em> (London: S.C.M., 1963) p. 152). In that family, Abram's father named his son like this because he wanted his son to exalt him- not break away from him, as God required of Abram. Abraham's connection with his father is shown in the various possible meanings of the name Abram. If 'Abram' were used as a Western Semitic word, it would mean "he is exalted through his relationship to his father"; 'Abram' in Akkadian would mean "he loved the father" (Umberto Cassuto,<em> A Commentary On The Book Of Genesis</em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992) Vol. 2 p. 267). Yet Abraham gave up all this for the sake of God’s promises to him; he lost it all in order to gain the new family which God offered him in return, just as all his seed must do. And later Scripture seems to refer to these meanings of the word 'Abram'- for <em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:140 20:7'>2Ch 20:7</a></em> speak of him as "the friend (lover) of God". He had once 'loved' his father’s house, but in response to the promises he left them, and loved God; and thus God loved him, and Abram became Abraham, the 'exalted father'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are marked similarities between the record of the exodus from Ur, and that of the call of Abram to leave Haran:&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>&nbsp;</td><td><em><a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Terah took&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>Abram took </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sarai...Abram's wife </td><td>Sarai his wife </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lot the son of Haran&nbsp; </td><td>Lot his brother's son </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>They went forth from Ur </td><td>They went forth (from Haran) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To go into the land of Canaan </td><td>To go into the land of Canaan </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>They came unto Haran </td><td>Into the land of Canaan they came. </td><td></td></tr></table><p style='margin-left:1em'>These similarities may mean that the same processes occurred in each move- a word of promise made, Abram struggling to show his abundant faith in that promise and call, and the providence of God acting to make his expression of faith possible. There may also be the hint that when Abram left Haran, he still had the same fundamental problem as when leaving Ur- he had still not fully left his kindred and father’s house.&nbsp; It has been pointed out that around the time Terah and Abraham left Ur, the city was threatened by and then destroyed by the Elamites. It could well be that the motive for leaving Ur in the first place was therefore mixed- it was fleeing from a material threat more than plain obedience to a Divine command. This would explain why the family settled in relatively nearby Haran, and remained there for so long. See on <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>. It's a very strange 'co-incidence' (if that's indeed what it is) that Noah, Peleg and Nahor all died in the same year- when Abraham was about 50 years old, living in Ur. Whilst we have no evidence that these men were all living together, it's not impossible that they were. Perhaps they died in some calamity in Ur. So it could well be that the motive for leaving Ur in the first place was therefore mixed- it was fleeing from a material threat more than plain obedience to a Divine command. This would explain why the family settled in relatively nearby Haran, and remained there for so long. </p><p>They went from Ur of the Chaldees- NIV "Together they set out" shows the failure to separate from family as required. This failure is stressed, really insistently. Some versions get it right when they render "he [Terah] took them out"; LXX has "and (Terah) brought them out". Despite Abram's failure, he later perceives that "God took me... out", and Stephen in Acts 7:4 repeats this. And Gen. 15:7 (and Neh. 9:7)has God recognizing this: "I brought you out of Ur...". The message is clearly that God had a number on Abram, and took him out when Abram himself failed to come out. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To go into the land of Canaan. They came to Haran and lived there- </em>Terah and his family departed "to go into the land of Canaan" (<em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em> AV). These are the same Hebrew words as in the command to Abram: "Get thee out of thy country" (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). We can therefore conclude that Abram received this call to quit his country, but didn’t obey it, until some unrecorded situation led his father to announce the family's emigration to Canaan. Abram was therefore very slow to obey the call. Note too that the command to Abram had been to leave his land and also his "kindred and... father’s house". This he didn’t do- for he left Ur with his father and brothers, i.e. his kindred. His brother Haran died, and his father then died in Haran, where they temporarily lived on the way to Canaan. We see here how God seeks to almost make us obedient. And <em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em> records that it was God who brought Abram out of Ur- even though Abraham failed to rise up and be obedient in his own strength, God manipulated family circumstances to make him obedient to the call; and in essence He does this for us too.</p><p>"Lived there", really "settled there", uses a Hebrew term which definitely means to permanently reside for a long period (s.w. Gen. 26:17; Ruth 1:4; 2 Sam. 15:29; 2 Chron. 28:18). But it is the same term used for how the people of Shinar, mentioned earlier in the chapter, refused to obey the command to go out and fill the earth, but rather settled in Shinar (compare Gen. 1:28; 9:1; 11:2,8,9). And Abraham's disobedience is presented as similar- all building up the impression of his salvation by grace rather than obedience. This is the connection between the account of Babel, and that of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The days of Terah were two hundred five years. Terah died in Haran- </em>Abram evidently found it so hard to sever the family ties, and move straight on from Haran. The call of Abram required breaking with family. Perhaps Terah was too old and ill to move on further (he died at 205, a great age by post-flood standards), and Abram found it hard to leave his old and ill father in a strange city. Or perhaps Terah's strong influence on Abram meant that he found it just too hard to go against him. How he must have wrestled with the pain of leaving his family and father! Yet he believed God’s promises, and he knew that these things were necessary if he was to attain the promised land. Many a convert to Abraham's seed in these last days has been through the same process. The call to "come out" of mystical Babylon is surely rooted in the call for Abram to "come out" from Ur and Haran. Whilst this evidently occurs at the time of baptism, when these same Abrahamic promises are made to us personally, our whole lives are a process of 'coming out' from the world. As we do so, our appreciation of God’s promises is progressively expanded, as God works with our faith.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Yahweh had said to Abram, Get you out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your father’s house- </em>Abram was told “Get&nbsp; out...” of Ur; and obediently “they <em>went forth </em>to go <em>into</em> the land of Canaan: and <em>into</em> the land of Canaan they came” (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a></em> AV). Holiness means a separation <em>from</em> and also <em>unto</em>. This must be the pattern of our lives, until finally at the Lord’s return&nbsp; we are again called to <em>go out</em> to meet the bridegroom; and we will <em>go in</em> with Him to the marriage (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>). The New Testament preachers urged men to turn “<em>from</em> darkness <em>to</em> light, and <em>from</em> the power of satan <em>to</em> God” (<em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>); <em>from</em> wickedness <em>to</em> God, <em>to</em> the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:19'>Act 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:35'>Act 9:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:21'>Act 11:21</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The impression can be given that Abraham was a giant of faith, and as “father of the faithful”, thereby requires colossal responses of faith from us who are his seed. But the reality was that Abraham didn’t respond as he might have done, just as we don’t; and God by His grace led Abraham to respond simply because He wished to save Him. God told Abram to leave Ur, his family and relatives (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). The requirements were to leave Ur and to leave his relatives- and neither of these requirements were fulfilled much by Abraham, but rather by God working to enable them to be met. That this call refers to Ur not Haran is made clear in <em><a href='B:510 7:2-4'>Act 7:2-4</a></em>: “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land”. The impression is given of immediate, obedient response. But in fact it was his own father Terah who took him and the rest of the family out of Ur. He didn’t break with his family- he went with them. Presumably he didn’t obey the call to leave them as an individual; so God arranged that Abraham at least obeyed the requirement to leave Ur, and later worked to ensure he left his family. It was God who caused him to wander from his father’s house (<em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>)- not his own strength of obedience to the call to individuate before God. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Immediately Terah died, Abram may have felt he had truly left his "kindred" and eagerly moved on towards the promised land of Canaan (so <em><a href='B:10 11:32'>Gen 11:32</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em> implies). It is likely that many of Abram's "kindred" would have come along with Terah, responding themselves to the call of Abram. Presumably they settled in Haran after Terah's death. It is even possible that the family were from this city originally, seeing that Abraham's brother was called Haran. We saw earlier that just before leaving Haran, Abram was further told to separate from his "father’s house" too, i.e. <em>all</em> of his father’s household. This must have included Lot.&nbsp; Abram could understand separation from his idolatrous father and the rest of the family retinue; yet Lot was "a righteous man" ; Abram evidently rated Lot's spirituality (<em><a href='B:10 18:23'>Gen 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a></em>). Again, Abram was in a quandary. He had left all but one of his father’s house in Haran. Was he really intended to separate from his father’s house to the extent of leaving Lot too?&nbsp; It is likely that Abram often agonized about Lot. There he was in Canaan, knowing that his seed would inherit this land, which was then full of Canaanites (the record twice emphasizes, in <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:7'>Gen 13:7</a></em>). But Lot, part of his kindred and father’s house, was still with him. We saw that the Hebrew for "kindred" implies one born in ones own country. A closely related word is found in <em><a href='B:10 11:28'>Gen 11:28</a></em>, describing how Haran, Lot's father, "died in the <em>land of his nativity</em>, in Ur". If Lot's father lived and died in Ur, it is fair to assume that Lot was born in Ur. So Abram knew he must separate from Lot, his "kindred"- but how? What reason could he give Lot? Yet he had faith in what God had told him; therefore he <em>wanted</em> to leave Lot, but just found it hard to do. And so God made a way. &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the near East, each family had their own gods. When a man became head of the family, he had the right to choose his own god; there was no requirement that he maintained the same god as the previous head of the family. The choice of a god was confirmed by a covenant; the Amorites and Arameans therefore called their family god "The Lord of the house", and the sons of the family often were named with "theophoric names", reflecting the name of the family's god (W.F. Albright, <em>From the Stone Age to Christianity</em> (New York: 1957), p. 246; Angel Gonzales, <em>Abraham: Father of Believers</em> (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967) p. 19). Against this background, therefore, it was a radical thing for Yahweh to appear to Abraham and order him to do something as radical as break from his family (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). It was God who chose Abraham, not Abraham who chose Yahweh, contrary to the accepted norm of the man choosing a family god when his father or previous head of the family died. The surrounding nations or tribes were comprised of various families each with their own god; nations had no one fixed god. When we repeatedly read of how Yahweh was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that Yahweh is the God of all the families and tribes of Israel, we are therefore encountering a new paradigm. There were to be no other gods in Israel apart from Yahweh. He was to be the sole national God; the unity of Yahweh, and His being the sole national God of Israel, was therefore a new concept in the near East. And we can better understand the way that both the Lord Jesus and Paul saw in the unity of God a call to unity amongst His people; for this had been the intention from the start. The unity of God isn't so much a numerical statement as a call to profound unity. But it could only become real for Abraham, as it can for us today, if we leave, come out from, the culture and worldviews which surround us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh's call of Abraham to be His, taking the initiative which Divine grace does when calling someone, was therefore radical. The Biblical record states simply that Yahweh spoke and Abraham believed with no proof or prior relationship. The rabbinic midrash and the Koran embellish upon this silence with various tales of Yahweh's prior relationship with Abraham- perhaps psychologically motivated in the desire to make Abraham's faith and obedience the more understandable and normal. Whether or not there was any previous encounter between Yahweh and Abraham is beside the point- the Biblical record invites us to see God as taking the initiative, and Abraham faithfully responding. This is characteristic of God’s call; Saul out looking for lost cattle, the disciples mending their nets- are suddenly called, and some respond well and others like Saul for ever try to slip out of it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All this would've made life difficult for Abraham, as it does for us. The Midrash at Bereshit Rabbah 38:13 tells tales of Terah accusing his son Abraham before the gods for having destroyed idols, and Abraham being thrown into a fiery furnace for rejection of his father and his father’s gods. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the land that I will show you</em>- Abraham was progressively set up by God so that his spiritual growth would be an upward spiral. Initially, he was told to walk / go to a land which God would shew him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>); when he got there, he was told to "arise", and "walk" through that land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:10 13:17'>Gen 13:17</a></em>). And Abraham, albeit in a faltering kind of way, did just this. But this was to prepare him for the test of <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em> in the command to offer Isaac. His obedience this time isn't at all faltering. He "arises" and 'goes' (s.w. "walk") "unto the place of which God had told him" to offer Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>). This is exactly what he had been called to do right back in Ur- to arise and walk / go to a land / place which God would show him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). And so our obedience in one challenge of God leads us to obedience in others. One experience is designed to lead us to another. Nothing- absolutely nothing- in our lives is senseless chance. All- and this takes some believing- is part of a higher plan for our spiritual good, in our latter end. Time and again we see this in Abraham's life. He was taught that he really could be a blessing to others by the circumstances which God arranged relating to Lot being blessed / saved for his sake. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make of you a great nation- </em>The first promise to Abraham was actually conditional- if he did these things, then "I will make of you a great nation". If he left his natural kindred, then God would give him a huge new family. But he hardly fulfilled those conditions, and yet still the promises were ultimately fulfilled to him. And he is set up as the "father of the faithful". We all know that really our faith is pathetically weak, and this recognition can cause some to stumble altogether. Although Abram is here promised to become "a great [singular] nation", he was also promised to become a father of many [plural] nations, and his name was changed to Abraham in reflection of this (Gen. 17:5). The vision was indeed of 'one nation under God' which would unite the nations. The Abraham history is introduced by an account of the nations, who just before his time were "divided" (Gen. 10:25) and "confused" even further at Babel. Part of the blessing promised to Abraham was that through his seed, and through God's purpose with Him, the divided peoples of the earth would be reunited into one, great nation. God chose Abraham's seed in order to restore His relationship with all nations, and thus through "Israel" to unite them again.</p> <p> We may note that in :2,3 there are seven distinct blessings:
- I will make you a great nation
- I will bless you
- I will make your name great
- You will be a blessing
- I will bless those who bless you
- I will curse whoever curses you
- All peoples on earth will be blessed through you.</p> <p>  "I will..." is an allusion to the YHWH Name, "I will be who I will be". And He will bless who He promises to bless. Seven being the number of totality and completeness, we have here a picture of the entire Name, essence and being of God being completely behind His determination to fulfil His promises to Abraham and his seed. No wonder Paul perceived that we have the Gospel in the promises to Abraham. For that determination to bless, to give and fulfil promises, was to require the death of His only begotten Son. 
</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will bless you and make your name great. You will be a blessing</em>- <em>Whoever</em> drinks of the water of life will have <em>within</em> them a spring that also gives eternal life (<em><a href='B:500 4:15'>Joh 4:15</a></em>). The purpose of a spring is to give water to men. Experiencing the Lord's words and salvation <em>inevitably</em> leads to us doing likewise to others, springing from somewhere deep within. This was in fact one of the first things God promised Abraham when He first instituted the new covenant: "I will bless thee (i.e. with forgiveness and salvation in the Kingdom)... and <em>thou</em> shalt be a blessing" , in that we his seed in Christ would bring this same blessing to men of all nations by our witness (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em> AV). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The making of his name great was initially fulfilled in the change to Abraham, meaning 'father of a multitude'. But the only ultimately great name is that of Yahweh; the same words are used about His Name being made great (<em><a href='B:100 7:26'>2Sa 7:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 17:24'>1Ch 17:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 34:3'>Psa 34:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:30'>Psa 69:30</a></em>). Abram's name was to be made great on account of his identification with his seed who would carry Yahweh's Name. The greatness of Abram's name was only because Yahweh's Name was put within it, making it Abraham. This contrasts with how the people of Babel had wanted to make themselves a name, and were judged for doing so. "Great", gdl, alludes to the "tower" of Babel, Heb. mgdl. The things of God's Name manifest in His people, Abraham's seed, were to be the eternal things- rather than the city and tower of Babel which was destroyed. The "all nations" who had united to build Babel were divided and scattered- but they were to be reunited in that the "all nations" would become one eternal nation within 'Israel'.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no record of God authenticating His claims to Abram through miracles, fulfilled prophecies etc. Rather Abram is presented as a random Middle Eastern guy who heard the essence of the Gospel and believed it, and then acted upon that faith. Simple as that. Later, Abraham is commended for believing "against hope", when there was no visible reason to hope (<em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em>). Faith is not therefore based upon empirical evidence, as <em><a href='B:650 11:1-3'>Heb 11:1-3</a></em> clearly state. This is the mystery of faith, and an essay in the power of the Gospel of itself to elicit faith in its own message. That may at first blush sound circular reasoning; but the fact so many have believed a message which had no external authentication is proof enough- that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing on account of the word of God" (<em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you- </em>There are five mentions of "blessing” in Gen. 12:1-3, undoing the five mentions of  “curse”  in Gen. 1-11 (Gen. 3:14; 3:17; 4:11; 5:29; 9:25). People from all families would be blessed in Abraham- because they 'blessed' Abraham. God’s salvation program began with 'blessing' Adam (<em><a href='B:10 1:22'>Gen 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 5:2'>Gen 5:2</a></em>); when that intention didn’t work because of human sin, Noah was then chosen, saved and blessed (<em><a href='B:10 9:1'>Gen 9:1</a></em>). That pathway too had come to a dead end with the apostacy of his descendants. And now God seeks to bless Abram, and all those who identified with him. In the first instance, the "families of the <em>eretz</em>" were those listed in Genesis 10. Whoever blessed Abram as he travelled around that territory would be blessed, and any who cursed him would be cursed. He need not fear that the inhabitants of that land would persecute him as a foreigner. And yet he and his descendants did so often fear that this would happen at the hands of the local inhabitants, and chapter 12 goes on to give an example of where he failed to believe this simple promise. He is hardly portrayed as brimming with faith and obedience, but rather one who clung on to God’s clinging on of him. And this is really the lead characteristic of all who would later be his spiritual descendants. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Abraham family should have focused upon the wonder of being blessed by God. But as we see in Genesis 27 and elsewhere, they placed too great a value upon human blessings. And this speaks directly to us too. To be humanly blessed appears of critical importance; but if we believe we have the Divine, Abrahamic blessing, then such blessings ought to be irrelevant.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are examples of those who blessed the Abraham family being blessed; thus Laban blessed them (<em><a href='B:10 24:31'>Gen 24:31</a></em>), and was in turn blessed (<em><a href='B:10 30:27'>Gen 30:27</a></em>). But there are hardly any specific examples of those who cursed them being cursed. As ever, God’s focus was upon the positive rather than the negative. "Blessing" in the Old Testament context largely referred to material blessings; but the language is taken over in the New Testament and applied to all the spiritual blessings we have in Abraham's seed, the Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All of the families of the earth will be blessed in you</em>- This is an evident allusion back to the cursing of the <em>adamah</em> / earth in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). The implication was that the promised seed of the woman, who was to be the way of escape from that curse, was to somehow be "in Abraham". Although there's no mention yet of a specific son or seed, it seems to me that God was setting Abraham up to meditate upon the promise of the earth being blessed "in him", and figure out that this must mean that he was to have a descendant or son who would be the Saviour. Perhaps the subsequent specific promises about this were as it were God’s reward for Abraham following through with where God was leading him. <em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em> makes explicit that the blessing of the <em>adamah</em> was to be "in your seed". I firmly believe, indeed have experienced, the way in which God prompts our minds to think of something, to work something through, and then reveals this specifically, or confirms our understanding, directly from His word. In our day and context, it would seem that daily reading of God’s word is what's required in order to 'allow' as it were this process to happen. This, surely, is how God seeks to work out the same process with us as He did with Abraham. Even if at the time of reading we feel we 'get nothing out of that chapter', there will be prompts to thought and later reflection which are all in God’s longer term educational purpose with us. <em><a href='B:650 11:33'>Heb 11:33</a></em> says that the likes of Abraham obtained promises by their faith. Yet the Old Testament record clearly enough states that the promises were just given to them by God; they weren't requested by the patriarchs. Indeed, David was surprised at the promises God chose to make to him. Conclusion? God read their unspoken, unprayed for desires for Messiah and His Kingdom as requests for the promises- and responded.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham was only explicitly promised the land of Canaan, not the entire planet. Perhaps in speaking of Abraham as “heir of the world” (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>) Paul is interpreting the promises that his seed would comprise “many nations” and that he would bring blessing on “all the peoples of the earth” (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em> etc.). In this sense, they would become his, and he would thereby inherit them. Thus <em><a href='B:290 55:3-5'>Isa 55:3-5</a></em> likewise implies that Abraham’s promised inheritance was therefore not only the land of Canaan but by implication, the whole planet.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Grammatically, <em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em> can be read as passive ("be blessed", as AV, RV) or reflexive "bless themselves" (as RSV), i.e. implying those blessed have to do something to appropriate the blessing. In this we see how God will play His part, but we must play our part. And yet the covenant in Genesis 15 was one way, unconditional, from God to us. It's as if <em>His</em> part in our salvation is so much greater than our response. Yet there is still an obvious element of choice which we have to make. The way <em><a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a></em> is structured implies that Abraham receives an unconditional blessing, yet he therefore is to go forth and "be a blessing". And it's the same for us- and note how the "blessing" is interpreted as forgiveness in <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>. We are to forgive and generally bless others, in all forms of gracious generosity, as God has blessed us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God promises to bless <em>them</em> (plural) who bless Abraham, and curse <em>him</em> (singular) who curse Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em>). In other words, the blessings are to come specifically and individually to many people; whereas those who curse Abraham and his seed are just treated as one homogenous mass.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em> LXX speaks of how all the tribes of the land of Israel will be blessed (i.e. forgiven) due to Abraham's seed, the Lord Jesus. This has yet to be fulfilled- but it will be if the tribes of the land (i.e. the native Arab peoples living between the Nile and Euphrates) repent and accept Messiah's forgiveness. The picture of Christ's Millennial rule in <em><a href='B:230 72:8-9'>Psa 72:8-9</a></em> is similar: " He shall have dominion from sea (the Mediterranean?) to sea (the Persian Gulf?) from the river unto the ends of the earth (land). They that dwell in the wilderness (the Arab peoples) shall bow&nbsp; before him" .</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All nations of the land were to be blessed because of Abraham and his seed, his one special seed (Jesus) and also his natural descendants. His children were intended to be a blessing to the other nations who lived around them, especially in that they were intended to bring them to Abraham’s God and Abraham’s faith. Now this is not to say that ultimately, Abraham and his seed will not bring blessing on literally the whole planet. <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> interprets the promise of the land of Canaan as meaning ‘the whole world’. But this was by later development, and on account of the universal blessing achieved by the sacrifice of Abraham’s greatest seed, the Lord Jesus. In the first instance, the blessing was to be upon all the families who lived on the ‘earth’ / land (12:3). There is a paradox here. For those already living in the land promised to Abraham, their land would be taken from them but they would be blessed. God was telling Abraham: ‘You will possess the land and all nations of that land will be blessed’. They were to give up their physical inheritance to receive a spiritual one- this was the ideal. Paul applies this idea to us when he says that if Gentiles have received the spiritual blessings of Abraham’s seed, ought they not to give their physical blessings to that same physical seed of Abraham? This is how and why he tells Gentile converts in Rome to send donations to the poor Jewish brethren in Jerusalem: “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things… I shall come in the fullness of the <em>blessing</em> of the gospel of Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 15:27-29'>Rom 15:27-29</a></em>). </p><p>Gen. 12:1-3, the promises to Abraham, has a clear connection with the language repeatedly found in the table of nations in Gen. 10. "Country" (:1), "peoples" (:3), "nation" (:2) and "people/ race" (:1) are terms used throughout Gen. 10. The idea seems to be that all those nations are listed in Genesis 10 in order to help us understand what God promised Abraham. He was promised the inheritance of all the people, nations, countries and races of Gen. 10. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Abram went, as Yahweh had spoken to him. Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran- </em>The comment "So Abram departed (Heb. 'went'- s.w. <em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>), as the Lord had spoken unto him" (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em> AV) is surely the beginning of the wonderful theme of righteousness being imputed to Abraham! For he did not break with his relatives as asked, and he "went" from Ur because his father decided to emigrate. <em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em> records things from a positive perspective too, as if there was instant obedience from Abraham: "By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went". Truly, the Biblical record imputes righteousness to Abraham, and thus sets a pattern for all of us, the equally faltering and stumbling children of Abraham. </p><p>The promises to Abram in Gen. 12:1,2 were conditional upon his obedience- he would receive the new land and family if he separated from his natural family and land. But he was induced to do even this by God. So grace truly abounded. Likewise in Gen. 17:1,2 "Walk before Me and be blameless so that I may establish My covenant between Me and you and increase you greatly". Abram was not "blameless"; he was only counted righteous because of his faith.  So the condition was set, but even the condition was not totally met by Abram unaided. And the covenant of Gen. 15 was without even these conditions. Although Abram did have faith, as Heb. 11 states, it was clearly weak and God imputed a lot of righteousness on the basis of a very small faith. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram took Sarai his wife, Lot his brother’s son- </em>Abram and Sarai would have effectively adopted the orphaned Lot. The experience of adopting would have been part of God’s preparation of the psychological background, so that they would have appreciated all the more the idea of a son, seed and dynasty of their very own.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All their substance that they had gathered, and the souls whom they had gotten in Haran, and they went to go into the land of Canaan. Into the land of Canaan they came- </em>Abram's leaving of Haran was still a great act of faith; he had "gathered" much in the years of staying in Haran. According to Jewish tradition, Abraham stayed 23 years in Haran. All he had to go on was a word from the Lord which he'd received some years ago whilst living in Ur. There's no reason to think that Angels regularly appeared to him and kept urging him to leave, or that he could read the Lord's word in written form as we can. Presumably that one word which he received worked in his conscience, until he said to the family "Right, we're quitting this nice life for a wilderness journey to some place I don't know". We can underestimate the power of "just" one word from the Lord. We're so familiar with possessing His entire word in written form that we can forget the need to be obedient to just one of those words, to the extent of losing all we once held dear... In this I find Abraham a wonderful example. He must, presumably, have wondered whether he really had heard right, whether the whole thing wasn't just a weird dream- just as we may wonder whether really we are supposed to take God’s word as it is and allow it to radically upset our settled, mediocre lives. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read of all the substance that Abram had <em>gathered</em>&nbsp; in Haran; the Hebrew for "gathered" implies an element of hoarding and materialism. It only occurs in passages concerning the patriarchs, as if to show that this was one of their characteristics. <em><a href='B:10 31:18'>Gen 31:18</a></em> comments on Jacob using his own wit and cunning to accumulate material wealth: "He carried away all his cattle, and all his goods which he had <em>gotten</em>, the cattle of his getting, which he had <em>gotten</em>". The humanness of all this is strongly hinted at in <em><a href='B:10 30:43'>Gen 30:43</a></em>: "The <em>man</em>&nbsp;increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels and asses". This list is identical to that in <em><a href='B:10 24:35'>Gen 24:35</a></em> concerning Abraham. Jacob and Sons left Canaan with "their cattle, and their goods, which they had <em>gotten</em>" (<em><a href='B:10 46:6'>Gen 46:6</a></em>). Esau too piled up his possessions; <em><a href='B:10 36:6'>Gen 36:6</a></em> speaks of his sons, daughters, servants, cattle, beasts, "and all his substance which he had <em>got</em>&nbsp; in the land of Canaan". The way this Hebrew word for materialistic accumulation is used only about the Abraham family ought to be seen by us as a flashing light, pointing us to a definite characteristic in all of them. Against this background we can better appreciate Abraham's faith that he did now possess the land.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to Jewish tradition, Abraham stayed 23 years in Haran. All he had to go on was a word from the Lord which he'd received some years ago whilst living in Ur. There's no reason to think that Angels regularly appeared to him and kept urging him to leave, or that he could read the Lord's word in written form as we can. Presumably that one word which he received worked in his conscience, until he said to the family "Right, we're quitting this nice life for a wilderness journey to some place I don't know". We can underestimate the power of "just" one word from the Lord. We're so familiar with possessing His entire word in written form that we can forget the need to be obedient to just one of those words, to the extent of losing all we once held dear... In this I find Abraham a wonderful example. He must, presumably, have wondered whether he really had heard right, whether the whole thing wasn't just a weird dream- just as we may wonder whether <em>really</em> we are supposed to take God’s word as it is and allow it to radically upset our settled, mediocre lives. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh- </em>God’s promise to Abraham was made more specifically at "the oak of Moreh" (<em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>)- evidently a Canaanite shrine; and it's emphasized that "the Canaanite was then in the land". It's as if God’s invitation to Abraham to have a unique relationship with Him was made amidst the calls and presence of many other gods, and in the thick of the Gentile world. Providence arranged that Abram travelled throughout the <em>eretz</em>; just as our experiences in this life give us peeks into the various aspects of our eternal inheritance. See on :9.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Canaanite was then in the land- </em>Moses’ books were helping the wilderness generation to see where they were coming from historically. Passages like <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em> now take on special relevance: "The Canaanites were then in the land". Moses was saying this as his people were about to enter a Canaan likewise occupied by Canaanites; the idea would have been <em>'Then</em> the Canaanites were there, just as they are <em>now</em>, and God shall be with us Abram's seed likewise<em>'.</em> He was bidding the people see their connection with their father Abraham, who then lived with Canaanites also in the same land. See on <em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh appeared to Abram and said, I will give this land to your seed</em>- Abraham was told to leave Ur and all he had there, and journey to a land he would be shown. Trying to keep up a sense of eagerness and hope for the new life, he made tremendous sacrifices, and journeyed to Canaan. When he finally got there, he didn’t realize he’d arrived. Then the Lord appeared to him and said that to <em>his seed</em> He would give this land (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em>). To the human mind, this would have been a huge blow. He had given up all in the hope of a new life and inheritance, and now he is told that someone called his “seed” would inherit it. His response was to build an altar and worship, realizing he had served for nothing personally in this life, but with his mind filled with the glory and Kingdom of Christ, his future seed. God was so delighted with this attitude that later promises included Abraham personally, showing that because of his part in Christ, the seed, he would in fact personally have an inheritance too.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He built an altar there to Yahweh, who appeared to him- </em>There may be an intended contrast between Abraham <em>building</em> an altar in recognition of the promises, at the same time as he <em>pitched</em> his tent (12:8)- as if to highlight the temporal nature of our present material situation in contrast to the permanence of the things we stand related to in God’s promises. The building of altars was perhaps a public confession of faith; the surrounding peoples had their altars, but Abram and his family built altars to Yahweh, and left them behind them as a witness to their faith in the promises received and the relationship offered. Baptism would be one equivalent of this in our days- a public confession of faith in the same promises.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Commonly enough, the New Testament speaks of baptism as a calling upon the Name of the Lord. This must be understood against its Hebrew background- <em>qara' beshem Yahweh</em>, which originally referred to approaching God in sacrifice (<em><a href='B:10 12:7-8'>Gen 12:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:4'>Psa 116:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:17'>Psa 116:17</a></em>). God placed His Name upon places in order to make them suitable places for sacrifice to be offered to Him (<em><a href='B:50 12:4-7'>Deu 12:4-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:21'>Deu 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:12'>Jer 7:12</a></em>). Baptism was thus seen as a sacrificial commitment to Yahweh in solemn covenant. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham only left Haran after his father died, suggesting Terah didn’t want to travel further, and so Abraham didn’t do so. He simply didn’t leave his father’s house / family. And when he does leave, he takes his family with him- Lot, Lot’s family and Sarah, his half sister (<em><a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a></em>). And yet God continues working with Abraham; after he leaves Haran, God appears and tells him that He wishes to give “thee”, ‘you’ singular, the land (<em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em>). In other words, the fulfilment of the promises was to Abraham personally, and that is why he was required to individuate from his unbelieving family in order to receive them. And because God simply wanted to fulfil the promises to Abraham, He arranged Abraham’s separation from his family in order to fulfil those preconditions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He left from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to Yahweh and called on the name of Yahweh</em>- The weaknesses of the patriarchs provides great inspiration to our feeble faith when we consider how they are held up in such exalted terms. The geographical record of Abraham's entry to Canaan describes him as appearing at certain key points in the land. Those same areas became the key points in the conquest of the land in Joshua's time- it was as if Abraham was seen as the example for all Israel. Thus the people in their weakness pitched "between Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai" (<em><a href='B:60 8:9'>Jos 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:14'>Jos 8:14</a></em>)- the very expressions found about Abraham in <em><a href='B:10 12:8'>Gen 12:8</a></em>. The contrast between tent and altar is purposeful; the things of the Kingdom are permanent and set in stone, whereas our present life is temporary. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram travelled, going on further toward the south</em>- As noted on :6, this was all part of God’s purpose, of getting Abram to travel around in the <em>eretz</em> which he should eternally inherit, to perceive the length and breadth of what God had promised him. And the famine meant that Abram would have had to keep moving his flocks.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was a famine in the land. Abram went down into Egypt to live as a foreigner there, for the famine was severe in the land</em>- "Severe" is Heb. 'heavy'. God’s grace shines through again and again. Abraham went down into Egypt because of how "grievous" or 'heavy' the famine was; and comes up out of Egypt, thanks to betraying his wife, "heavy" (same Hebrew word) with riches (<em><a href='B:10 12:10'>Gen 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:2'>Gen 13:2</a></em>). Everything he did was blessed, despite his weakness. The land he had been promised was not immediately flowing with milk and honey- on first arrival, it was parched. We likewise don't experience the full Kingdom blessings now. The Abram family several times went down into Egypt because of famine; and the more spiritually perceptive realized that they would always come up out of it, after hard experiences there. "To live as a foreigner there" may imply that he lived as a foreigner in Canaan, and now in Egypt, there too he was a foreigner. The constant insecurity in Abram's life (despite his wealth) was to make him yearn the more for the eternal permanence of possession which was intrinsic to the gospel preached to him (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). And it's the same for us. </p><p>Abraham went down into Egypt because of famine, and "went up from Egypt" (Gen. 13:1). Whilst there, Abraham's life and existence were under threat. Sarah, the female Hebrew, was spared [as were the baby girls of the Hebrews]. Egypt and Pharaoh's house were plagued, and then Pharaoh 'releases' or 'sends away' Abraham and his people (Gen. 12:20). This is the same word used for Pharaoh doing this to the Hebrews; and all the other details and language fits. We could therefore reason back and assume that Jacob and his family were wrong to have migrated to Egypt, as Abraham was apparently wrong to have gone there. At least they were wrong to have remained there after the famine. But we also see how the perceptive amongst Abraham's seed would have realized that their experience in Egypt, even in weakness, was connecting them to Abraham and confirming them as his seed. Abraham was chosen as the representative of his seed exactly at a point of weakness, at perhaps the lowest recorded point of his entire spiritual journey. Abraham's weaknesses are therefore to encourage us as his seed to identify with him- and realize that his greatness was in his faith, and specifically his faith in righteousness being imputed to him.  It is facile and fruitless, therefore, to simply present Abraham as an icon of faith and urge us to rise up to his level. Rather are we to see him in weakness as every man, and to follow his example of faith in the face of personal spiritual weakness and failure. He is indeed a stellar example of faith, but that faith is in God's grace to us despite our weakness- just as Abraham's was. Truly did the Angel at the burning bush tell Israel "I am the God of Abraham...". The same God would work with them in the same way. We also see how in the lives of God's people, there is an overruling, guiding hand in our history. Our history is not random, nor is it totally unique in its outline form. History, even of our weaknesses, somehow has the Higher Hand guiding it; just as that same Hand guided the histories of others. For us history is not "one damned thing after another" (Henry Ford), nor is personal life like that either. But that is indeed the perception of those who reject that higher hand, both in their own lives and in human history.     </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when he had come near to enter Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman to look at</em>- "His wife" emphasizes that this is how God saw their relationship; even though He considered that marriage to a half sister was an abomination. But He accepted people where they were at, as we should. Abram's fear may have been because the middle aged Sarah was not only beautiful, but had lighter skin than the Egyptians, and was thereby attractive to them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, when the Egyptians will see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; they will kill me, but they will save you alive</em>- The fear of premature death was a reflection of his lack of deep faith in the promise just earlier recorded; that those who cursed him would be cursed, and he would be blessed, and ultimately given the land. At every turn, Abram is presented as of generally weak faith, although he did believe the overall representation of God to him, and that faith rose to a pinnacle in his willingness to offer Isaac, and his simple belief that really, his seed would become as many as the stars. But at this stage, his faith was weak when tested. And yet God still worked with him, as He does with us, and as we should with those whose faith is yet weak.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please say that you are my sister</em>- Throughout the records of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his children there is continual repetition in the manner in which the record is written. This repetition is of both experiences (e.g. lying concerning their wives: <em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>) and of the language used to describe those experiences. The impression is that they didn’t learn from history, just as we often do not- despite the wealth of Biblical history which we now have behind us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That it may be well with me for your sake, and that my soul may live because of you-</em> Straight after receiving the promises, Abraham goes down to Egypt (an act with spiritually negative overtones), and lies about his wife. Not only does he show a strange lack of protection for her, but his actions reflect a weakened faith in God’s promises to him. For if Abraham was to have died at the hands of jealous Egyptians at that stage, how would the promises to him be fulfilled? In urging Sarah to deny she was his wife, Abraham comments to her in <em><a href='B:10 12:13'>Gen 12:13</a></em>: "My soul shall live because of you". <em><a href='B:230 33:18-19'>Psa 33:18-19</a></em> appears to comment upon this: "Behold, the eye of Jehovah (Angelic language- and Abraham dealt with Angels) is upon them that fear him, Upon them that hope in his lovingkindness; to deliver their soul from death, And to keep them alive in famine (Abraham told the lie he did about Sarah because he trusted in Egypt to keep him alive in famine). Our soul hath waited for Jehovah: He is our help and our shield"- and it is God, not Sarah, who is described as Abraham's shield (same Hebrew word) in <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>. Again, his faith is presented as weak; and yet he is set up as our example of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened that when Abram had come into Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful</em>- Fears about possible futures are the very essence of lack of faith. In Abram's case, his fears were not baseless. But he went ahead, because he was not sure that he could remain in Canaan in time of famine. He probably could have personally survived, but his flocks wouldn't have done; and he couldn't bear to think of parting with all that wealth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The princes of Pharaoh saw her, and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house</em>- As so often in the record of Abraham's family, the surrounding world are presented as having more integrity than they did. Pharaoh's princes didn’t rape her, they just commended her to their master. And she was taken into his house, but Pharaoh didn’t sleep with her- presumably, new wives had to undergo a period of purification first, as the Mosaic law would also stipulate in some cases. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He dealt well with Abram for her sake. He had sheep, cattle, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 14:22'>Gen 14:22</a></em>. As noted on :15, the Pharaoh appears of absolute integrity. He gave what was effectively a bride price to Abram, without having actually slept with Sarai. It would appear from :20 that Abram was allowed to keep all this. He apparently didn't suffer any consequences nor punishment for his undoubted sins and failures at this point. And sometimes, we don't. In this case, it seems Abram did well out of the whole experience. As if the experience of God's grace in blessing instead of punishing was intended to elicit in him a deeper understanding of God's grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife</em>- As noted on :13, situations and circumstances repeat over the course of Divine history. It is the same heavenly hand at work, and the intention is that we should learn from the history. For a later Pharaoh was also to be plagued because of the presence of the Abraham family amongst them; but the lesson was not learnt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that you have done to me?- </em>The very words of God to Adam (<em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>). It was really God speaking through Pharaoh to Abram, just as He speaks to us through circumstances and unbelievers. The very same words are repeated to Abram later, by Abimelech, in the same context of lying about Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 26:10'>Gen 26:10</a></em>). As noted on :17, circumstances and phrases recur in our lives, as the same Divine hand is at work to educate us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why didn’t you tell me that she was your wife?</em>- Both Pharaoh and Abram knew the answer: 'Because I was afraid'. And they are the very words on the lips of the condemned man in <em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>, just as they were on the lips of Adam in his condemnation (<em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). But despite still not learning from the situation, Abram is still set up as our example of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’, so that I took her to be my wife? Now therefore, see your wife, take her, and go your way</em>- Again we see the integrity of the Pharaoh, in that he had apparently taken her to be his wife, but had not slept with her. "See your wife" implies 'perceive, recognize her as being your wife'. It was a stinging rebuke. Abram is not presented as a good husband in this respect. "Take her" may well refer to taking a woman as a wife; Abram is being told to go on his way openly committed to his wife. And yet he fails in this again, as does his son Isaac. I noted on :18 that the Pharaoh is effectively speaking on God’s behalf here; but Abram didn’t hearken to that voice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh commanded men concerning him, and they brought him on the way with his wife and all that he had</em>- To bring someone on their way meant being generous to them and providing them with what they needed for their journey. This was again repeated (see on :17) by Abimelech (<em><a href='B:10 20:14'>Gen 20:14</a></em>). To be generous to those who have wronged us leaves us with the upper hand; it is the intention behind the Lord's teaching that if a man takes your jacket, then offer him your undergarment. The spirit of demanding restitution and prosecution to that end is the very opposite of this. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram went up out of Egypt: he, his wife, all that he had, and Lot with him, into the South</em>- As noted on chapter 12, the record stresses that Sarah was "his wife", despite the fact God viewed marriage to a half sister as "abomination". We note that Abram left Egypt not because the famine had finished, but because the Pharaoh had rebuked him. This confirms our suggestion on chapter 12, that Abram didn’t need to go into Egypt; he went because the famine would've meant a diminution of his wealth if his cattle died. He placed himself in the way of temptation because of a desire to cling on to the material "blessings" of wealth. He was "very rich" (:2), but the desire to maintain wealth levels is as tempting as the desire to attain them in the first place.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold- </em>Abraham tells Sarah to say she is his sister, not his wife, and (by implication) let the Egyptians sleep with her rather than kill him.&nbsp; And straight after this, God blesses Abraham with riches (<em><a href='B:10 12:11'>Gen 12:11</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 13:2'>Gen 13:2</a></em>). This happened also with Isaac; God’s blessing materially isn't always related to our righteousness. By contrast, Pharaoh was attracted to her, and took her into his house. But he didn’t sleep with her, and was willing to allow a period of time to elapse before marrying her, in order not to insult her dignity (cp. <em><a href='B:50 21:13'>Deu 21:13</a></em>). God’s grace shines through again and again. Abraham went down into Egypt because of how "grievous" or 'heavy' the famine was; and comes up out of Egypt, thanks to betraying his wife, "heavy" (same Hebrew word) with riches (<em><a href='B:10 12:10'>Gen 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:2'>Gen 13:2</a></em>). Everything he did was blessed, despite his weakness. Perhaps this was to elicit within him the understanding that "blessing" was not commensurate to spirituality, whilst we understand "blessing" in material terms. The "blessing" he really needed was something else... "Very rich" is literally 'very heavy'. The abundance of his blessing is laboured. But it was all  by grace. The same term is used of how Israel went up out of Egypt at Passover, blessed by grace with "very much" (<em><a href='B:20 12:38'>Exo 12:38</a></em>). As noted on chapter 12, Abraham at his weakest is presented as a type of Israel at the time of their deliverance. It is in his experience of grace that he becomes a pattern and example to his seed; and not in his obedience. Abraham would've reflected on how bad his behaviour had been, and yet how God had not only saved him but materially blessed him. He would have bowed his knees before God's grace. If God merely rewarded righteousness with material blessing, this appreciation of grace would never be. This is the error of the prosperity Gospel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went on his journeys from the South even to Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai</em>- The reference to Abram pitching his tent between Bethel (‘the house of God’) and Hai (‘the house of ruin’) could imply that he was caught between the two- his faith was not firmly decided (<em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated references to the “journeys” of the people of Israel in the wilderness, had as their basis, the description of Abraham taking his journey through the desert to the promised land (<em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>); the very same Hebrew words recur in the command to Moses to lead Israel to now ‘take their journey’ (<em><a href='B:50 10:11'>Deu 10:11</a></em>), following in the steps of their father Abraham. See on <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first. There Abram called on the name of Yahweh</em>- This is the first we hear of Abram relating to God as Yahweh. Whatever his 'calling on the name' involved beyond sacrifice, he clearly made a special commitment to Yahweh at that time and place. And it was in response to grace; for he realized he had done wrong in going into Egypt to preserve his wealth, in lying about his wife... and out of it all, he had not been punished, rather both God and Pharaoh had blessed him with wealth. And it was that which led him now to offer his animal wealth to God, and to devote himself further to Him. If God had punished him, the same response would not have been forthcoming. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents</em>- It is stressed in the record that "Lot went with him" out of Haran (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>), and that in Abram's subsequent passing through the land of Canaan, "Lot... went with Abram" (<em><a href='B:10 13:5'>Gen 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>). But Abram had been asked to leave his relatives. Abraham didn’t separate from Lot of his own volition- he invites Lot to separate himself from him, rather than Abraham telling Lot that he was separating from him (<em><a href='B:10 13:9'>Gen 13:9</a></em>). Abraham’s subsequent concern for Lot, rescuing him from captivity and then begging God to save Lot from Sodom, show how Abraham certainly considered Lot his beloved family member. “We be brethren” was his position. “Lot separated from him” (<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>) rather than Abraham separating from Lot, as was required by God’s command to Abraham. As soon as Lot separates from Abraham, God repeats the promise to Abraham- that “thy seed”, you singular, will inherit the land. To receive a new land and a new family, Abraham had to separate from his natural, earthly land and family. The fulfilment of the promises was conditional upon Abraham’s individuation from his family, his separation from them and unto God- and God worked to enable this precondition to be fulfilled despite Abraham’s weakness in separating from his own land and family. It was God who brought Abraham out of Ur (<em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:7'>Neh 9:7</a></em>)- not Abraham’s obedience to the call to leave Ur. We see a similar grace in how Lot was told to leave Sodom, but he dithered in doing so; God “sent Lot out of Sodom” (<em><a href='B:10 19:29'>Gen 19:29</a></em>), and eventually took his hand and dragged him out of the city, “the Lord being merciful to him” (<em><a href='B:10 19:16'>Gen 19:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land was not able to bear them, that they might live together: for their substance was great, so that they could not live together</em>- Wealth nearly always leads to division. The same words and situation recur when we read that Jacob and Esau could not live together because of their wealth (<em><a href='B:10 36:7'>Gen 36:7</a></em>). The ideal is that brethren dwell together (same Hebrew words) in unity (<em><a href='B:230 133:1'>Psa 133:1</a></em>). But that is only possible with the presence of the Spirit. The extent of their wealth is emphasized. The multiplication of their flocks is the more remarkable when we realize that there had been a major famine in the land (<em><a href='B:10 12:10'>Gen 12:10</a></em>). And the more they needed pastureland, the more conflict there would be with the local inhabitants.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock</em>- Immediately Terah died, Abram may have felt he had truly left his "kindred" and eagerly moved on towards the promised land of Canaan (so <em><a href='B:10 11:32'>Gen 11:32</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em> implies). It is likely that many of Abram's "kindred" would have come along with Terah, responding themselves to the call of Abram. Presumably they settled in Haran after Terah's death. It is even possible that the family were from this city originally, seeing that Abraham's brother was called Haran. We saw on <em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em> that just before leaving Haran, Abram was further told to separate from his "father’s house" too, i.e. <em>all</em> of his father’s household. This must have included Lot.&nbsp; Abram could understand separation from his idolatrous father and the rest of the family retinue; yet Lot was "a righteous man"; Abram evidently rated Lot's spirituality (<em><a href='B:10 18:23'>Gen 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a></em>). Again, Abram was in a quandary. He had left all but one of his father’s house in Haran. Was he really intended to separate from his father’s house to the extent of leaving Lot too?&nbsp; It is likely that Abram often agonized about Lot. There he was in Canaan, knowing that his seed would inherit this land, which was then full of Canaanites (the record twice emphasizes, in <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:7'>Gen 13:7</a></em>). But Lot, part of his kindred and father’s house, was still with him. We saw that the Hebrew for "kindred" implies one born in ones’ own country. A closely related word is found in <em><a href='B:10 11:28'>Gen 11:28</a></em>, describing how Haran, Lot's father, "died in the <em>land of his nativity</em>, in Ur". If Lot's father lived and died in Ur, it is fair to assume that Lot was born in Ur. So Abram knew he must separate from Lot, his "kindred" - but how? What reason could he give Lot? Yet he had faith in what God had told him; therefore he <em>wanted</em> to leave Lot, but just found it hard to do. And so God made a way.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because the promises were to be made to Abram and not Lot, this separation was indeed necessary (although nothing should be inferred from this regarding Lot's spirituality or standing with God). It is stressed in the record that "Lot went with him" out of Haran (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>), and that in Abram's subsequent passing through the land of Canaan, "Lot... went with Abram" (<em><a href='B:10 13:5'>Gen 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>). Having been through so much together (they were together in the Egypt crisis, <em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>), it is unlikely that they would suffer from a personality clash. Yet the great wealth of them both resulted in "strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle, and the herdmen of Lot's cattle" (<em><a href='B:10 13:7'>Gen 13:7</a></em>). Abram reasoned that it would be a shame to let this incident between their employees drive a wedge between them personally; "for we be brethren" (note Abram's intense awareness that they were of the same household), and close spiritual friends too, it may be inferred (<em><a href='B:10 19:8'>Gen 19:8</a></em>). Abram's subsequent concern for Lot indicates that they did not fall out personally over the problem.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the Canaanite and the Perizzite lived in the land at that time</em>- Moses’ books were helping the wilderness generation to see where they were coming from historically. Passages like this and <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em> now take on special relevance: "The Canaanites were then in the land". Moses was saying this as his people were about to enter a Canaan likewise occupied by Canaanites; the idea would have been <em>'Then</em> the Canaanites were there, just as they are <em>now</em>, and God shall be with us Abram's seed likewise<em>'.</em> He was bidding the people see their connection with their father Abraham, who then lived with Canaanites also in the same land. See on <em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>. We wonder why the Perizzites are mentioned specifically. It could be that they lived in the highlands and the "Canaanites" in the lowlands; or perhaps there were Perizzites in the particular locality where Abram was, and "Canaanite" was a more generic term.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram said to Lot, Please, let there be no strife between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are relatives</em>- Abram must surely have recalled how he had been called to separate from his relatives, and had not done so. God had seen Abram's devotion to Him at the time of :4, and responded by empowering him to be the more obedient- by making Lot separate from him. "For we are relatives" or "brethren" (AV) is a fundamental truth- brethren should not have "strife" between them, because of their relationship within the family of God. There may have to be separation, of a kind, between them. But their essential brotherhood should never lead to strife. In <em><a href='B:10 26:20-22'>Gen 26:20-22</a></em> we read of how there was "strife" between Isaac and the local Canaanites; and each time, Isaac moved on, rather than engage in strife. When Jacob entered into "strife" with Laban regarding the stolen idols, he was only saved from it by Divine grace (<em><a href='B:10 31:36'>Gen 31:36</a></em> s.w.).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isn’t the whole land before you? Please separate yourself from me- </em>Abram would have noticed Lot's desire to settle down in the cities of the plain. Now he saw that providence was giving him the means he needed to separate from his father’s house completely. He knew that if Lot chose, of his own volition, to separate from him, then there would no longer be the emotional agony of him separating from Lot. Yet a third time the record emphasizes their separation, and implies that as soon as this occurred, the full Abrahamic land covenant was made, featuring Abram's eternal inheritance of the land: "The Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him... all the land which thou seest, to <em>thee</em> will I give it, and to <em>thy</em> seed for ever" (<em><a href='B:10 13:14-15'>Gen 13:14-15</a></em> AV). Again we see God’s patience in the development of Abram's faith, and God’s incremental response at each point of that development.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham gives Lot the choice as to what land he would like to live in. Lot was the orphaned nephew of Abraham- such magnanimity would've been unheard of in those societies, for the elder to give the junior dependent such a choice. The elder in the relationship would've chosen the best for himself, and that was that. It seems to me that Abraham's unusual attitude in this matter was a direct outcome of his faith in the promise that the whole land really would one day be given to <em>him</em>. If we have the faith of Abraham... we won't fight for our corner in this world. It'll be <em>so</em> much easier to 'let go' as Abraham did, and take an attitude to material wealth and possessions which is radically counter-cultural in <em>our</em> societies. The way that Lot lifted up his eyes and looked around the land is matched by the way in which God then bids Abraham to likewise lift up his eyes and view the very same territory which Lot had just chosen (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>)- and was told that the land which Lot had chosen, along with all other land, would be Abraham's eternally. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you go to the left hand, then I will go to the right. Or if you go to the right hand, then I will go to the left- </em>We think of the Lord's depiction of the final judgment as a separation between right and left. It was as if Lot had the choice to decide, through his decisions about material things in this life. Although he failed, placing himself on the left hand side, as it were; he still repented and will be saved. Just as Peter denied the Lord and was condemned, in a preview of judgment day; and yet repented and was saved.</p><p>Abraham was effectively offering land for peace. He was willing to allow Lot to have the best of the land, because he was persuaded that he was going to inherit that land for ever. But by offering it to Lot in this life, he showed that he believed it would be his at some future point beyond this life. It is the seeking of immediate material blessing which leads to so much strife between brethren. The way out of this is to believe that we actually have all blessings- and will receive them materially in the Kingdom. This means that for now, we are willing to sacrifice material advantage for the sake of peace with others. Living a quiet life, at peace with all men as far as we can, in certain hope of the Kingdom to come. It was exactly because Lot wanted the land right now that the promise of eternally inheriting it was given to Abraham- and not to him. Abraham would have looked out over the land Lot had chosen- and heard that this land was to be eternally his. Whilst Lot had it now- with many associated worries and difficulties.</p> <p> Abraham's invitation to Lot is specifically to separate himself from Abraham. Yet Abraham had been commanded to separate from Lot. He clearly felt this was beyond him to do, and he leaves the initiative with Lot. He says that there should not be any strife between them because they were relatives- the very "kindred" he had been asked to separate from. Lot's initiative in the separation is recognized in :14: "Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him". The wonder was that despite Abraham not himself separating from all his kindred, he was then given the promise of a seed and all the land- as if he had now met the precondition for receiving that promise. We again see how God fills up the gap of the preconditions required- in order to bless us. This was all in response to how Abraham did have at least some genuine faith, as Hebrews 11 notes. We marvel at how God set this up. Lot's decision to separate from Abraham was because of the colossal material blessing Abraham received on leaving Egypt (:2)- and all that was blessing given by grace alone, because he had badly sinned there, had not repented, and exited the situation with massive material blessings. By God's grace alone. And in the longer picture of his life, these blessings were used to bring about the situation whereby he could fulfil the preconditions required for yet greater blessing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot lifted up his eyes- </em>The Hebrew phrase "to lift up the eyes" is used very extensively about the Abraham family. Most Bible characters have the term used at most once or twice about them; but the Genesis record emphasizes this characteristic of this family. It's as if we're being bidden to really visualize them as a family, and to enable this we're even given an insight into their body language. Consider the emphasis on the way this family had of lifting up their eyes:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Lot lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes (<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes and noticed the Angels (<em><a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place of sacrifice (<em><a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the ram caught (<em><a href='B:10 22:13'>Gen 22:13</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Isaac lifted up his eyes and saw camels coming on which Rebekah was riding (<em><a href='B:10 24:63'>Gen 24:63</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rebekah, as part of a marriage made in Heaven, lifted up <em>her</em> eyes and saw Isaac at the same moment (<em><a href='B:10 24:64'>Gen 24:64</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw the vision of the speckled cattle (twice recorded- <em><a href='B:10 31:10'>Gen 31:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:12'>Gen 31:12</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob lifted up his eyes and saw Esau coming (<em><a href='B:10 33:1'>Gen 33:1</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Esau lifted up his eyes and saw Jacob's family (<em><a href='B:10 33:5'>Gen 33:5</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob's sons lifted up their eyes and saw the traders coming (<em><a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph lifted up his eyes and saw Benjamin (<em><a href='B:10 43:29'>Gen 43:29</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Of course the classic epitome of this feature is when Abraham lifts up his eyes to Heaven and is asked to count the stars, and there and then believes God’s word of promise that "so shall thy seed be". Yet <em>we</em>, as Abraham's family, his children by faith, are likewise asked (with the same Hebrew words) to lift up <em>our</em> eyes to Heaven and consider the stars, and take strength from the fact that their creator is our God (<em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:6'>Isa 51:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:4'>Isa 60:4</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well-watered everywhere- </em>During the famine, when the land was not well-watered, Abram and Lot had made the mistake of going down into Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 12:11'>Gen 12:11</a></em>). They returned from Egypt not because the famine lifted, but because they repented for Abram's materialism and dishonesty. But Lot had failed to learn the lesson; well-watered areas attracted him, and he noted that the land looked like Egypt.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of Yahweh-</em> Sarah murmured that it was impossible for her to have "pleasure" in childbearing (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). She uses the word <em>ednah</em>, related to the word <em>Eden</em>. Yet in the events of Genesis 19, she sees how the land around Sodom that was once "like the garden of Eden" (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>) is made barren and sowed with salt so that nothing could grow there (<em><a href='B:10 19:25'>Gen 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>). She was being taught that God can give and take away fertility on a huge scale, just as that land had only recently been dry in the famine (<em><a href='B:10 12:11'>Gen 12:11</a></em>), but was at this time well watered.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Like the land of Egypt, as you go to Zoar</em>- We suffer from the 'little of both' syndrome. Like Lot, we perceive that what we want is both like the garden of God (Eden) and also like Egypt; there is a tremendous dualism in our spiritual vision. Perhaps we are to understand that the  area around Sodom was like Egypt. Abraham learns from his failure in Gen. 12- of going down into Egypt from lack of faith in the promises. Now, faced with the choice of 'Egypt' [or something which resembles it], he chooses rightly. We see the growth of Abraham's faith; from a  very faultering faith in Gen. 11 and 12, to the peak of faith in being willing to offer Isaac in Gen. 22. And yet the growth in faith was no smooth upward curve. For in seeking fulfilment of the promise of the seed through Hagar the Egyptian , Abraham was again going back to Egypt rather than trusting in the fulfilment of the promises to him in due course.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Lot chose the Plain of the Jordan for himself. Lot travelled east, and they separated themselves the one from the other- </em>"For himself" surely hints at selfishness. The Hebrew is literally 'chose him'. He chose his inheritance; whereas God chose the inheritance for Abraham, and gave it to him. The construction is only found elsewhere about men chosing for themselves unbelieving wives in Gen. 6:2.  His travelling east connects with the descendants of Noah travelling east from Ararat and building Babel (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>), as well as the rejected Cain and Adam travelling east away from the sanctuary in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>). As with Abram, we find the record emphasizing his weakness; but he is declared "righteous" ultimately (<em><a href='B:680 2:7'>2Pe 2:7</a></em>). That surely was an example of righteousness being imputed, just as it was to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom- </em>We can trace Lot's slide towards the world. He began seeking better pastureland in the valley; he then "lived in the cities of the plain", then camped in his tent near Sodom; and finally moved into Sodom, put his tent in the loft, and became a judge within the city (<em><a href='B:10 19:9'>Gen 19:9</a></em>). Whereas our pattern is to be Abram, who remained on the less fertile areas, and received the promise of eternal inheritance. Abram now lived in Canaan but Lot didn't. This shows that effectively Lot rejected Canaan for the world. And yet, despite his continual weaknesses, he is seen as a righteous man by the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinners against Yahweh</em>- Sodom being a type of latter day events, it is not surprising that Scripture provides a wealth of detail concerning Sodom. "Before the Lord" (AV) recalls the earth being "corrupt before God" prior to the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a></em>), another clear type of the last days. Indeed their sin being "before the Lord" may hint that Lot (or Abraham?) had preached God’s requirements to them, and therefore they were consciously disobeying Him. Thus <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em> speaks of the world becoming "guilty before God" by reason of their having the opportunity to know God’s word (cp. <em><a href='B:520 2:12-13'>Rom 2:12-13</a></em>).&nbsp;And yet sin is still sin, whether or not there is knowledge of God’s word. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him- </em>This separation had been required when God first entered relationship with Abram. Now Abram had been led to obedience to it, the promises were enlarged. This suggests that there are certain waymarks of spiritual attainment which the Father sets, and then increments His relationship with us once we reach them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now, lift up your eyes- </em>See on :10. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward</em>- He would have looked out over the areas just chosen by Lot; not only those areas, but wherever he surveyed, was to be given to him eternally. "The place" where Abram was could refer to an altar built there; it was in response to his devotion to Yahweh that he was given the promise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For all the land which you see, I will give to you, and to your offspring forever- </em>This was alluding to what He had initially told Abram back in Ur: "Get thee out... unto a land that I will <em>shew</em> (s.w. "see" in 13:15) you" (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). It was as if God was saying: 'Well Abraham, this is it. This is the land I told you about'- and yet the best of it has now been given to Lot! The whole thing could have seemed some kind of cruel, just as many of our life experiences do. Abraham had given up all, made a long and dangerous journey, to receive a land from God- and when he arrives there, the best of it is given to his younger relative. But God’s purpose was to focus Abraham's faith upon the fact that he would <em>eternally</em> inherit this land. And so it is with many of the twists and turns of our lives which can appear nothing but cruel fate to the unbelieving observer.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "offspring" or "seed" (AV) was singular (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>). Sarah was still barren, and so this would have been enigmatic for Abram; it was perhaps through the enigmatic nature of the promise that Abram was led toward some conception of the Messiah, the same individual promised to Eve. Abram had children by concubines, according to Genesis 25; and Lot may have been counted as his adopted son. He would have wondered whether the promise referred to any of those options. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Forever" introduces the idea of personal immortality. But it was promised here to only two persons- Abram and his "seed". This is how <em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em> reasons; and it is only by association with that "seed" through baptism into Him that these promises become true for us (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>&nbsp;I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then your seed may also be numbered</em>- This had an initial fulfilment in Solomon being "King over a people like the dust of the earth" (<em><a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a></em>).&nbsp; But the "offspring" was singular and not plural (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>). That individual was to be "made" innumerable. And that 'making' is through God’s calling of individuals worldwide to be part of the offspring, who is Christ. The innumerable seed must be compared with the other strand of Biblical evidence that "few are chosen". Relative to the wonder of salvation, and Abram standing there as just one man, indeed they are "many", but "few" compared to the global population.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its breadth; for I will give it to you- </em>God never let go of Abraham, even when Abraham didn’t readily obey what God required of him. But Abraham didn’t willingly "walk through the land"- because perhaps he doubted that he would be given it, or feared the local tribes. It's like saying to a child: 'Come and look at this! I am going to give it to you!', and the child doesn't even want to look. In this context we read of how Abraham "<em>dwelt </em>in the plain of Mamre"- that's stressed twice (<em><a href='B:10 13:18'>Gen 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 14:13'>Gen 14:13</a></em>). Instead of travelling around in his land to see it, he tried to settle down. But God brought circumstances into his life which made him travel around the length and breadth of Canaan- thus Abraham had to pursue Lot's captors "unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus" before he recovered Lot (<em><a href='B:10 14:15'>Gen 14:15</a></em>). Hobah is in the far north east of Canaan- Abraham had to go all the way there from Mamre in the centre of Canaan. For unknown reasons, Abraham also lived in Beersheba for a while (<em><a href='B:10 22:19'>Gen 22:19</a></em>); he had a meeting with the local rulers at Shaveh, near Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:10 14:17'>Gen 14:17</a></em>); and at the time of <em><a href='B:10 16:14'>Gen 16:14</a></em> Abraham was near Kadesh Barnea, in the very South of Canaan on the Egyptian border. One wonders whether the attraction of Egypt had led him there once more- in which case it was his own weakness which was used by God to ensure that he travelled to the very south of Canaan. Maybe the record includes all these geographical markers in order to demonstrate how Abraham did indeed travel around Canaan through providentially arranged circumstances, although not it seems as an act of direct obedience to the Divine command to do so.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The hope of a literal bodily reward has been understood by God’s people from earliest times. Abraham was promised that he, personally, would inherit the land of Canaan forever, as surely as he had walked up and down in it. His faith in those promises would have necessitated his belief that his body would somehow, at a future date, be revived and made immortal, so that this would be possible.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham was progressively set up by God so that his spiritual growth would be an upward spiral. Initially, he was told to walk / go to a land which God would shew him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>); when he got there, he was told to "arise", and "walk" through that land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:10 13:17'>Gen 13:17</a></em>). And Abraham, albeit in a faltering kind of way, did just this. But this was to prepare him for the test of <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em> in the command to offer Isaac. His obedience this time isn't at all faltering. He "arises" and 'goes' (s.w. "walk") "unto the place of which God had told him" to offer Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>). This is exactly what he had been called to do right back in Ur- to arise and walk / go to a land / place which God would show him (<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>). And so our obedience in one challenge of God leads us to obedience in others. One experience is designed to lead us to another. Nothing- absolutely nothing- in our lives is senseless chance. All- and this takes some believing- is part of a higher plan for our spiritual good, in our latter end. Time and again we see this in Abraham's life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram moved his tent, and came and lived by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and built an altar there to Yahweh</em>- This was Abram's response to the command to walk up and down in the land. And it was negative. He tried to set up camp in one place, in fact in a centre of pagan worship ("the oaks"). But more positively, he built an altar to Yahweh there, a public statement of his faith. And that altar and his own "tent" are well contrasted. Just as the early church resisted the command to go out and spread the Gospel, and the descendants of Noah wanted to build Babel lest they have to obey the command to go out into the <em>eretz</em> and subdue it... so Abram tried to remain sedentary. And this is human nature; to prefer the fixed, the old and familiar, rather than the leadership of the Spirit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of Goiim</em>- This chapter gives the impression that the local tribes within the <em>eretz</em> were divided into two groups which battled each other. The salvation of Lot out of this could look forward to a latter day deliverance of a weak but counted-righteous remnant in the last days, symbolized by Lot. For his final exit from Sodom is a type of the deliverance of the faithful remnant in the <em>eretz</em> of the last days (<em><a href='B:490 17:32'>Luk 17:32</a></em>). Perhaps we are to see the <em>eretz</em> divided into two such groups of its non-Jewish inhabitants, perhaps split between shia and Sunni Islam. See on :7. "Tidal king of Goiim" refers to the Kurds, who may well have a major part to play in the latter day outworking of these things. "Ellasar" was not far from Ur of the Chaldees, and he may well have known Abram and Lot.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That they made war with Bera, king of Sodom, and with Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, and Shemeber, king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar)</em>- The tribes in Palestine / Canaan, which was the area intended for initial Israelite settlement, are presented here as not invincible, and easily dominated by others. And even their dominators could be overcome by just one man, Abraham, with God behind him. This was all encouragement for the Israelites as they approached Canaan. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All these joined together in the valley of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea)</em>- The various clarifications that "the same is..." were for the benefit of the Israelites as they journeyed through these areas. The encouragement was that they too could easily be granted victory, and nothing between them and the promised Kingdom of God was really as invincible as it seemed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year, they rebelled</em>- Chedorlaomer was the leader of the group; as "king of Elam" he might point forward to some leader arising from latter day Elam, which is Iran. And yet the apparent leader of the group was the king of Shinar or Babylon, who is mentioned at the head of the list in :1.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came, and the kings who were with him, and struck the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim</em>- Moses was writing for the Israelites about to enter Canaan; and they were afraid of the Rephaim (giants) in Canaan. They are here being encouraged that those peoples had been dominated by others in time past- even without the help and promise of Yahweh behind them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the Horites in their Mount Seir, to Elparan, which is by the wilderness</em>- The very peoples through whom the Israelites were passing as they heard Genesis presented to them- had been overcome. They were not as invincible as they might appear. "Their Mount Seir" could suggest that the descendants of Esau received their inheritance; as Israel would if they remained faithful. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They returned, and came to En Mishpat (the same is Kadesh), and struck all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that lived in Hazazon Tamar</em>- Kadesh was well known to the primary audience of Genesis, i.e. Israel in the wilderness. All up, the northern confederacy of four kings (for they came upon Sodom from the north) dominated seven other tribes. This is the kind of situation depicted in the various descriptions of the latter day beast dominating the <em>eretz</em> with various numbers of horns and heads subsumed beneath it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar) went out; and they set the battle in array against them in the valley of Siddim</em>- The four king confederacy names the kings; the Canaanite kings are not named. Perhaps this was to encourage the Israelites who first heard this history to see that "the king of" whatever Canaanite town was in their path was likewise able to be overcome. If specific names had been given, they may have been tempted to think that this was a historical victory against a particular individual; whereas the principle God wished to explain was of a more generic nature.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings against the five</em>- The five kings and their armies could not repel the four king confederacy who overthrew Sodom. But Abraham, just one man with Yahweh behind him, could do so- and even take their prey out of their hands. This was to encourage the later seed of Abraham, who were the primary audience for the book of Genesis, that they too could easily achieve victory against these very same peoples and in the very same areas.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the valley of Siddim was full of tar pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there- </em>These pits for bitumen they had dug themselves, and now they fell into them and died there, exactly as stated in <em><a href='B:230 9:15'>Psa 9:15</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And those who remained fled to the hills</em>- Lot later fled to those same hills (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:30'>Gen 19:30</a></em>). Perhaps he was amongst those who even now fled to the hills. He ought to have learned the lesson, rather than let history repeat itself. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Surely Abraham is our real example; who in the years of his pilgrimage chose the barren uplands, despising worldly advantage, and who could look at Sodom's burning with no feeling of desire or sense of loss. Abraham dwelt on the mountains, from where he could look down upon Sodom; if Lot had been in these mountains, he would not have suffered when Sodom was invaded this first time; it took the final coming of the Lord to make him flee to the mountains (<em><a href='B:10 19:10'>Gen 19:10</a></em>), i.e. to the area which Abraham had chosen at the first. If we can only see the world for what it is, then the equivalent of Lot's experiences will be unnecessary for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their food, and went their way</em>- Lot had gone to Sodom for materialistic reasons; and now he lost all that he had, even his own food, to teach him the wrongness of his decision that day when he looked toward Sodom and chose the well-watered lands in that direction. But still Lot remained in Sodom, and nearly lost his life and his salvation in its final destruction; he failed to learn the lesson. Just as so many believers are taught powerful lessons about the idiocy of being materialistic; and yet return to the same bondage.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who lived in Sodom, and his goods, and departed</em>- Lot suffered in the condemnation of Sodom when the neighbouring kings invaded- he was in the same situation as those who were warned to come out of Babylon lest they be consumed in her plagues. So he went through a condemnation process in this life- but later learnt his lesson and will be saved in the end. "Who lived in Sodom" could be read as a critical note; for Lot should not have ideally been there. We wonder why they bothered taking Lot with them, rather than killing him. I suggested on :2 that "Ellasar" was not far from Ur of the Chaldees, and that king may well have known Abram and Lot. Perhaps Lot agreed to join them, or mercy was shown to him because he was from their tribal area to the East, and he wasn't a local. But the fact he was taken with them rather than just ignored would suggest that he may have agreed to join in with them in confederacy. Again, we would see here a weakness in Lot. "And his goods" shows that although Lot had chosen the wealth of this world rather than Canaan (see on Gen. 13:12), he lost even that wealth. It brought nothing but trouble. It's not as if we receive a few years of pleasure now in return for rejecting the things of the Kingdom. Those years and that life is full of trouble and loss.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One who had escaped came and told Abram, the Hebrew. Now he lived by the oaks of Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were allies of Abram</em>- One can't help but notice that God stressed to the later children of Abraham that since they had a covenant with Him, they were not to make covenants with the people who lived around them in the land- time and again God references His covenant with His people, and in that context tells them not to make covenants with the peoples of the land (<em><a href='B:20 34:10-12'>Exo 34:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:15'>Exo 34:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:27'>Exo 34:27</a></em>; Dt. 7:29; Jdg . 2:1,2,20). Yet Abraham made covenants with those very people (<em><a href='B:10 21:27'>Gen 21:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 21:32'>Gen 21:32</a></em>)- perhaps indicating his lack of appreciation of his covenant relationship with Yahweh? However, "allies of Abram", <em>baalim beriyth</em>, can be translated 'lords of covenant', i.e. masters or possessors of a covenant with Abram; "literally: They being possessors of the covenant of Abram". This could mean that already, Abram had begun to share his covenant with God with others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Abram heard that his relative was taken captive- </em>Even though Abram had been told to separate from his relatives, including Lot, and despite Lots' evident spiritual weakness, having made the wrong decision to move into Sodom... Abram still came to his help, and remembered his brotherly connection with him.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan</em>- The significance of 318 is unclear. But if read literally, it's clear that Abram was a not insignificant chieftain, having such a personal army comprised of those born within his family encampment. His encampment would therefore likely have numbered at least 2000, if there were 318 "trained men" born within the household. According to Genesis 25, he had concubines, and we wonder as to how many of these were therefore his blood relatives. However, he also describes Eliezer his manager as the "one born in my house" (<em><a href='B:10 15:3'>Gen 15:3</a></em>), with some translations suggesting "the <em>only</em> one born in my household"; and the numerical value of Eliezer is 318. In this case "men" here in :14 and "servants" in :15 would be intensive plurals referring to the great man and servant in Abraham's household, Eliezer. He was accompanied by Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, his immediate neighbours, and their men (:24), but a case could be made that Abraham and Eliezer alone were capable of putting thousands to flight. This interpretation would explain why Eliezer is called "Eliezer of Damascus" and yet also one born within Abram's household (<em><a href='B:10 15:2-3'>Gen 15:2-3</a></em>). He was perhaps called "of Damascus" in memory of his heroic almost singlehanded victory at Damascus (:15). Abram's virtually singlehanded victory is alluded to in the covenant which he now receives; for during the covenant making process, Abram singlehandedly drove away the birds of prey, representing the Canaanite tribes he feared would now take vengeance upon him for his victory at Damascus (<em><a href='B:10 15:11'>Gen 15:11</a></em>). The Hebrew there implies that Abram alone drove them away.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The uninspired first century <em>Epistle of Barnabas </em>9:8 claims: "(The Scripture) saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted - Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have (the initials of the, name of) Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace (of our redemption) by the letter T, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He divided himself against them by night, he and his servants, and struck them, and pursued them to Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus</em>- As suggested on :14, "servants" could be an intensive plural. This incident led to Abram travelling the length of the <em>eretz</em> promised to him. His love for wayward Lot was used by God in order to help Abram be obedient to the command to go up and down in the land. This is how God works; working along with our weaknesses and strengths, and the weaknesses of others, in order to help us in the path of obedience and development He intends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative, Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people</em>- Abraham's focus on material issues can be discerned from the double description of how he pursued after his captured nephew Lot, "and he brought back all the goods, and his brother Lot, and his goods" (<em><a href='B:10 14:16'>Gen 14:16</a></em> AV). Abraham's concern about the "goods" is perhaps significant. And yet given this mindset, it is to Abraham's credit that he utterly refuses to take even a "shoe latchet" of the spoil lest it be said that any man had made him rich- he knew that it was <em>God</em> who had made him rich (<em><a href='B:10 14:23'>Gen 14:23</a></em>), and Abraham wanted the world to know that. See on :22. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The king of Sodom went out to meet him, after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley)</em>- This was where Absalom erected his pillar (<em><a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a></em>), and Josephus locates it near Jerusalem. This would accord with Melchizedek king of Jerusalem attending the meeting (:18). Such a victory celebration in Jerusalem would fit well with the latter day things which these incidents point forward to.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High</em>- Melchizedek is presented in Hebrews as a type of the Lord Jesus; a king-priest, who was not a Levitical priest, nor was his priesthood dependent upon his genealogy. The record is framed so that he abruptly appears on the scene; "without father (and) mother" alludes to this, as no genealogy is provided. Hebrews uses this to counter objections that the Lord was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and therefore could not be a priest. Likewise there is no reference to his birth or death, but that doesn't mean he was superhuman. He is framed by the record in this way. Likewise Abraham is presented as having an "only son", Isaac; when in fact he had other children by his concubines (Genesis 25), not least Ishmael.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Umberto Cassuto was one of 20th century Judaism's most erudite and painstakingly detailed Bible students. He demonstrated at length that the Canaanites believed there were various gods and demons responsible for the various events on earth, and that the Torah picks up these terms and applies them to God and His (all righteous) Angels. The examples he cites include the term "the most high God" (<em><a href='B:10 14:18-20'>Gen 14:18-20</a></em>), "creator of heaven and earth" (<em><a href='B:10 14:19'>Gen 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 14:22'>Gen 14:22</a></em>), and the idea of supernatural demons coming to earth and wrestling with men (<em><a href='B:10 32:29'>Gen 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:31'>Gen 32:31</a></em>). These ideas and terms are used in the Torah and applied by Moses to God’s Angels, and to God Himself. Cassuto went on to show that this kind of deconstruction of pagan myths about demons and 'Satan' is common throughout the Bible- e.g. the references to Israel's God Yahweh 'riding on the clouds' (<em><a href='B:230 104:3'>Psa 104:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:8'>Psa 147:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a></em>) are an allusion to how the surrounding peoples thought that Baal rode upon the clouds; the "morning stars" were understood as independent deities, but <em><a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a></em> stresses that they are in fact Yahweh's ministers. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The gift of bread and wine (which foreshadowed our present memorial meetings) was a sign of God blessing us. Hence it was “the cup of blessing”, which Paul says we also bless. There is a mutuality about it- we bless God, He blesses us. No part of this wonderful and comforting arrangement depends upon us not passing that cup to our brethren. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Melchizedek was apparently a believer in the true God, presumably a priest of a community of believers in Jerusalem. But there is no evidence that Abram had much contact with him before or after this incident. The almost manic insistence that believers <em>must</em> fellowship together at all costs rather falls apart before this consideration. Likewise I have argued that it was God’s intention that Abram separate from all his relatives, including Lot. And God brought about the final division between them. Yet Abram refers to Lot as his "brother". They did not it seems "fellowship together" and yet were believers who shall share eternity together. This opens another window upon the divided state of the body of Christ today.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He blessed him</em>- This is associated with the bread and wine of :18. The gift of bread and wine (which foreshadowed our present memorial meetings) was a sign of God blessing us. Hence it was “the cup of blessing”, which Paul says we also bless. There is a mutuality about it- we bless God, He blesses us. No part of this wonderful and comforting arrangement depends upon us not passing that cup to our brethren. Note how Paul speaks of the breaking of bread in <em><a href='B:530 10:16-21'>1Co 10:16-21</a></em>. He sees the bread and wine as gifts from God to us. It’s all about receiving the cup of the Lord, the cup which comes from Him. We should take it with both hands. It seems so inappropriate, given this emphasis, if our focus is rather on worrying about forbidding others in His body from reaching their hands out to partake that same cup and bread. &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And said, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth</em>- This same title for God is used also by Abram in :22; perhaps God had taught them both the same thing in different ways and at different times. Or maybe Abram liked the phrase used by Melchizedek and used it himself, just as our language and phraseology is influenced by that of those whom we listen to. </p><p>The way Melchizedek blesses Abraham, as if Abraham is his inferior, is dwelt on in Hebrews 7. Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek- "consider how great this man was". But the focus of the Genesis record is clearly upon Abraham, with Melchizedek briefly mentioned in passing. I suggest this shows that Abraham in his weakness is our example. The one who was not in fact the senior believer of his times is showcased as our pattern- because the significance of his example is in the fact that out of weakness he was made strong. Clearly God was in relationship with others at the time of Abram. But Abram, who had a very shaky start and was dragged kicking and resisting into God's purpose, was the one whose seed remained faithful. Whereas Melchizedek's spiritual descent is unrecorded, and presumably died out. It is a story of the spiritually weaker ending up the stronger, by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand- </em>"God most high" is a title Melchizedek uses three times; E.A. Speiser in <em>The Anchor Bible</em> commentary claims that this was a common title for a deity amongst the Canaanites. But the term is used about the one true God elsewhere (e.g. Num. 24:26). It could be that he accepted Yahweh as the highest God, but recognized the existence of others. This would explain why in :22, Abram defines this most high God as Yahweh. Abram uses the term which Melchizedek uses, thereby seeking to bridge build toward him, but defines the term accurately.</p><p>Abraham's military and political strength was now so established by this victory that he probably could have held a reasonable chance of subduing Canaan beneath his own political power. And Melchizedek seems to recognize this, when he observes that the God who possesses both sky [heaven] and the land [earth] has blessed Abraham with victory. But Abraham refuses to take any spoil, chooses to give a tenth to Melchizedek and goes back into obscurity. I suggest he did that because he believed that he would inherit the land due to Yahweh's promise, and not through taking it in his own secular strength. He could have been greater than Melchizedek, indeed he was so in military and secular terms after his victory; but Abraham shows humility in tithing to Melchizedek to emphasize that he is not seeking to dominate the land nor create himself as possessor of the land in this life. </p><p>"Delivered" is a form of the word "shield" which God goes on to use in Gen. 15:1. The promise of Gen. 15:1 is therefore a comment upon Abraham's attitude in Gen. 14. Indeed God has been Abraham's shield / deliverer: "And your reward will be exceedingly great". The 'reward' was therefore for Abraham's refusal of secular wealth and possession of the land.  This would be the same lesson as taught in Gen. 13- that refusal of inheriting the land in this life was rewarded by the promise of eternally inheriting it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram gave him a tenth of all</em>- Hebrews interprets this as meaning that Abram as the ancestor of Levi was somehow inferior to Melchizedek, who is presented as being of a higher order of priesthood than Levi. But in reality, Abram was not giving to Melchizedek personally. He was a priest of the most High God, whom Abram understood as Yahweh. And so Abram is tithing to Yahweh, from his side. Tithes given to priests were effectively gifts to the God whom the priest represented. Melchizedek, in the name of the Most High [Yahweh], three times pronounces a "blessing" upon Abram in :19,20. This was a reminder to Abram that the promised 'blessings' were yet future. And therefore Abram takes the cue, and rejects any immediate blessing- of land, people and goods. That was yet to come for him. The simple implication of the promises to Abraham is that we are not to seek blessing for ourselves now. We may have some foretastes of the future blessings, as Abraham had. But our blessing is ahead, and not now. And those blessings are given to us "by God Most High", and not by our blessing ourselves.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the people, and take the goods to yourself</em>- The king of Sodom considered that Lot and his family belonged to him, and should be given to him. This indicates further the degree to which Lot had sold his soul to Sodom. Now he had the opportunity to go his own way, to start life afresh; but he turned it down.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand to Yahweh, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth</em>- See on :20. This idea of owning nothing, not even ourselves, is only true of this life; the day of release from slavery will dawn, we will receive that true freedom and that true concept of personal possession- if <em>now</em> we resign it. Abraham really grasped this idea that we now can own nothing. He swore to Yahweh as "the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine..." (<em><a href='B:10 14:22-23'>Gen 14:22-23</a></em> AV). He knew that Yahweh is the owner of all, and <em>therefore</em> he was not going to yield to the temptation to increase what appeared to be 'his' possessions. Solomon likewise had the theory straight at least: "Labour not to be rich...wilt thou set thine eyes on that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven" (<em><a href='B:240 23:4-5'>Pro 23:4-5</a></em>). The riches men seek don't exist, material possession is a pure fantasy.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham speaks of how he is the servant of the God who is the <em>purchaser</em> of Heaven and earth, i.e. the land which God had potentially given Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 14:22'>Gen 14:22</a></em> - the Hebrew translated "possessor" in the AV is usually translated 'buyer' elsewhere). <em><a href='B:230 74:2'>Psa 74:2</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 78:54'>Psa 78:54</a></em> use the same word to describe how the land God gave Israel had been "purchased" by Him. Perhaps there is here a recognition by Abraham that God’s gifts to us cost Him something. He had meditated upon the promise of the land, and concluded that God was giving him something which had cost Him. Perhaps this may even indicate that Abraham had reflected that the promise of the land was on account of God’s willingness to purchase it through the death of the "seed of the woman" promised in Genesis 3... At the very least, we need to ask ourselves how much <em>we</em> have meditated upon the implications of the same Abrahamic promises which have been made to us. And we likewise must avoid the assumption that because God owns all things, therefore it's painless for Him to give them to us. Poor people often assume that it's painless and effortless for a rich person to give them something- but actually it isn't. And we need to perceive the same about our wonderfully generous Father in Heaven. We are slaves now, owning nothing, but then we will be gloriously free (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>). So this idea of owning nothing, not even ourselves, is only true of this life; the day of release from slavery will dawn, we will receive that true freedom and that true concept of personal possession- if <em>now</em> we resign it. Abraham really grasped this idea that we now can own nothing. He swore to Yahweh as "the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine..." (<em><a href='B:10 14:22-23'>Gen 14:22-23</a></em>). He knew that Yahweh is the owner of all, and <em>therefore</em> he was not going to yield to the temptation to increase what appeared to be 'his' possessions.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That I will not take a thread nor a sandal strap nor anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’</em>- Abraham's belief in <em>God’s</em> blessing of him is reflected in the way he is insistent to the King of Sodom that he will not take any of the spoil, lest anyone should think that man rather than God had blessed Abraham. It could be pointed out that this rather contrasts with his not returning to Pharaoh the things he gave him in return for Sarah becoming his wife (<em><a href='B:10 12:16'>Gen 12:16</a></em>). Perhaps Abraham later reflected upon his failure in this incident, realizing he'd not displayed faith in <em>God’s</em> blessing of him... and learnt his lesson when the same temptation occurred in Genesis 14 to be made rich by the men of this world. Our stumbling response to the same Abrahamic promises often develops in the same way. "Made rich" is the term used in Proverbs for how "the blessing of Yahweh makes rich". And this was exactly the point. The true wealth is in the Kingdom to come.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If Jesus is Lord, He owns all. Nothing that we have is our own. The Old Testament stressed that God’s ownership of all precludes our own petty materialism, our manic desire to 'own'. Abraham refused to take "from a thread even to a shoelatchet" of what he could justifiable have had for himself; because Yahweh "the most high God (is) possessor of heaven and earth" (<em><a href='B:10 14:22-23'>Gen 14:22-23</a></em>). But now, all that power has been bestowed by the Father upon the Son. Our allegiance to the Lord Jesus demands the same resignation of worldly acquisition as Abraham showed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will accept nothing from you except that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. Let them take their portion</em>- Abram recognized that people live on different levels. For him, if God was possessor of all, then he did not wish to try to acquire possessions for himself. But he recognized that others in covenant relationship with him (see on :13) saw things on a lower level; that the spoil of your enemies was legitimate possession. As noted earlier, this was a major step forward for Abram, who had strong tendencies toward materialism.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>After these things the word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision, saying, Don’t be afraid, Abram- </em>The fear was initially of the retribution by other tribes of Canaan after the dramatic victory of Abraham at Damascus (see on <em><a href='B:10 14:14'>Gen 14:14</a></em>). But there was also the fear of every believer- that the great promises of the Gospel appeared so far from fulfilment in man's daily reality. Remember that God only appeared to Abraham a few times in the course of a long life. Abram had been promised a unique function and role in the world, amongst humanity- but he didn't even have a child by his barren wife. This distance between daily reality and God's stated purpose for us can likewise induce some element of 'fear' in us. And the answer is in the covenant now being made more sure, which is what God has done for us too in Christ. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One of the strongest of the Abraham family’s characteristics was fear, almost to the extent of psychiatric paranoia. Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:11'>Gen 20:11</a></em>), Hagar (<em><a href='B:10 21:17'>Gen 21:17</a></em>), Lot (<em><a href='B:10 19:30'>Gen 19:30</a></em>), Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 18:15'>Gen 18:15</a></em>), Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:24'>Gen 26:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em>, Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 32:7'>Gen 32:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:11'>Gen 32:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:3'>Gen 46:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:17'>Gen 28:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:31'>Gen 31:31</a></em>), his sons (<em><a href='B:10 42:35'>Gen 42:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 43:18'>Gen 43:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 43:23'>Gen 43:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 50:21'>Gen 50:21</a></em>), Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 42:18'>Gen 42:18</a></em>).&nbsp;This is really some emphasis. Fear and lack of faith are often associated (<em><a href='B:50 20:8'>Deu 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 7:3'>Jdg 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:6'>Heb 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:18'>1Jn 4:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:7'>2Ti 1:7</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>). Again, this list is impressive. Yet despite their fear, their lack of total certainty <em>at times</em>&nbsp;that God would keep His promises , the patriarchs are held up as examples of faith. If their fear had not been recorded, would the record of their faith mean much to us? Unlikely. They had so much which militated against a life of faith: by way of hereditary characteristic, surroundings, past experience of life etc. Both Isaac and Jacob feared they would die well before they did (<em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:2'>Gen 27:2</a></em>); they feared death in that their future was ever on their mind. Yet evidently their fear was mixed with faith.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward</em>- Abram was fearful that after his dramatic victory at Damascus (see on <em><a href='B:10 14:14'>Gen 14:14</a></em>), the other tribes would attack him. But he is therefore promised that he would be shielded. And his refusal to enrich himself from the spoil was responded to by God promising "great reward" in compensation. Abram's refusal to enrich himself and focus simply on saving his brother was evidently very pleasing to God. "Reward" carries the idea of wages. God does pay back for devotion to His people, but not necessarily in material terms.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The promises to Abraham were extended in Genesis 15, with more specifics added about the "seed". But the context of the giving of those promises is again Abraham's weakness. After the conflict with the surrounding kings recorded in Genesis 14, Abraham is comforted: "Fear not, Abram: I am your shield" (<em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>)- as if Abram was starting to doubt in God’s continued ability to protect him. God’s assurances continued: "I am your exceedingly great reward" (<em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>). The Hebrew mind would've understood "reward" in this context to refer to children- <em><a href='B:230 127:3'>Psa 127:3</a></em> is explicit: "Children are the inheritance given by the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (s.w.). The "reward" is paralleled with the inheritance of children given by God. <em><a href='B:300 31:16'>Jer 31:16</a></em> likewise speaks of a woman bereft of her children being "rewarded" with more children. </p><p>"And your reward will be exceedingly great" could however be God's response to Abraham's refusal of secular wealth and possession of the land in Gen. 14; see on Gen. 14:20. "Shield" is a form of the word "delivered" in Gen. 14:20. This would be the same lesson as taught in Gen. 13- that refusal of inheriting the land in this life was rewarded by the promise of eternally inheriting it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram said, Lord Yahweh, what will you give me, since I go childless, and he who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?</em>- It could be that this verse and :3 is a parenthesis. This is what Abram had been saying; and 15:1 is God's response to it. This kind of struture is common in Biblical Hebrew. But Abraham's words are the classic response of someone who wants children more than anything else. No promise of reward and material blessing will compensate for that hunger and gaping hole. The response is absolutely psychologically credible. But we must bear in mind that a chieftain like Abram may well have had children by concubines, and Genesis 25 lists some of them. But he genuinely felt childless. This is a window into how closely connected he felt to Sarai, and how he had accepted her barrenness and yet remained committed to her. We recall how unfaithful he had been to her when he first visited Egypt, and I commented there that neither God nor Abimelech punished him, but rather blessed him. That lack of a punitive discipline actually resulted in his becoming more committed to Sarah in the long term. And indeed it is clear from both Scripture and human observation that God often doesn't punish in this life on a measure for measure basis. Rather the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer- because all such shall be recompensed at the day of judgment. This provides a window onto how we ought to use or not use punitive response, especially in domestic and church life.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder why Eliezer is called "Eliezer of Damascus" and yet also one born within Abram's household (:3). He was perhaps called "of Damascus" in memory of his heroic almost singlehanded victory at Damascus (see on <em><a href='B:10 14:14-15'>Gen 14:14-15</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham doesn't just accept on faith God’s assurances of :1. He speaks as if he somehow didn’t believe that those promises meant that he personally would have a child; it's as if Abram were saying 'OK, I hear You, but whatever these promises of Yours mean, reality is, I am old and childless... can't You find a way to give me children?'. "Since I <em>continue</em> (Heb.) childless" indicates his frustration. God had already promised to "give" the land to Abraham and his seed (<em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a></em>); and now Abraham complains that God hasn't 'given' (s.w.) him a seed. One can possibly detect an anger with God, at best a frustration, when he comments that all he has is his steward Eliezer ("this Eliezer of Damascus") as "the son of my house / family" (<em><a href='B:10 15:2'>Gen 15:2</a></em>, Heb. <em>ben bayith</em>, son of my family)- as if to say 'All this You've promised me- is to go to <em>him</em>, is <em>this</em> guy to be this wonderful promised seed, and I for now get nothing? Was that the whole purpose of calling me out of Ur?'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Indeed, Keil and Delitsczh suggest the correct interpretation and translation here as being: "Of what avail are all my possessions, wealth, and power, since I have no child, and the heir of my house is Eliezer the Damascene? The Hebrew for "heir" can suggest the seizure of possession; thus Abraham could even be viewing Eliezer as effectively grabbing what he thought should be his personally. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In my opinion, Abraham's comment "this Eliezer of Damascus..." is another indicator of weakness in this undoubtedly great man. Eliezer is presented as a man of faith, of extreme loyalty to Abraham, with a wonderful humility in seeking the good of Isaac, the man who displaced him as heir of so much. His comment that God "led me- even me- straight to the house" (Translation of E.A. Speiser, <em>Genesis</em> (New York: Doubleday, 1964) and Derek Kidner, <em>Genesis</em> (London: Tyndale Press, 1967) p. 148)&nbsp;further indicates a commendable humility. Indeed, the way Eliezer refuses the greetings of polite custom in order to get on with God’s work (<em><a href='B:10 24:33'>Gen 24:33</a></em>) appears to be used by the Lord as a model for His preachers (<em><a href='B:490 10:4'>Luk 10:4</a></em>). A window into Eliezer's faithfulness is provided by considering how Laban calls him "O blessed of the Lord", but Eliezer replies that in fact "the Lord has greatly blessed <em>my master</em>" (<em><a href='B:10 24:31'>Gen 24:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:35'>Gen 24:35</a></em>). His focus was not at all upon himself but rather upon Abraham his master. Yet Abraham appears to almost despise Eliezer, his bitterness at not having a seed by Sarah got the better of him at that moment- so it seems to me. There seems a designed contrast between Eliezer and Jacob. Eliezer with utter integrity says that God has given him "success" (<em><a href='B:10 24:12'>Gen 24:12</a></em>) in seeking a wife for Isaac; whereas Jacob uses the same word in lying to his blind father about why he had so quickly brought venison: "Because God granted me success" (<em><a href='B:10 27:20'>Gen 27:20</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So Abraham was hardly at his spiritual best when God gave him the promises of Genesis 15. The first use of a word in the Bible is often significant- and the first time we meet the Hebrew word <em>nathan</em>, to give, is in <em><a href='B:10 1:17'>Gen 1:17</a></em>, where we learn that God 'gave' the stars to humanity on earth. It's as if God is now testing whether Abraham will make the connection or not- for He takes Abraham out to see the stars, shining up there in the sky as proof that God really can give stars, has already done so and continues to do so... and challenges Abraham as to whether or not he can believe that truly, his seed <em>will</em> be given to him likewise, as many as those stars (<em><a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a></em>). And Abraham made it through the hoop. His awareness of the word of <em><a href='B:10 1:17'>Gen 1:17</a></em>, that God really had given us the stars, his faith in the word, worked within him to bring forth the yet greater leap of faith- that really, so would his seed be. And God was thrilled. That man, standing there in the Middle Eastern night and beholding the stars, touched the heart of God by his internal attitudes... the sense within his heart that yes, OK, yes, somehow, yes, so will my seed be, somehow I <em>will </em>have my own child... And it was counted to him for righteousness. The same desperate struggle for faith was seen in the Lord in His final moments upon the cross- for He there reflected, according to <em><a href='B:230 22:30'>Psa 22:30</a></em>, that a seed would indeed serve God, and it shall be accounted (s.w. "numbered" as in 'a seed which cannot be numbered') for a generation. The childless Lord Jesus, with all against Him, facing His death with His lifework apparently a failure, His spiritual children (the disciples) having fled... was in the position of Abraham. And Abraham's faith surely inspired Him. And so it will each of us, when it seems that really life has failed, our efforts have got nowhere, family has broken up, children hate us, our best aspirations just never worked out... in those moments, in whatever form they come, we are to be inspired by Abraham. And we too can go out and view the stars which God has given, and keeps on giving, and believe again that ultimately He will give us the land, and in some form our seed will eternally endure.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was bidding the people see their connection with their father Abraham, who then lived with Canaanites also in the same land. <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em> introduces us to Abraham as a man who had God as his "shield"; and <em><a href='B:50 33:29'>Deu 33:29</a></em> concludes the Pentateuch by saying that Israel as a nation should be happy because <em>they</em> have Yahweh as their "shield". See on <em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram said, Behold, to me you have given no seed: and, behold, one born in my house is my heir</em>- Abraham's faith in the promises is repeatedly held up as our example (<em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:12-13'>Heb 11:12-13</a></em> and elsewhere). Abraham "believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness" (<em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>) is quoted three times in the New Testament. But how <em>deep</em> was Abraham's faith? Immediately before Abraham's oft quoted profession of faith, he had said: "Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless... behold, to me thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir" (<em><a href='B:10 15:2-3'>Gen 15:2-3</a></em> AV). His faith in the promise of a seed was surely shaky at this time. Did he not have something of our Christian hypocrisy? Yet, sandwiched in between these two expressions of his partial faith, Abraham rises within his heart to a level of faith which so pleased God. "He believed in the Lord" seems to refer to an attitude deep within Abraham's heart, as he gazed up at the stars and reflected in God’s promise: "So shall your seed be". God saw that, even if it was only a temporary peak, and was pleased with it; even though at the time, Abraham was weak in faith and even in a sense "ungodly", as Paul observes. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It may be that Abraham realized his own spiritual weakness at this time, if we follow Paul's argument in <em><a href='B:520 4:3'>Rom 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>: "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory...(but) Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness... to him (alluding to Abraham) that worketh not, but believeth (as did Abraham) on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (like Abraham's) is counted for righteousness". Surely this suggests that Abraham felt <em>ungodly</em> at the time, unworthy of this great promise, recognizing he only had moments of faith, and yet he believed that although he was ungodly, God would justify him and give him the promise, and therefore he was counted as righteous and worthy of the promise. There is certainly the implication of some kind of forgiveness being granted Abraham at the time of his belief in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>; righteousness was imputed to him, which is tantamount to saying that his ungodliness was covered. In this context, Paul goes straight on to say that the same principles operated in the forgiveness of David for his sin with Bathsheba. It would actually appear that Paul is writing here, as he often does, with his eye on deconstructing popular Jewish views at the time. Their view of Abraham was that he was perfect, "Godly" in the extreme- and Paul's point is that actually he was not, he was "ungodly", but counted righteous not by his acts but by his faith. For documentation of Jewish sources, see S.K. Stowers, <em>A Rereading Of Romans</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994); A.J.M. Wedderburn, <em>The Reasons For Romans</em> (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, the word of Yahweh came to him, saying, This man will not be your heir, but he who will come out of your own body will be your heir</em>- Abraham had been promised a son in Genesis 15; and yet there was no specific mention that this would be by Sarah. God had promised that "one born of your own bowels" would be his son (<em><a href='B:10 15:4'>Gen 15:4</a></em> AV). Yet according to <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>, Abraham at that time did not consider the "deadness of Sarah's womb"&nbsp; to be a barrier. That indicates to me that he considered Sarah as his "own bowels". Note how in Semitic thought, Paul used the same idea when he asked Philemon to receive Onesiphorus as "mine own bowels" (<em><a href='B:640 1:12'>Phm 1:12</a></em>). Another person could be considered "mine own bowels" if they were that close. When God promised Abraham that "of (his) own bowels" he would have a son, Abraham didn’t selfishly think that this just meant that <em>he</em> would have a child. He considered his wife Sarah as his "own bowels", and so he assumed this meant that she would bear the child. In this we see a commendable unity of Abraham and Sarah; he thought of her as he thought of himself. In an age of polygamy and concubines, this was unusually wonderful. He could so easily have just gone off and slept with a woman to test out God’s promise and have a child. And yet, as often in Abraham's life, he didn’t maintain that level of spirituality. For he gave in to Sarah's badgering him to sleep with her slave girl Hagar, and the whole incident has been recorded with allusion to Adam wrongly hearkening to his wife. It has been pointed out that in case of a wife being infertile, the man usually took another wife and didn’t just sleep with his slave girl. See on <em><a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Progressive appreciation of the Lord Jesus can be seen in the lives of Paul, Peter and many others. Abraham’s appreciation of the promises relating to the Christ-seed also grew over time. When the promise was first given, he seems to have assumed it referred to his adopted son, Lot. Thus Abraham offered Lot the land which had been promised to Abraham’s seed (<em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em> cp. chapter 13). But after Lot returned to Sodom, Abraham looked to his servant Eliezer as his heir / seed (<em><a href='B:10 15:2-3'>Gen 15:2-3</a></em>). Thus God corrected him, in pointing out that the seed would be from Abraham’s own body (15:4). And so Abraham thought of Ishmael, who was a son from his own body (although Yahweh didn’t specify who the mother would be). When Abraham’s body became dead, i.e. impotent, he must have surely concluded that Ishmael was the son promised. But again, Abraham was told that no, Ishmael was not to be the seed; and finally God told Abraham that Sarah would have a child. Their faith was encouraged by the incidents in Egypt which occurred straight after this, whereby Abraham prayed for Abimelech’s wives and slaves so that they might have children- and he was heard. Finally, Isaac was born. It was clear that this was to be the seed. But that wasn’t all. Abraham in his final and finest spiritual maturity came to the understanding that the seed was ultimately the Lord Jesus Christ. He died in wondrous appreciation of the Saviour seed and the way of forgiveness enabled through Him. Note the huge paradox in the promises- a paradox of grace which comes true in some form for all those who receive them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh brought him outside, and said- </em>It must have been an Angel that led Abraham out of his tent to a suitable spot and made those promises.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them. He said to Abram, So shall your seed be</em>- According to Jewish midrash, Abram and his father Terah were leading diviners of the stars in Ur (See M.E. Stone and T. Bergren, eds., <em>Biblical Figures Outside The Bible</em> (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998) pp. 151-175 for references). 'Terah' can mean 'brother of the moon', and Ur and Haran were noted centers of moon worship (M.W. Chavalas, 'Terah' in T.D. Alexander and D.W. Baker, eds., <em>Dictionary Of The Old Testament: Pentateuch</em> (Leicester: IVP, 2003) p. 829; V.P. Hamilton, <em>The Book Of Genesis: Chapters 1-17</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). In this case, the invitation to Abram to count the stars and discern there his future seed was a calling to reject his entire former world-view, to admit his helplessness in counting the stars, to throw himself upon God’s grace rather than the strength of his own former education, wisdom, and inherited ability to discern the stars.</p><p>In Hebrew, to say something is multipled is to say that it is very great. Remember Paul's insistence in Gal. 3:16 that the "seed" here is singular, and refers to the Lord Jesus. He would be more numerous or multiplied than man could ever count. The same word is used in Ps. 71:15 where David says that he cannot tell / count up the greatness of God's salvation [which is Yahoshua, Jesus]; because it cannot be numbered. So the idea here and in Gen. 16:10 may not simply be that many people would become in the singular seed; but that that seed would be multiplied greater than man could ever comprehend.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He believed in Yahweh</em>- When we read that Abraham "put his trust" in God (<em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em> Heb.) we are to understand that he 'said amen' to God’s promises. "Amen" comes from the same Hebrew root as <em>he'min</em>, to believe, or, more strictly, "to affirm, recognize as valid". He got to a specific point where he said "Amen" to God’s word; and I wonder whether he said "Amen" out loud, as the crowning pinnacle of the belief in God which was going on within him. For this reason I suggest we say "Amen" at the end of a prayer, out loud. Maybe we need to reflect for a moment on what we have asked for from God, which promises of His we have pleaded in our prayer- and then 'Amen' it. </p><p>We note that 'belief in Yahweh' is not mere theism, acceptance that 'there is a God'. Faith in God as defined here means faith that His promises of salvation to me- are true. They shall come true. Too often in the lives of believers, there is a failure to appreciate this basic definition of what 'belief in God' means. It does not simply mean acceptance of God's existence. It means belief that He will save. Which is why ultimately, there can be no real faith in God if we do not believe in Jehoshua, Yah's salvation, Jesus. In this sense "we through Him [Jesus] believe in God": "Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God" (1 Pet. 1:21). Baptism is predicated upon such belief- not merely 'belief that there is a God'. Too often it happens that those who think they made a commitment of faith actually didn't fully do so- they were merely stating their belief in God's existence. Many people accept God's existence; but this is not the same as 'belief in Yahweh' as here defined. </p> <p> Abraham's faith was clearly 'trust'. For that is what the original words for 'faith' really mean. "For what does the scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Rom 4: 1-5)". Abraham had "no works" at this point. He trusted that somehow, it would happen. And in our age of reason and rationalism, trust is seen as primitive and 'evidence' is always demanded. But faith means trust. It's as simple as that. We are like Mrs. Einstein, when asked if she understood her husband's [Albert Einstein's] theory of relativity: "Oh no. But I trust Bert ['Albert']".  </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet this peak of faith in Abraham is found between evidence of his weakness of faith. We've seen this in the early verses of Genesis 15. And now, having risen up to this peak of faith, we soon find him doubting again: "How shall I know that I shall inherit (the land)?" (<em><a href='B:10 15:8'>Gen 15:8</a></em>). And again, this makes Abraham yet the more real to us, who likewise find it so hard to maintain peaks of faith. And yet Abraham's failure of faith in having Ishmael is evidence enough that his "faith" which is so focused upon in the NT was, in fact, incomplete and not total. Perhaps this is exactly why his 'faith', such as it was, is held up as our pattern. For our faith is likewise incomplete. Abraham is "father of the faithful" in that we have his kind of faith- and it was incomplete and wavered at times. James 2:22 recognizes that Abraham's faith at this point was immature because he quotes Gen. 15:6 and then says that this faith was perfected / matured by the 'work' of offering Isaac.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham believed God in Genesis 15, but the works of Genesis 22 (offering Isaac) made that faith “perfect”. Through his correct response to the early promises given him, Abraham was imputed “the righteousness of faith”. But <em>on account of</em> that faith inspired by the earlier promises, he was given “the promises that he should be heir of the world” (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>). That promise in turn inspired yet more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel preached to Abraham in the promises leads men “from faith to faith”, up the upward spiral (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>). James 2 is clear that when Abraham offered Isaac, "the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'". So Abraham's faith was connected with works. Those works flowed out from his belief at this point in Gen. 15. A confession of faith / trust, e.g. at baptism, may take years to actually be tested in practice, and to be revealed in practice. But we shouldn't think that Abraham's justification with God was on account of his legalistic obedience. People like legalism, and want to keep laws, because that leads them to avoid personal relationship. We keep the taxation laws because we don't want a 'personal encounter' with a tax inspector, and likewise with road traffic laws. We are happier keeping "them" as a faceless, anonymous organization with whom we do not need to personally engage. And it can be the same spiritually. Personal encounter with God is all demanding. And people shy away from that behind the walls of legalistic obedience, just as Israel didn't actually want to see Yahweh on the mountain, but preferred Moses to go up to Him and return with some laws to keep. But in Abraham's case, and thereby our case, we enter the relationship first, by grace through faith, and are fully accepted by God at that point. And the obedience comes as a natural outflow from that relationship position. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The huge importance attached to faith in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em> would be pointless if obedience to the Law was what guaranteed the promise of inheritance the world- as Jewish theology taught about Abraham. The promise of the Kingdom would become irrelevant because Paul has demonstrated in Romans 1-3 that all men, Abraham included, are sinners, law breakers, and condemned before the judgment seat of God. Nobody would therefore inherit the promised Kingdom, and so the promise of it would have been pointless. </p><p>There is another option. It could be that in fact Abraham had not believed in Yahweh until this point. He had left Ur and Haran because of other influences upon him; he had allowed Lot to choose the better land because he didn't like family strife; he had gone up and down in Canaan because of circumstance and not because of obedience to the command to do so; he had gone into Egypt in disbelief of the promises. And yet God worked through and with him, because He foresaw that now at this point, Abraham would believe. Rom. 4:5 interprets this incident as an example of how God justifies the "unGodly". "UnGodly" is how Abraham was viewed at this time. The argument in Romans 4 parallels Abraham at this point with David after his sin with Bathsheba, also being justified by grace through faith. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And He reckoned it to him for righteousness</em>- The same word is used of how Rachel and Leah were "reckoned" strangers by their father, although they were in fact his daughters (Gen. 31:15). The idea is clearly that someone is counted as something they aren't. Likewise Lev. 7:18 uses the word of how a sacrifice, properly eaten and offered, was "reckoned" to the benefit of the sinner being atoned for. It may be that Abraham realized his own spiritual weakness at this time, if we follow Paul's argument in <em><a href='B:520 4:3'>Rom 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>: "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory...(but) Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness...to him (alluding to Abraham) that worketh not, but believeth (as did Abraham) on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (like Abraham's) is counted for righteousness" . Surely this suggests that Abraham felt <em>ungodly</em> at the time, unworthy of this great promise, and yet he believed that although he was ungodly, God would justify him and give him the promise, and therefore he was counted as righteous and worthy of the promise. There is certainly the implication of some kind of forgiveness being granted Abraham at the time of his belief in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>; righteousness was imputed to him, which is tantamount to saying that his ungodliness was covered. In this context, Paul goes straight on to say that the same principles operated in the forgiveness of David for his sin with Bathsheba.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul says in <em><a href='B:520 4:23'>Rom 4:23</a></em> that this was “not written for his sake alone”.  Where was it written? In some unrecorded Scripture? In God’s heavenly record book? Or is the allusion to the finality of the legal case now concluded, that ‘it was written’ in the sense of legally concluded, under the hammer, so to speak? The suggestion is that right now in this life, if we really believe God’s offered salvation, or perhaps, <em>for so long</em> as we believe it- we are written down as declared right before His judgment. In this case, Paul is interpreting the comment in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em> “And it was imputed unto him for righteousness” as a writing in Heaven, the court secretary writing down the outcome of the case. The Jews taught that justification would only be at the future day of judgment (see D<em>. </em>Moo<em> Romans 1-8</em>, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1991) p. 293). Paul is teaching that in fact we can be justified, declared right with God, here and now; and we ought to be able to know and feel that.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul’s whole ‘Abraham’ section in Romans 4 is written in the style of Rabbinic Midrash, with <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em> as the verse being expounded. Paul’s point is that Jewish and Gentile believers can trace themselves back to Abraham because the family likeness is in faith not circumcision. Jewish proselytes were forbidden to call Abraham “our father” (C.K. Barrett, <em>From First Adam to Last</em> (New York: Scribner’s, 1962) p. 31). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are some implied gaps within the record in <em><a href='B:10 15:5-6'>Gen 15:5-6</a></em>: God brings Abraham outside, and asks him to number the stars (gap); then He tells Abraham "So shall thy seed be" (gap); and then, maybe 10 seconds or 10 hours afterwards, "Abraham believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness". Those 10 seconds or 10 hours or whatever the period was, are summarized by Paul as how Abraham "in hope believed against hope" (|<em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em>). His no-hope struggled against his hope / faith, but in the end his faith in God’s word of promise won out. "According to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be" implies to me that he kept reflecting on those words: "So shall thy seed be" (three words in Hebrew, <em>ko zehrah hawya</em>). And we too can too easily say that we believe the Bible is God’s word, without realizing that to just believe three inspired words can be enough to radically change our lives and lead us to eternity. I'm not sure that Abraham's ultimate belief of those three words <em>ko zehrah hawya</em> just took a few seconds. According to Paul, he "considered... his body"- he reflected on the fact he was impotent (see Gk. and RV). <em>Katanoeo</em>, "consider", means to "observe fully" (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>). He took full account of his impotent state, knowing it as only a man can know it about himself. And he likewise considered fully the deadness of his elderly wife's womb, recalling how her menstruation had stopped years ago... but all that deeply personal self-knowledge didn’t weaken his faith; he didn’t "waver", but in fact- the very opposite occurred. He "waxed strong through faith... being fully assured that what (God) had promised, He was able also to perform". As he considered his own physical weakness, and that of his wife, his faith "waxed" stronger (RV), he went through a process of becoming "fully assured", his faith was progressively built up ("waxed strong" is in the passive voice)... leading up to the moment of total faith that so thrilled the heart of God. And so it can happen with us- the very obstacles to faith, impotence in Abraham's case, are what actually leads to faith getting into that upward spiral that leads towards total certainty. Abraham's physical impotence did not make him "weak" (s.w. translated "impotent" in <em><a href='B:500 5:3'>Joh 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em>) in faith- it all worked out the opposite. For his physical impotence made him not-impotent in faith; the very height of the challenge led him to conclude that God would be true to His word, and he would indeed have a child. For when we are "weak" (s.w. "impotent"), then we are strong (<em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>). Thus the internal struggle of Abraham's mind led his faith to develop in those seconds or minutes or hours as he reflected upon the words "So shall your seed be". He "staggered not at the promise" (<em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>), he didn’t separate himself away from (Gk.) those three Hebrew words translated "So shall your seed be", he didn’t let his mind balk at them... and therefore and thereby he was made strong in faith ("waxed strong in faith" <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em> RV). This process of his faith strengthening is picked up in the next verse: Abraham was "fully persuaded that what (God) had promised, he was able also to perform" (<em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>). There was a process of internal persuasion going on- leading to the moment of faith, which so thrilled God and was imputed to Abraham for righteousness. And of course Paul drives the point home- that we are to have the faith of Abraham. As he believed that life could come out of his dead body ("dead" in <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>, with a passive participle, implies 'slain'), so <em>we</em> are to believe in the resurrection of the slain body of the Lord Jesus, and the real power of His new life to transform our dead lives (<em><a href='B:520 4:23-24'>Rom 4:23-24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> puts it another way in saying that if we share the faith of Abraham at that time, we will receive "the promise of the spirit through faith", the enlivening of our sterile lives. And this takes quite some faith for us to take seriously on board; for as Abraham carefully considered the impotence of his physical body, so we can get a grim picture of the deadness of our fleshly lives. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was radical for Abraham to be told that God would impute righteousness to him. For in those times, righteousness was a concept associated with a person remaining within their existing communal relationships. Von Rad quotes contemporary documentation to this effect: "A man is called righteous who conducts himself properly with reference to an existing communal relationship... just (justified) is the man who stands with his community" (Gerhard von Rad, <em>Genesis</em> (London: S.C.M., 1963) p. 180). The whole message to Abraham of justification by faith and imputed righteousness must be seen against this backdrop. The same radical call to break away from our surrounding society and its worldviews and concepts of righteousness is required by all who have received the same promises made to Abraham. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham's weakness at the time of the Genesis 15 promises is perhaps behind how Paul interprets the star-gazing incident in <em><a href='B:520 4:3-5'>Rom 4:3-5</a></em>. He is answering the Jewish idea that Abraham never sinned (see on <em><a href='B:520 4:2'>Rom 4:2</a></em>). He quotes the incident, and God’s counting of righteousness to Abraham, as proof that a man with no "works", nothing to glory before God with, can believe in God to "justify the ungodly", and thereby be counted righteous. Understanding Abraham's mood as revealed in <em><a href='B:10 15:1-4'>Gen 15:1-4</a></em> certainly helps us see the relevance of all this to Abraham. And it helps us see Abraham more realistically as the father of us all... and not some Sunday School hero, well beyond our realistic emulation. No longer need we think "Abraham? Oh, yeah, Abraham... faith... wow. But me... nah. I'm not Abraham...". He's for real, truly our example, a realistic hero whom we can cheer and pledge to follow. For Abraham is an example to us of God’s grace to man, and a man in all his weakness and struggle with God accepting it and believing it, even when he is "<em>un</em>godly", rather than a picture of a white-faced placid saint with unswerving faith: </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God. For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness" (<em><a href='B:520 4:1-5'>Rom 4:1-5</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is in the very struggle for faith that we have that we show ourselves to have the family characteristic of Abraham. That moment when the "ungodly", doubting, bitter Abraham believed God’s promise is to be as it were our icon, the picture we rise up to: "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham" (<em><a href='B:550 3:6-7'>Gal 3:6-7</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The struggle within Abraham at the time is brought out by Paul in <em><a href='B:520 4:18-24'>Rom 4:18-24</a></em>, which seems to be a kind of psychological commentary upon the state of Abraham's mind as he stood there looking at the stars in the presence of God / an Angel ("before him (God) whom he believed", <em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>): "Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be. And without being weakened in faith he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was able also to perform. Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It may be that Abraham realized his own spiritual weakness at this time, if we follow Paul's argument in <em><a href='B:520 4:3'>Rom 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>: "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory... (but) Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness... to him (alluding to Abraham) that worketh not, but believeth (as did Abraham) on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (like Abraham's) is counted for righteousness". Surely this suggests that Abraham felt <em>ungodly</em> at the time, unworthy of this great promise, recognizing he only had moments of faith, and yet he believed that although he was ungodly, God would justify him and give him the promise, and therefore he was counted as righteous and worthy of the promise. There is certainly the implication of some kind of forgiveness being granted Abraham at the time of his belief in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>; righteousness was imputed to him, which is tantamount to saying that his ungodliness was covered. In this context, Paul goes straight on to say that the same principles operated in the forgiveness of David for his sin with Bathsheba. It would actually appear that Paul is writing here, as he often does, with his eye on deconstructing popular Jewish views at the time. Their view of Abraham was that he was perfect, "Godly" in the extreme- and Paul's point is that actually he was not, he was "ungodly", but counted righteous not by his acts but by his faith. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to him, I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it</em>- As demonstrated in my notes on <em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>, Abram didn’t respond very fully to the command to separate from his relatives and leave Ur. <em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em> is clear that his father took him out of Ur. Abram admits himself that it was God who caused him to wander from Ur (<em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>, see note there). Here again we see God’s grace. Abram was called, but didn’t want to respond, and God "brought" him out, almost making him obedient. The inheriting was to be in the Kingdom age, according to the New Testament; it was to be an eternal inheritance, requiring Abraham to be immortalized. Yet to receive that promise, Abram had to leave Ur and enter the land in his life. And so it is with us- we enter the Kingdom in a limited sense in this life, and that is the guarantee that we shall receive the eternal inheritance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Lord Yahweh, how will I know that I will inherit it?</em>- This is hardly the language of full faith. Without the New Testament commentary upon Abraham, we would not perhaps consider that Abraham displayed great faith in the majority of Divine interactions with him which are recorded in the Genesis record. The faith which was counted to him for righteousness was a weak faith, and as such, he becomes an example of faith which we can relate to.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to him, Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon</em>- As noted on :10, the entire procedure here was contrary to how mutual covenants or religious sacrifices were made at the time. There was no priest or altar. These were not required- because this was a one-sided, unilateral covenant of grace from God directly to Abram, and it didn’t require such instruments of mediation. The "three years old" feature may perhaps point forward to the Lord's three year ministry, as it was through His life and death that the new covenant (which is the promises to Abraham) was confirmed. The dove and pigeon were the offerings of the poor in later Mosaic legislation. Rich and poor, male and female, were all represented within the Lord's future sacrifice, which was clearly in the Father's mind at this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He brought him all of these, and divided them in the middle, and laid each half opposite the other; but he didn’t divide the birds</em>- The idea of the dead animals in the ceremony of Genesis 15 was to teach that 'So may I be dismembered and die if I fail to keep my promise'. <em><a href='B:300 34:18'>Jer 34:18</a></em> speaks of how Israelites must die, because they passed between the pieces of the dead animal sacrifices in making a covenant. But here in Genesis 15, it is none less than the God who cannot die who is offering to do this, subjecting Himself to this potential curse! And He showed Himself for real in the death of His Son. That was His way of confirming the utter certainty of the promises to Abraham which are the basis of the new covenant which He has cut with us (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:17'>Gal 3:17</a></em>). The "blood of the covenant" doesn't mean that the blood of Jesus <em>is</em> or was the covenant; the covenant is a set of promises to us, namely the promises to Abraham and his seed. The blood of Jesus is the token of that covenant, the sign that this is all so utterly and totally true for each one of us. The Lord died, in the way that He did, to get through to us how true this all is- that God Almighty cut a sober, unilateral covenant with us personally, to give us the Kingdom. It's as challenging for us to believe as it was for Abraham and his earlier seed: "This divine-human bond gave to Israel its most distinctive religious belief, and provided the basis of its unique social interest and concern. Outside the Old Testament we have no clear evidence of a treaty between a god and his people". What the theologian calls a unique basis for "social interest and concern" we can re-phrase more bluntly: We simply can't be passive to such grace, we have no option but to reach out with grace to others in care and concern- and we have a unique motivation in doing this, which this unbelieving world can never equal. Yet if unbelievers can show the huge care and self-sacrifice which they do- we ought to be doing <em>far </em>more, seeing we have an infinitely stronger motivation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The birds of prey came down on the carcasses, and Abram drove them away</em>- These birds represented the pagan nations which Abram so feared would take vengeance upon him for his dramatic victory at Damascus described in chapter 14, which is the background to this covenant. Abram singlehandedly drove them away, one man made thousands flee (see on <em><a href='B:10 14:14'>Gen 14:14</a></em>). The Hebrew here implies that Abram alone drove them away.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. Now terror and great darkness fell on him</em>- It's perhaps significant that Abraham laid out the required animals, and drove away the birds that kept trying to feed on the carcasses- but then, Abraham falls asleep, and can't do this any more. And the birds are warded off instead by the burning torch- the same Hebrew words are used about the cherubim (<em><a href='B:330 1:13'>Eze 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>), and the idea of a burning torch is used to describe the Lord Jesus on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 3:14-19'>Joh 3:14-19</a></em> Gk.). It's as if again Abraham had to be taught that all these promises and the covenant ensuring them were all of grace and not his own strength. For he would lay down in the sleep of death, the horror of great darkness, and it will be the grace and glory of God which fulfils the covenant and preserves Abraham's seed from the birds of prey- and not Abraham's own efforts.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "horror" that Abram experiences is a lack of faith in Yahweh's opening encouragement to him, to "fear not" (:1). All the way through, we see his weak faith, and God’s grace. It could even be that Abram here has a nightmare, in which all his faithless fears come true; the pendulum swings from faith (:6) to unbelief. But in that low swing, God makes a unilateral covenant of grace with him, just as many of the Kingdom prophecies were given to Israel at low points on their spiritual graph.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord, it seems to me, <em>feared death more than any other man</em>. He knew that death was separation from God, the wages of sin. Different people have varying degrees of fear of death (e.g. the unrepentant thief was totally resigned to it). It would seem that the Lord had the highest conceivable level of unresignation to death, to the point of being almost paranoid about it- even though He knew He must die. Two prototypes of the Lord had similar experiences. Abraham suffered “an horror of great darkness" (<em><a href='B:10 15:12'>Gen 15:12</a></em>), in an event rich in reference to the crucifixion. And Job’s sufferings were the very things which he “greatly feared" (<em><a href='B:220 3:25'>Job 3:25</a></em>). The Lord stood as a lamb dumb before His shearers; and the lamb is struck dumb with fear. This all makes the Lord’s death <em>for us</em> so much the more awesome. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to Abram, Know for sure that your seed will live as foreigners in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them-</em> The contrast was with Canaan, which was to be "their" land.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They will afflict them four hundred years</em>- <em><a href='B:20 12:40-41'>Exo 12:40-41</a></em> says that they were in Egypt for 430 years. God is not as it were watching His back, always seeking to forestall possible criticism by petty men; the 400 figure is approximate. Or perhaps we have here an example of where a time period is amended; in this case, because Israel needed another 30 years to come towards the maturity God sought in them before the exodus. The period is described as four generations in :16, so perhaps a generation then was about 100 years.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will also judge that nation, whom they will serve. Afterward they will come out with great wealth</em>- Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em>), but elsewhere we read that it was their gods which were judged; their idols (“gods”) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. The “gods” are spoken of for a moment as real and existing, in order to show Yahweh’s total superiority over them to the point that they didn’t exist. Likewise “demons” is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them (e.g. Mk. 2:32,34). The promise of material wealth was likewise a concession to the weakness of how Abram perceived things at that time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But you will go to your fathers in peace. You will be buried in a good old age</em>- His fathers were idolaters (<em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em>), so to 'go to your fathers' is simply an idiom meaning that as they returned to dust, so would Abram. But he would have the blessing of long life, seeing that the blessings had a primary application; but his long life was but a dim reflection of the eternal life promised to him. Our present experience of the Kingdom of God is likewise but a fraction of that which awaits us at the Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the fourth generation they will come here again</em>- See on :13. A generation at the time was judged as 100 years.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full</em>- God is not passive and overlooking of unrepented sin, even though His patience and the high threshold level He sets before releasing judgment may make it look like this. Even with very sinful men, their continual sins still register in the feelings of God. The way God progressively senses the weight of accumulated sin is reflected in His description of the Amorites' iniquity filling up; or Israel marrying Gentiles "to increase the trespass of Israel" (<em><a href='B:150 10:10'>Ezr 10:10</a></em>). God sees some wicked men as more wicked than others; for He is sensitive to every one of their sins (e.g. <em><a href='B:120 17:2'>2Ki 17:2</a></em>). "For three transgressions and for four" of Israel or the Gentiles, God would still punish Jew and Gentile alike (Amos 1, 2)- i.e. He still feels the fourth sin, He doesn't become insensitive after the third sin. And this doesn't only apply to His people; but to all sin, committed by anyone, anywhere. Thus Herod "added yet this above all" when he imprisoned John after also sinning with another man's wife (<em><a href='B:490 3:20'>Luk 3:20</a></em>). We have an uncanny ability to become numb to sin the more we see or do it. But not so Almighty, all righteous God. This is a feature of His nature that needs meditation. "The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob (i.e. Himself, so important is this), Surely I will never forget any of their works" (<em><a href='B:370 8:7'>Amo 8:7</a></em>). "They consider not in their hearts that I remember all their wickedness" (<em><a href='B:350 7:2'>Hos 7:2</a></em>). Sin is serious.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s anger will come up in His face against this world (<em><a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 3:13'>Joe 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 3:16'>Joe 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 38:18-22'>Eze 38:18-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:17'>Eze 39:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:20'>Eze 39:20</a></em>); and the world will be angry with God and His people in an unsurpassed way. The nations will be angry, and the wrath of God also will rise (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>). When their iniquity has reached a certain level, then judgment will fall (cp. Sodom and the Amorites, <em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Apostate Israel are described in the very language of the adversaries / Satans of God’s people. Because they acted like the world around them, from which they had been called out, they were ultimately judged by God as part of that world. The Jews forbad or hindered the apostles from preaching to the Gentiles “to fill up their sins… for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). This is quoting from the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em> about the Amorites. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It came to pass that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch passed between these pieces</em>- The way God confirmed the covenant here was an example of grace. The covenant God made with Abraham was similar in style to covenants made between men at that time; and yet there was a glaring difference. Abraham was not required to do anything or take upon himself any obligations- only God passed between the pieces, not Abraham. Circumcision (cp. baptism) was to remember that this covenant of grace had been made. It isn’t part of the covenant (thus we are under this same new, Abrahamic covenant, but don’t require circumcision). The promises to Abraham are pure, pure grace. Yahweh alone passed between the pieces of the animals, represented by the flaming torch- presumably in the form of an Angel as a pillar of fire. There's no record of Abraham being asked to pass through them as was usual custom. The promise of God was therefore unilateral- pure grace. And yet by its very nature, such unilateral grace from God cannot be received passively. Although there was no specified response from Abraham, clearly enough he simply <em>had</em> to respond to such grace. It's been pointed out that Abraham was blessed by God, and yet the Hebrew form of the promise implies that he was commanded to therefore go forth and "be a blessing"- and his intercession for Lot and Sodom, his rescue of Lot in Genesis 14, were providentially arranged for him to practice that. A similar construction (an imperative verb string <em>hyh</em> + a noun) occurs in <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>, "be blameless / perfect".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s covenant commitment to us is amazing. Here, He made a one-sided commitment to Abraham. The idea of the dead animals in the ceremony was to teach that 'So may I be dismembered and die if I fail to keep my promise'. <em><a href='B:300 34:18'>Jer 34:18</a></em> speaks of how Israelites must die, because they passed between the pieces of the dead animal sacrifices in making a covenant. But here in Genesis 15, it is none less than the God who cannot die who is offering to do this, subjecting Himself to this potential curse! And He showed Himself for real in the death of His Son. That was His way of confirming the utter certainty of the promises to Abraham which are the basis of the new covenant which He has cut with us (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:17'>Gal 3:17</a></em>). Usually both parties passed between the dead animals- but only Yahweh does. It was a one-sided covenant from God to man, exemplifying His one-way grace. The Lord died, in the way that He did, to get through to us how true this all is- that God Almighty cut a sober, unilateral covenant with us personally, to give us the Kingdom. We simply can't be passive to such grace, we have no option but to reach out with grace to others in care and concern- and we have a unique motivation in doing this, which this unbelieving world can never equal. From one viewpoint, the only way we can not be saved is to wilfully refuse to participate in this covenant. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to the research of E.A. Speiser, it was the <em>weaker</em> of the two contracting parties that passed between the dead animals, in order to show that they wished to die as those animals had done if they broke the covenant (E.A. Speiser, <em>Genesis</em> (The Anchor Bible) (New York: Doubleday, 1964), p. 112). By entering into covenant relationship, God was allowing Himself to be weak; although He cannot die by nature, He was willing to envisage Himself dying, such was His desire to demonstrate to us (for we too have had the Abrahamic promise made to us) how sure and certain His covenant is.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates</em>- The northern and southern borders are never clearly defined, perhaps because the extent of inheritance was to some extent open. The more they believed and responded, the more they would inherit. And it's the same with us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites</em>- The ten tribes listed here in 15:19-21 as possessing the <em>eretz </em>may connect with the ten horns of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation, the ten latter day invading nations of Psalms 83 and Ezekiel 38, and the ten toes of the image of Daniel 2. All these speak of a latter day confederacy dominating the <em>eretz</em>, which is to be overcome by God’s true Israel and their Messiah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim</em>- The rephaim or giants were the ones which Israel feared the most. But they are listed here as just one of a number of equally powerless tribes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites</em>- "The Canaanites" indicates that the ten tribes presented as inhabiting the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abram were in areas other than Canaan. Canaan was only part of the <em>eretz</em> promised, and we can conclude that if Israel had possessed Canaan, they would have been empowered to possess the entire area. God’s scale of operation is therefore on a sliding scale, controlled, as it were, by our vision, faith and obedience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, bore him no children. She had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar</em>- Perhaps given to her whilst in Egypt, one of the "female servants" of <em><a href='B:10 12:16'>Gen 12:16</a></em>, where Abram had wrongfully denied his marriage to Sarah. Hagar likely didn’t have too high an impression of Abram because of that.</p><p>We note that Hagar was from Egypt. In Gen. 12, Abram had chosen Egypt over the promises of God, and had gone down there and acted faithlessly. But in Gen. 13 he refuses Sodom, which appeared fertile "like the land of Egypt" (Gen. 13:10), believing instead that the promise of all the land would come true for him at some future point. But now he slips back, again, to trust in the fertility of Egypt, or in this case, an Egyptian. The barrenness of Canaan during famine therefore matches the barrenness of Sarai. But trusting Egypt was not the answer. We see the growth of Abraham's faith; from a  very faultering faith in Gen. 11 and 12, to the peak of faith in being willing to offer Isaac in Gen. 22. And yet the growth in faith was no smooth upward curve. For in seeking fulfilment of the promise of the seed through Hagar the Egyptian , Abraham was again going back to Egypt rather than trusting in the fulfilment of the promises to him in due course. Our trust in the world and secular strength likewise goes up and down as our faith grows. It's a jagged graph. We can well speculate that Hagar was given to Abram by the Pharaoh during the shameful incident in Gen. 12. For the note is made that Abram was given "female servants" by Pharaoh, and he took those gifts with him when he left Egypt (Gen. 12:16). So the point is made that if Abram had not gone down into Egypt, he would not have acquired Hagar, and this particular source of temptation would have been absent. Any concession to the flesh makes obedience harder in the longer term.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>&nbsp;Sarai said to Abram, See now, Yahweh has restrained me from bearing. Please go in to my handmaid. It may be that I will obtain children by her</em>- A recurrent weakness of the patriarchs&nbsp;is their attempts to as it were force God’s hand when it came to which of their children should continue with the covenant blessings. As Abraham used his handmaid to try to produce the promised seed, so Jacob, Rachel and Leah did. God had told Abraham clearly that the covenant would continue through Isaac rather than Ishmael, and that circumcision was the sign of that covenant; and yet Abraham remonstrates with God: "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" (<em><a href='B:10 17:18'>Gen 17:18</a></em>), employing the idea of 'living before God' in a covenantal sense. When God again repeats His purpose with Isaac, Abraham goes and circumcises Ishmael, as if he was to still participate in the covenant God wished to continue through Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 17:23'>Gen 17:23</a></em>). The fact that Abraham's circumcision of Ishmael is specifically recorded highlights his insistence on trying to make God’s promises fulfil as <em>he</em> would like them to. Isaac did the same, insistent upon giving the covenant blessing to Esau rather than Jacob; Jacob likewise did something similar when he tried to reverse the blessing upon Ephraim and Manasseh (<em><a href='B:10 48:18'>Gen 48:18</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 300 or so Nuzi tablets record history, legal codes and case history of situations contemporary with Abraham; and the comment has been made that deciding to sleep with your wife's slave girl was almost unheard of. So it seems to me that Abraham again gave in, in a moment of weakness; but didn’t take another wife, because he really clung on to his faith that he would have a child by Sarah. The whole incident with Abraham and Hagar seems to me to reflect weakness in both Abraham and Sarah. Neither of them ever refer to her by her name, but rather by her title, "handmaid", as if she were just an object. Yet God and the inspired narrator refer to her by her name, Hagar, as if recognizing the value of her person in a way that Abraham and Sarah didn’t. It seems to me that Israel's later experience re-lived that of Hagar- flight into the wilderness of Sinai, miraculously provided with water, found and preserved by an Angel. God heard the cry of Israel's affliction at the hands of the Egyptians, just as He heard the cry of the mother and child whom Sarah had afflicted. This deliberate coincidence was perhaps to make Israel realize on a national scale how wrongly their forefather had treated Hagar- and it has some relevance to modern Israel's treatment of the Arabs. For Israel suffer and will yet suffer what they have put Hagar's descendants through.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram listened to the voice of Sarai</em>- "Through faith even Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed" (<em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em> RV). At this time she apparently lacked that faith. "Even Sarah herself" is clearly making a point, holding up a flashing light over this particular example. There is every reason to think, from the Genesis record, that Sarah not only lacked faith in the promises, but also had a bitter, unspiritual mind. The account alludes back to Eve's beguiling of Adam when it records how "Abram listened to the voice of Sarai" in acquiescing to her plan to give her a seed through Abram sleeping with his slave girl. The whole thing between Sarah and Abraham seems wrong on at least two counts: firstly it reflects a lack of faith in the promise; and secondly it flouts God’s ideal standards of marriage. Sarai seems to have recognized the error when she bitterly comments to Abram: "My wrong be upon you" (16:5). Her comment that "the Lord has restrained me from bearing" would suggest that she thought she hadn't been chosen to bear the promised seed. Yet because of her faith, says <em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>, she received strength to bear that seed. Although it could be there that it is Abram's faith that is in view.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The theme of Abraham's weakness encountered in chapter 15 continues over into chapter 16- where Sarah asks Abraham to sleep with her servant girl in order to have a child. Why did Sarah ask Abraham to do this, at this stage in their lives? Why not earlier? Surely the promise of a seed had restimulated her pain regarding her barren state. Yet Abraham had previously worked through with the Lord the possibility of Eliezer, one born in his household, being the promised seed. And God had clarified that no, Abraham's own child would be the heir. It's as if Sarah could believe that Abraham's impotence could be cured, but not her barrenness. I can only take this incident- and the less than honourable treatment of Hagar afterwards- to be another trough in Abraham's faith graph. It's been pointed out that all historical and cultural evidence from the time points to Abraham's action as being most unusual. In the case of a barren wife, the man chose himself a second wife. It's almost unheard of in contemporary records for a man to have his wife chose him a woman to have a child by- let alone for it to be one of her slave girls. This historical background provides a window into Abraham's faithful commitment to Sarah- for it's significant that he's not recorded as taking another wife. Instead, his fine faith and character slips up in a moment of weakness by giving in to Sarah for a moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife</em>- The idea may be that Hagar was not a casually chosen woman. The ten year period may have begun after the family re-entered Canaan from Egypt, where Hagar was presumably added to the household. Sarai had not previously suggested Abram sleep with her. The receipt of the promises about the seed in chapter 15 would have restimulated Sarai's awareness that she was barren, and so she came up with this idea. The whole story, as ever in Biblical history, is so psychologically credible that it adds yet another strand of internal evidence in the momentous proposition that the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that 'becoming his wife' meant 'having and raising a child together', which is and has been effectively the practical definition of marriage in many cultures. The legalistic obsession with on paper documentation is something which was popular in the Western world in the 20th century, but isn't and hasn't had the same meaning for most of the world's population over time. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went in to Hagar, and she conceived. When she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes</em>- This again is psychologically credible; see on :3. Clearly God was working through the plan, because it is statistically unlikely that a woman conceives after one act of intercourse. The idea seems to be that she conceived immediately. God had a purpose with Ishmael and his descendants. Although what Sarai suggested was wrong, and Abram was wrong to obey her voice, God still worked through it by granting immediate conception. And we too experience His unending activity with us; and we likewise are to continue trying with others. The Hebrew for "despise" is often translated "curse". It was far more than rolling her eyes. It was the ancient superstition that a woman was barren because she was cursed by God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarai said to Abram, This wrong is your fault- </em>This could mean that the cursing of Sarai by Hagar was Abram's fault for obeying Sarai's suggestion. This is psychologically credible. Or it could be that Sarai is accusing Abram of impotence (supported by <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em> "his own body now dead"), and on that basis blaming Abram for the whole saga. This passing of blame, including blaming others for doing what we have told them to do, is absolutely imaginable and has the hallmark of psychological veracity. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "wrong" in view is <em>hamas</em>, violence; this is the extent of the persecution Sarai claimed from Hagar. The Hebrew word <em>hamas</em> (basically meaning 'physical violence arising from wicked plans') is quite common in Scripture, and the usages speak of how God is provoked by <em>hamas</em> to bring judgment upon the enemies of His people (<em><a href='B:10 6:11-13'>Gen 6:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 6:12'>Mic 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 1:9'>Zep 1:9</a></em>) and also to intervene in order to save His people (<em><a href='B:230 18:49'>Psa 18:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 72:14'>Psa 72:14</a></em>). How amazingly appropriate that an organization actually called <em>hamas</em> has arisen in these last days to do violence to Israel! If Biblical history means anything to us, clearly enough God’s intervention in appropriate judgment and salvation cannot be far off. Hagar's persecution of Sarah- typical of the Arab-Jew conflict- is described here as her <em>hamas</em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I gave my handmaid into your bosom, and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes. Yahweh judge between me and you</em>- Once again, this is so true to psychological reality. It's a classic case of transference, transferring our sins and the guilt for them onto others. It's why people condemn others for the very things they themselves do. The church leader who harangues a member for adultery may well do so because he himself is having an affair. It is beyond hypocrisy; it's transference of guilt onto another and vicariously punishing personal guilt by punishing another for that same thing. Or it can be that someone falsely accuses another person of the very thing they are themselves doing, and then seeks to punish them for it. This again is transference, and Sarai blaming Abram in this matter is just a classic example. She wants Yahweh to judge him, transferring her guilt and subconscious recognition of the need for judgment onto him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Abram said to Sarai, Behold, your maid is in your hand. Do to her whatever is good in your eyes- </em>As noted on :5, Sarai had transferred her guilt onto Abram. But Abram is wisely asking her to take it back and deal with it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her face-</em> Hagar was so persecuted by Sarah that she "fled from her face". "Harshly" translates the same Hebrew word 'hamas' that has just been used of Sarah - the word of how Egypt would abuse the Israelites in hard bondage (<em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>), and it is elsewhere used about rape and torture. Such behaviour, condoned and allowed by Abram, would warrant a prison sentence in our days. God’s attitude to Hagar seems to reflect a certain amount of sympathy for the harsh way in which Sarah had dealt with her. These years of bitterness and lack of faith came to the surface when Sarah overheard the Angel assuring Abraham that Sarah really would have a son. She mockingly laughed at the promise, deep within herself (<em><a href='B:10 18:15'>Gen 18:15</a></em>). Yet according to <em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>, she rallied her faith and believed. But as soon as Isaac was born, her bitterness flew to the surface again when she saw Ishmael mocking.  <em><a href='B:10 21:8-14'>Gen 21:8-14</a></em> describes what can only be unrestrained anger when she ordered Hagar and Ishmael out into the scorching desert, to a certain death (humanly speaking). Again, one can sense the sympathy of God for Hagar at this time. And so wedged in between incidents which belied a deep bitterness, lack of faith and pride (after Isaac was born), the Spirit in <em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em> discerns her faith; on account of which, <em><a href='B:650 11:12'>Heb 11:12</a></em> implies ("therefore"), the whole purpose of God in Christ could go forward. </p><p>The law of Moses often seems to allude back to the weaknesses of the patriarchs. <em><a href='B:30 19:34'>Lev 19:34</a></em> warns about mistreating the 'hagger' living amongst God's people, which refers to the stranger, refugee, foreigner. This is a related word to 'Hagar'- it has the same consonants. Clearly the message to Israel was to not treat foreigners as Sarah had treated Hagar. Again we see Sarah presented in a very negative light. She comes over as wanting Abraham to have the child Ishmael for herself, and then blames Abraham for the domestic tensions that arise. Hagar is brought to Abraham by Sarah; and the record clearly presents Hagar as being used by Sarah and Abraham as if she were not a person but a thing. And yet Hagar is repeatedly described as 'seeing' things. "She saw that she had conceived... her mistress was despised in her eyes...". And she 'sees' the Angel in the wilderness. She has eyes to perceive that she has looked upon God with her eyes and lived, God has seen her as she saw Him. She was not a thing, but a perceptive person with eyes and feelings. Sarah is portrayed as the abusive slaveowner. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham and Sarah doubt God’s promise of a seed, and so Sarah pushes Abraham to have an affair with Hagar her servant. When Hagar gets (understandably) full of womanly pride at her conception, Sarah persecutes her and drives her out to certain death in the wilderness. True believers aren't good or nice people! God seems to take Hagar's side, He hears her affliction, He looks upon her, and makes a covenant with her (Genesis 16). Hagar believes God’s promise to her, and praises Him for it. Sarah laughs at God’s promise to her as being a joke (<em><a href='B:10 18:12-15'>Gen 18:12-15</a></em>). And even worse, when she is reprimanded for doing this, she flatly denies she ever laughed.</p><p>I labour these weaknesses of Sarah because she is all the same set up as the mother of the faithful. But her faith was not in that she was a stellar example of spirituality. Rather that she as a weak, not very nice, bitter person- kept in with God's program for her and was used. In fact there is no particular example of her faith in the record. Abraham offered Isaac and believed the promises, but there is no corresponding account for Sarah. So her faith was in that she in her heart kept with God despite this surface level indifference, and despite serious misbehaviour. She is another example of someone with whom God almost forced through His purpose.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur</em>- See on :13. The same word translated "harsh" concerning Sarai's abuse of Hagar (:6) is later used in the Pentateuch of how in the case of such "harsh" domestic abuse, God would hear the cry of the abused (<em><a href='B:20 22:22-23'>Exo 22:22-23</a></em>), just as He did with Hagar both now and at the later incident (<em><a href='B:10 21:16-17'>Gen 21:16-17</a></em>). God comes over as very much on Hagar's side, and paints Sarai as a domestic abuser whose husband fully allowed her to behave in this way.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What Sarah did was wrong. Because it is descibed in terms of what Egypt did to Israel later. A Hebrew here oppresses an Egyptian, so that she flees into the wilderness"on the way to Shur"- the route from Egypt to Canaan. And Hagar finds grace in the wilderness, as did Israel.  Israel also went into the wilderness of Shur and needed water (<em><a href='B:20 15:22'>Exo 15:22</a></em>), and they too are described as having been found by God, through an Angel, in the same wilderness (<em><a href='B:50 32:10'>Deu 32:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>); Israel too found grace in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:300 31:2'>Jer 31:2</a></em>). The parallels indicate that God had a purpose with Hagar and Ishmael, and He blesses Ishmael in terms which are clearly based upon the blessing of Abraham's seed. The message is perhaps that anyone who is the seed of Abraham, despite their Gentile connections and broken relationship with the Hebrews, can still inherit the Abrahamic blessing. &nbsp; There is not simply Divine fondness for those who would later become the Arab peoples; it indicated even in Old Testament times that although Israel were His chosen people (by grace alone), He was even then open to working with others. And the similarities with Israel also being "found" in the same wilderness were to demonstrate that Israel had been chosen by grace alone, and were not at all superior to Hagar's seed. The allegory of <em><a href='B:550 4:25'>Gal 4:25</a></em> presents Israel after the flesh as Ishmael, as if to cement the point being made; that natural Israel were not in fact any better than Ishmael.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Hagar, Sarai’s handmaid- </em>Hagar is repeatedly seen as Sarai's maid ("my maid", :5, "your maid", :6), rather than Abram's wife. And yet as noted on :3, she was also seen on another level as Abram's wife. It was an anomalous situation, just as many marital situations today are. But God’s sympathy is with her and He works through that situation, rather than turning away from it.  God addresses Hagar by name. This is about the only example in the Bible, and indeed [so it has been observed] in all the contemporary literature, where any God directly addresses a woman by name. We get the strong impression that God feels sorry for Hagar and takes her side, recognizing she is indeed a 'hagar', a foreigner, a stranger. This in turn highlights His grace towards Sarah. He is the God who is gracious towards both the abused and also the abuser. In our age, the abuser is shown no grace at all. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Where did you come from? Where are you going? She said, I am fleeing from the face of my mistress Sarai</em>- The questions begged the answers: 'From Egypt, and back to Egypt', for she was apparently making for the southern highway back home. Hagar doesn't engage with those questions at the time; she only saw the present reality. But perhaps God is suggesting to her that He has a higher purpose for her than merely being an Egyptian servant girl who was to return there. He wanted to make her, some random slave girl from Egypt, used as a pawn in a game... into something very special. It's just His way, His grace, His sensitivity to the little ones. Whether or not she will be saved isn't the issue; God was still sensitive to the loser and the abused.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh said to her, Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hands</em>- "Submit" translates the same Hebrew word translated "harshly" in :6. Hagar was asked to submit to the abuse, just as the same word is used of the harsh bondage and abuse which God required Israel to be subject to in Egypt (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em>). Revolt and exodus from abuse is not always God’s immediate plan. But He didn’t want her to return to Egypt, and fade away into Egyptian society as an anonymous single mother; He wanted to make of her seed a great nation; see on :8. This is His way, His grace. But just as Israel had to be afflicted in Egypt for this to happen, so Hagar had to be afflicted by Sarai. But she was to understand that God had given her the power of choice- her submission was to be of her choice, not because of Sarah's power over her. Had she refused that, she would not have received the promises to Abraham repeated to her (:10). And the promise to Ishmael went on to say that through submission to Sarah, there would come freedom for Ishmael. He would break free from the oppressive Sarah, and become a strong nation independent of her. This was God's way of bringing the oppressed, nobody of a refugee, fleeing, single mother, pregnant slave girl- to power and freedom. She perceived the wonder of all this when she marvels that 'You God, see [pay attention] to me'. But the path lay through submission in faith and hope. It seems Hagar and Ishmael didn't really choose to continue covenant relationship with Yahweh, because they failed to control their anger with Sarah and her line through Isaac. That anger consumed them, and obscured their relationship with the God of Abraham.  This so often happens with the abused. Their understandable anger with their abusers stunts their spiritual development. And the fact their abusers have some relationship with God is hard for them to accept. To the point many refuse any relationship with the same God. They fail to separate God from His people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh said to her, I will greatly multiply your seed, that they will not be numbered for multitude</em>- The same language as the promises to Abraham which were only later given in <em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>. This promise wasn't given immediately to Abram perhaps because God wanted to humble him and Sarai with the thought that the slave girl Hagar was to have a mighty seed. Maybe once they were humbled to accept that, the similar promise was given to their seed. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh said to her, Behold, you are with child, and will bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because Yahweh has heard your affliction</em>- Ishmael means 'Whom El hears'. God was open to Hagar and Ishmael, He heard and saw them- He was open to relationship even with those not in the chosen seed. God tells Hagar that He "heard thy affliction" (<em><a href='B:10 16:11'>Gen 16:11</a></em> AV; LXX "humiliation"), as if her situation and cry of desperation was received by Him as a prayer. The fact the Lord is mediating our prayers before the Father's throne ought to influence us as to what type of people we are. For who we are, not only our prayers, is reflected before Him in Christ. Our lives are in that sense our prayers. It was usual for the father to name the child, but Hagar, the abused, sexually used slave girl names her child. And Abraham goes along with it- Abram named the child Ishmael (:15). So Hagar is sent back into the abusive situation with an elevated status, with God's word behind her. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will be like a wild donkey among men. His hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him- </em>Jeremiah describes wayward Israel as a wild ass (<em><a href='B:300 2:24'>Jer 2:24</a></em>), perhaps inviting comparison with Ishmael, the wild ass man (<em><a href='B:10 16:12'>Gen 16:12</a></em>). I have elsewhere given many other Biblical examples of how God’s apostate people are described in terms of those who are <em>not</em> God’s people. And <em><a href='B:550 4:25'>Gal 4:25</a></em> is clear that the natural seed of Israel were paralleled in God’s mind with Ishmael, which is why the promises of material blessing were spoken to both seeds in the same terms (<em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 16:10'>Gen 16:10</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will live opposite all of his brothers</em>- Literally, 'to the east of', which would mean that Israel's warring half brothers would be located exactly where they are today, to the east of Palestine.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She called the name of Yahweh who spoke to her, You, God, see me, for she said, Have I even stayed alive after seeing Him?- </em>The Hebrew word for "fountain" in :7 is literally "eye", and is the same word translated "eyes" in :5. It was as if that fountain of water was really God’s eye, and Hagar perceives that by saying that God saw her, as if that fountain of water was God’s eye. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew language reflects certain realities about the nature of God’s ways. The common Hebrew word for ‘to see’, especially when used about God’s ‘seeing’, means also ‘to provide’. Abraham comforted Isaac that “God will see for himself (AV ‘provide’) the lamb” (<em><a href='B:10 22:8'>Gen 22:8</a></em> RVmg.); and thus the RVmg. interprets ‘Jehovah Jireh’ as meaning ‘the Lord will see, or provide’ (<em><a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a></em>). The same word is used when Saul asks his servants to “provide” him a man (<em><a href='B:90 16:17'>1Sa 16:17</a></em>). When Hagar said “Thou God seest me” (<em><a href='B:10 16:13'>Gen 16:13</a></em>) she was expressing her gratitude for His <em>provision</em> for her. What this means in practice is that the fact God sees and knows all things means that He can and will therefore and thereby provide for us in the circumstances of life; for He sees and knows all things. </p><p>There is reason to think that Abraham was humble enough to learn from Hagar's observation, that God had seen her and she had seen Him. For at the pinnacle of his faith when he offered Isaac, he in turn names the place 'Yahweh Yireh', Yahweh has seen / will see, and will provide. The idea is identical to that spoken by Hagar, that God had seen / provided for her, and she had seen God. And we note that Isaac himself chose to settle at Hagar's well, 'the well of the living one who sees me' (Gen. 24:62 "the well Lahairoi"; Gen. 25:11). In all this we see a tacit recognition that they had learnt something from Hagar, the slavegirl whom the family had used and abused.   </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore the well was called Beer Lahai Roi. Behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered</em>- "It is" again indicates that Moses was writing primarily for the wilderness generation, who would have 'beheld' that well on their journeys.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hagar bore a son for Abram. Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael</em>- The language twice stresses that "Hagar bore", and yet the son was Abram's. There was to be no question that this child was in a sense the legitimate son of Abram. As noted on :11, Ishmael means 'Whom El hears'. God was open to Hagar and Ishmael, He heard and saw them- He was open to relationship even with those not in the chosen seed. The fact Abram named the child was a statement that he considered the child his very own. That was standard procedure in the society of those days. This is the extent to which he went to try to find a surrogate, secular form of fulfilling God's promises. God has set eternity in the human heart, but man seeks to fulfil it in ways which are secular and pathetic, compared to the real thing. Which is His absolute gift of the real thing, in this case, a child by his legitimate wife Sarah. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram</em>- According to <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>, Abram's body was "dead", he was impotent, by the time of the promise of Isaac 13 year later. And yet Genesis 25 lists other sons of Abram, by Keturah and other concubines. Perhaps he had slept with other slave girls before that; or maybe the failure with Hagar led him to fail likewise with other such women, in a desperate attempt to force through God’s promised purpose on Abram's own terms and in his own strength. Just as one case of taking a lower level leads us so easily into others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am God Almighty</em>- The Hebrew word <em>shaddai</em> (Almighty) is often linked in the Pentateuch with the idea of fruitfulness and provision of good things (<em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:3'>Gen 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 43:14'>Gen 43:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:25'>Gen 49:25</a></em>). The Hebrew root <em>shad</em> is the word for 'breast'. The references in Genesis speak of the Almighty making the promises; elsewhere&nbsp; we see that the promises were made by the Angels. Thus the Angels were perceived as providers of all good things, which would explain why the book of Job so frequently uses 'shaddai' as the word for God; and why one of the purposes of the book is to correct the wrong idea of <em>shaddai</em> as a giver of only&nbsp; good things, perhaps through the desire to contrast the true God with other contemporary fertility gods who were thought to provide all good things.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The promises to Abraham promised "blessing", and this is interpretted in the New Testament as the blessing of forgiveness of sins and salvation. The Divine title "El Shaddai", God Almighty, is often associated with the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed (<em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:3'>Gen 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:3'>Gen 48:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:25'>Gen 49:25</a></em>). But a case can be made that "shaddai" is related to the Egyptian and other Semitic verb <em>shadi</em>, to save, or as a noun, <em>shady</em>, Saviour (1). It has been observed that the Egyptians and other Semites connected their personal name to that of their god by this idea of <em>shad</em>- (name of god)-<em>shad</em>-(personal name), i.e., 'God so and so saves me' (2). El Shaddai, God the Saviour, is revealed as such through the promises of spiritual blessing, i.e. salvation, which were made to the fathers.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Walk before me, and be blameless</em>- It could be that :1,2 are an appeal to Abraham to dedicate himself more fully to God, an to accept that He is indeed "almighty". The last we have heard of Abraham is 13 years previously, when Ishmael was born as a result of Abraham's lack of faith in the fulfilment of the Divine promises (<em><a href='B:10 16:16'>Gen 16:16</a></em>). Perhaps he backslid during those years. The idea of walking before God is understood by Abraham in :18 as meaning being in covenant relationship. We enter that covenant by baptism now, or in those days, by circumcision. But to abide in the covenant meant living in daily life as if in God’s presence, before Him, in the light of His face.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em> alludes here: "Be perfect...". But the command "Be perfect" (AV) can be translated "Be perfected" (<em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). There's some support for this when we consider the inspired commentary upon the promises to Abraham in <em><a href='B:650 11:39-40'>Heb 11:39-40</a></em>: "(He) received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be perfected". "The promise" and being "perfected" are thus paralleled. In this we may have in <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em> another promise to Abraham- to 'be perfected', and this could only come true through God’s perfect righteousness being imputed to him. The New Testament informs us quite simply that Abraham believed the promise of being in the Kingdom, and he was therefore 'justified', or counted righteous (<em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>). But God led him in appreciating what those promises really implied. If he was going to live eternally in God’s Kingdom, then he would only be there because God counted him righteous. And so it seems to me that God developed Abraham's mind further by promising him in <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em> that he would indeed "be perfected", which could only have come about through God imputing righteousness to him. It could be that when Abraham "believed" the promise of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>, he didn’t realize that in Heaven, God was so thrilled with his faith that He counted Abraham as righteous, in order to fulfill the promise of giving him eternal life. And then in <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>, God communicated this to Abraham in the promise that He would 'perfect' him. And God patiently works with us likewise, as we struggle to really, really believe that we will live eternally in His Kingdom; and as we progressively realize throughout life that this can only be possible by the Lord's perfection being counted to us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew certainly reads as if Abraham had to be "perfect" and walk before God, and then, God would make a covenant with him and multiply him. Abraham falls to his face; and then God announces that actually, He will make the covenant anyway, and the promises which are part of that covenant, Abraham should consider as having been fulfilled already, they were so certain of fulfilment. The promises to Abram in Gen. 12:1,2 were conditional upon his obedience- he would receive the new land and family if he separated from his natural family and land. But he was induced to do even this by God. So grace truly abounded. Likewise in Gen. 17:1,2 "Walk before Me and be blameless so that I may establish My covenant between Me and you and increase you greatly". Abram was not "blameless"; he was only counted righteous because of his faith.  So the condition was set, but even the condition was not totally met by Abram unaided. And the covenant of Gen. 15 was without even these conditions. Although Abram did have faith, as Heb. 11 states, it was clearly weak and God imputed a lot of righteousness on the basis of a very small faith. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Abraham was commanded to "be perfect", so Israel were told: "<em>You</em> (after the pattern of father Abraham) shall be perfect with the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a></em>). Moses’ books were helping the wilderness generation to see where they were coming from historically. Abraham was to be their personal example, as he is for the new Israel. See on <em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly</em>- What began as promises from God to Abram now become a covenant between God and Abraham. Abraham perceived the wonder of it all- that the God of the cosmos should chose to make a covenant with him personally, as in Genesis 15.&nbsp;Nothing specifically is asked of Abraham apart from, axiomatically, believing it. He was to walk before God (:1), in His presence, and allow himself to be perfected (see on :1), to keep in the Divine program and not resign from it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abram fell on his face. God talked with him, saying</em>- The Hebrew translated "fell on his face" is exactly the same as that translated "his countenance fell" in <em><a href='B:10 4:5-6'>Gen 4:5-6</a></em> (see too <em><a href='B:220 29:24'>Job 29:24</a></em>). Another reading of this incident could therefore be that Abraham's face fell on hearing that the covenant would be conditional upon his walking perfectly- but then God made the covenant anyway with him, and therefore in verse 17 he falls on his face and laughs with joy. This, perhaps, is the more likely, realistic reading; and it also avoids the problem of Abraham falling to his face twice with no record of him standing up again.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you. You will be the father of a multitude of nations</em>- Consider the wording: "Behold, my covenant <em>is</em> (present tense- right now, i.e. Abraham didn’t have to prove himself "perfect") with thee, and you shall be (future) a father of many nations... your name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations <em>have I made thee</em>" (<em><a href='B:10 17:4-5'>Gen 17:4-5</a></em> AV). The Abrahamic promises, which we too have received, are a reflection of unconditional love and grace on God’s part, just as we observed in Genesis 15. At the end of all the Divine announcements, we read that Abraham again falls on his face and laughs for joy (<em><a href='B:10 17:17'>Gen 17:17</a></em>).</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps by Angelic invitation (as with Daniel), Abraham had stood up from the floor to hear God’s promises from the mouth of the Angel- and now he collapses again. The sheer <em>wonder</em> of God’s grace in these promises is simply <em>so</em> great. What is conditional upon our walking 'perfectly' has been given to us anyway, by grace- for righteousness has been imputed to us as it was to Abraham. As a side comment, it seems to me that surprised laughter occurs when we encounter a difference between the expected, and an unexpected reality that takes us pleasantly by surprise. That observation would indicate Abraham's seeing by faith the reality of what God had promised; and yet it would also suggest that prior to this, Abraham was not really expecting God to completely fulfil the implication of the promises.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Neither will your name any more be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham</em>- Abram means 'high / exalted father', and can mean "he is of exalted i.e. good ancestry". Yet Abram's name was changed. He had been commanded to break with his family when he was first called, and as we noted on <em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>, he didn’t do that. He left Ur not in obedience to the calling to leave Ur and his family, but rather because his father took Abram with him. He likewise didn’t separate from Lot until God arranged circumstances which meant that Lot separated from <em>him</em>. Now the Divine program went further, in changing Abram's name, away from the exaltation of his own father. He was to grow up, at 99 years old, to come of age, to no longer be living out parental expectation. He was to be the father of a new family, as 'Abraham' implied, and to sever all connection with his human ancestry and family. The way ‘Abram’ was changed to ‘AbraHAm’ and ‘Sarah’ to ‘SarAH’ shows how God wishes to mix syllables of His Name with that of men. Jacob was changed to Isra-el, mixing God’s name with that of his father. This is indeed mutuality between God and man- and it demands so much. No longer was Abram all about exalting his own father; he was himself to be a father. We too as Abraham's children pass through this sense of redefinition; we are new creations, no longer just defined by our place in a line of genetics or ancestors, but making a radically new start, producing spiritual children who in that sense shall continue the line which we begin by the sowing of the Gospel seed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It has been pointed out that Abram or Abiram was one of the most common names in the near East- it was common in Babylon as Abirami, and in Egypt as Abu-reheni or Abram (J.B. Pritchard, ed., <em>Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament</em> (Oxford: O.U.P., 1950) p. 242, p. 329 note 9). Into this very common name- as normal and common as the names we bear in our societies- was added the Name of Yahweh. Abram became Abraham. The central letter of Yahweh's Name became the central letter of Abraham's. But Abram means 'my father is exalted', or more strictly as W.F. Albright&nbsp;suggests 'I am exalted with regard to / because of my father'. To jettison this name was to trash all Abraham and his culture held so dear- definition in terms of their father, where they came from. The call of the Lord Jesus in our age is in essence no different- to reject father and mother and instead follow Him, to be His. Not in the sense of hating them, but in being new persons, carved out as a totally new family. The 'h' in the middle of Yahweh's Name was now inserted into the middle of Abraham's name; Abram became Abraham, father of a multitude, a new family. Some miserable philological critics have claimed that 'h' was an unknown sound in the near East of Abraham's time (Angel Gonzales, <em>Abraham: Father of Believers</em> (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967) p. 26).&nbsp; And maybe they're right, in which case 'h' would've been a new sound. It would be rather like importing the single Russian letter pronounced 'shch' into the English alphabet. The answer to the question 'What's your name?' would've been arresting and challenging to Abraham's contemporaries: 'Abraham' would've sounded strange and new to them. There will be something equally challenging and arresting to the world surrounding Abraham's seed as people come to know our name, to perceive who we really are.</p><p>By doing this, forcing Abram to move away from his father, God was again coaxing Abraham to fulfil the preconditions which God has set for fulfilling His promises of a seed. Abraham was asked to leave his homeland to receive another, eternal land; and to break with his natural family to receive another seed, far more glorious. But like Abraham's natural seed, the Jews, Abraham was more interested in the promise of the land than in the promise of a seed. Jewish theology has a lot to say about the land being 'theirs'; but little interest in the promises of the seed. And strong resistance to any idea that it refers to the Lord Jesus. Abram was called alone. And asked to quit with his natural family. But he didn't. It was his father who took Abram with him to leave Ur; and only when his father died in Haran, did Abram leave Haran and go to Canaan. And he didn't separate from Lot his nephew- until Lot separated from him. He didn't change his name of his own accord. 'My father is exalted' was how he still chose to be known, until God changed that name. And God only speaks of "Abraham" afterwards, whereas in the change of Jacob to "Israel", we find both "Jacob" and "Israel" are used later. It could be argued that he ought to have split from his half sister Sarai; but he didn't. Her barreness went with the territory of trying to get your half sister pregnant. God's later extensions of the covenant were all specifically to Abraham- and not to Sarah. Abraham's behaviour with Hagar reflects a lack of faith in the promise of the seed. And in seeking a wife for Isaac, Abraham wants Isaac to not return to the land beyond Euphrates. Abraham wants Isaac to cash in on God's land promise. But he desperately wants Isaac to marry into his own natural family who were in that land of his origin. It is pointless to try to argue that Abraham was seeking a spiritual seed for his son from amongst the people of God. Abram's family were idolaters- this is clearly stated in Josh. 24:2,14,15: "Your fathers lived of old time beyond the River, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods... Put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve Yahweh... choose this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell". Laban and his daughters were idolaters, as the record makes clear. Laban was clearly not a spiritual man. But Abraham was eager that his son married into that family. Clearly not for spiritual reasons, but as a means of somehow retaining his connection with his family of origin- whom God had called him to separate from. But God tried to break Abraham away from them by changing his name- in order to fulfil His wonderful promises about the seed. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations</em>- The promise was that Abram would become one great nation (<em><a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a></em>). The plural here could therefore simply be an intensive plural, meaning 'one great nation'. Paul notes the past tense, the "prophetic perfect" in Hebrew, and comments that God speaks of things which are not as if they are, so certain is His word of fulfilment (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). This is why there is a sense in which we are already saved, the now but not yet. </p><p>Although Abram is promised to become "a great [singular] nation" in Gen. 12:2, but here he was also promised to become a father of many [plural] nations, and his name was changed to Abraham in reflection of this (Gen. 17:5). The vision was indeed of 'one nation under God' which would unite the nations. The Abraham history is introduced by an account of the nations, who just before his time were "divided" (Gen. 10:25) and "confused" even further at Babel. Part of the blessing promised to Abraham was that through his seed, and through God's purpose with Him, the divided peoples of the earth would be reunited into one, great nation. </p> <p> It has been observed that the name "Abraham" was unused by anyone until after the time of Christ;  although 'Abram' was a very common name, according to the inscriptions. People wished to be the father of their own personal nation; but the idea of being a father of many nations was unknown. The desire to unite all nations within one nation was known only on the basis of domination and subjugation. The message of the promises to Abraham was radically and uniquely different. It was not about one man having a personal dynasty; it was about the creation of new nations united in one man, Abraham's seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you. Kings will come out of you</em>- The extreme fruitfulness contrasts with Sarai's barreness and Abram's impotence; just as the promises of the Kingdom are in such contrast to our present experience. So far, not many literal kings of nations came from Abraham- just kings of Israel and perhaps some Edomite kings. This stands out very clearly to the thoughtful reader. Who, then, are the kings? The conclusion is that the entire seed shall be kings. And this will come true in the Kingdom of God on earth when we shall be kings and reign on earth (Rev. 5:10).</p> <p> Blessings of many children, a specific seed / son who would bring glory and blessing, and a name change... are all frequently found in records of wedding blessings (Claus Westermann, "Promises to the Patriarchs," in <em>The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible</em>, ed. Keith Crinn et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 692). In making those promises to Abraham, in mixing the letters of His Name with that of Abram... Yahweh was entering a marriage covenant with Abraham the impotent, the childless, the humanly hopeless. And He does the very same for each of us who are baptized into that same Name and become recipients of the very same promises. What was weird and <em>so</em> counter-instinctive in this wedding- was the token of the marriage covenant. Abraham was to mutilate his male generative organ as a sign that God would generate him a great seed and family. Academics are divided as to whether such circumcision was in fact a common practice at the time (in which case it would fail to be a very unique token), or whether this was actually a radical and unusually intimate and shocking requirement from God (This is the view documented by J.G. Janzen, <em>Abraham And All The Families Of The Earth</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) pp. 50,51). The unique nature of God’s covenant with Abraham, that he <em>alone</em> had God known of all families of the earth, suggests to me that the latter view is likely to be correct. And remember time and again, that these same promises, this same covenant, is made to us in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). Our response to what God has promised us requires us to likewise respond in a counter-cultural and counter-instinctive way. To give up this world in order to gain it, to lose now in order to win ultimately and eternally.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations- </em>There is the sustained implication that the personal relationship between Jesus and each of His followers is totally personal and unique. The Abrahamic covenant is made personally with every member of the seed "in their generations" (<em><a href='B:10 17:7'>Gen 17:7</a></em>). The records of the renewing of the covenant to Isaac and Jacob are but indicators that this is the experience of each one of the seed. This means that the covenant love of God and the promise of personal inheritance of the land is made personally, and confirmed by the shedding of Christ's blood, to each of us. Paul appreciated this when he spoke of how the Son of God had loved him and died for him personally, even though that act of death was performed for many others (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you</em>- God promised Abraham that through Christ, His seed, blessing would come on people from all nations, with the result that God would be the God of Abraham's multitudinous seed: "To be a God unto... thy seed... I will be their God" (<em><a href='B:10 17:7-8'>Gen 17:7-8</a></em> AV). The seed is Christ, and the "God" is Yahweh.&nbsp;Let's not confuse them. In <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em> this fundamental promise is alluded to;&nbsp; God Himself will be our God then;&nbsp;we will see Him and have a personal relationship with Him.&nbsp;This would mean that this idea of personally being with God is a fundamental part of the Gospel preached to Abraham.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"A covenant is of force over dead (victims or sacrifices)... it is never held to be of force while he who is the appointed (sacrifice) is alive" (<em><a href='B:650 10:17'>Heb 10:17</a></em> Bullinger). Over that dead body of the Lord Jesus, the personal covenant to each of us (<em><a href='B:10 17:7'>Gen 17:7</a></em>) came into real, living operation. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul spoke of how those who join themselves with unbelievers (and marriage must surely have been in his mind) had to retract or repent of that relationship, and <em>then</em> God would receive them and <em>be their God</em> (<em><a href='B:540 6:14-17'>2Co 6:14-17</a></em>). He was referring back to the Abrahamic promise of <em><a href='B:10 17:7'>Gen 17:7</a></em>, that God would be the God of Abraham's seed. Is not the suggestion that those who unrepentantly make covenant with the world have broken their covenant with God?&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land in which you are travelling, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. I will be their God</em>- God promised Abraham that through Christ, His seed, blessing would come on people from all nations, with the result that God would be the God of Abraham's multitudinous seed. The seed is Christ, and the "God" is Yahweh. Let's not confuse them. In <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em> this fundamental promise is alluded to;&nbsp; God Himself will be our God then; we will see Him and have a personal relationship with Him. This would mean that this idea of personally being with God is a fundamental part of the Gospel preached to Abraham.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<em><a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a></em>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the <em>main</em> fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has <em>already</em> been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i.e., us! <em>This earth on which we live is ours!</em> We are rulers of all we survey. All things <em>are</em> ours (<em><a href='B:530 3:21'>1Co 3:21</a></em>). We are just strangers here, waiting for the call to rise up and take what <em>is now</em> ours. This is fundamental. We are brainwashed by capitalist materialism to think that we must work our hearts out to achieve <em>ownership</em> of things and land now; so we can put a fence round it and say it's ours, buy a security system or rent a guard to make sure it stays ours, buy insurance to make sure no 'act of God' will take it from us... all this is quite contrary to the most essential teaching of the promises to Abraham. Personal 'ownership' of property and possessions may well be something which is inescapable for us; but let's never forget that actually all things are ours, and we buy these things with the same feeling Abraham must have had when he had to buy <em>part of his own land</em> in which to bury his wife. It was <em>his</em> land, but he hadn't at that time received it. And so with us, with the whole world and all that is in it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The most oft repeated feature of the promises to Abraham can for that very reason be easily overlooked. Notice how the personal pronouns are the key words: "I will establish <em>my</em> covenant…between <em>me</em> and <em>you</em> and <em>your</em> descendants… to be <em>your</em> God… I will be <em>their</em> God" (<em><a href='B:10 17:6-8'>Gen 17:6-8</a></em>). God Almighty is committing Himself to Abraham and Abraham's seed in a way so insistent and so awesome that only contemplation of it can elicit the true sense of wonder which we ought to have at being in covenant relationship with God Almighty. The fact that the basis of our relationship with God is an eternal covenant means that we do not drift in and out of fellowship with God according to our awareness of Him. We are His people. Every hour of every day. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The definitions of the promised territory vary. The <em>eretz</em> promised was originally the land between the Nile and Euphrates; but the northern and southern borders were never well defined. Now, it is specifically Canaan, a small part of that territory. The tribal allotments found in Joshua are also not precisely Canaan but somewhat more in some areas, and they do not extend to the Nile nor Euphrates. The tribal cantons as described in the later chapters of Ezekiel are also hard to specifically define. And <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> says that God promised Abraham "the world". The exact material definition of our future inheritance is therefore not so important, the essence is the promised blessing of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>) and relationship with God, now and for ever. It could of course be that God amended His descriptions and definitions of the promised land in accordance with what He thought His people at the time could realistically rise up to and relate to. And we must consider what this may imply for us.</p><p>"I will be their God" doesn't only speak of God's unique personal relationship with each of the seed. It also reflects God's self resolve ["I will be"] and  determination to almost force through His purpose with the seed; as we see demonstrated in how He did this with Abraham.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to Abraham, As for you, you will keep My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations</em>- The eternity of God’s covenant was on account of the fact that He foresaw generations of individuals wishing to enter the covenant and accept it. This is why we will often meet in future Biblical history the idea of the covenant being renewed with individuals. God gave the covenant, but men choose to "keep" it, or, as Israel often did, to break it; or, as Ishmael did, to just reject it as unimportant to them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"You will keep my covenant" was a prediction rather than a command, in line with the words we shall soon read in <em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em> AV: "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment". And likewise when in 17:21 we read that "My covenant will I establish with Isaac"; this was a prediction, rather than a statement that He would establish the covenant with Isaac rather than with Ishmael (see note there). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you</em>- “The blood of the covenant” in later Judaism came to refer to the blood of circumcision&nbsp; and it could be that the Lord was seeking to draw a comparison between circumcision and the breaking of bread; for the token of the new covenant is to take the cup of the covenant. For this is how His words would have sounded in the ears of His initial hearers (See A.J.B. Higgins, <em>The Lord’s Supper In The New Testament</em> (London: S.C.M., 1952) p. 33). This is how vital and defining it is to partake of it. These very words were used by the Lord in introducing the emblems of the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:480 14:24'>Mar 14:24</a></em>). This is how important it is. We are showing that we are the covenant, special Israel of God amidst a Gentile world. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every male among you shall be circumcised</em>- As explained on :12, we are missing the point if we consider that only males could be circumcised and thereby be in covenant. The fact women could be in covenant without circumcision was glaringly obvious- and it highlighted the point, that circumcision of itself was nothing, it was what it represented which was so critical. Paul makes this point in Romans 2 - circumcision is nothing of itself, it was what it represented which was and is critical to covenant relationship with God, namely, the cutting off of "the flesh" and a transformed mind. This is why the circumcised Israelites were asked to circumcise their hearts (<em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a></em>). The surrounding tribes practiced various cuttings of the flesh, on both male and female, to identify themselves. God’s people were different; there was to be a highly intimate and deeply personal cutting on the males, hidden from the view of anyone else. The question 'And what about the women?' was purposefully built into this. The physical sign of circumcision did not publically define membership of God’s people, because it was so concealed. The conclusion was therefore that literal circumcision was not the sign of identity; it was a circumcised heart which was the sign. And so the New Testament likewise insists that if we have not the spirit of Christ, the mind of the Spirit, the possession of the Spirit and God’s operation upon our hearts- then we too are not part of His people. Spiritual mindedness, the presence of the Spirit in our hearts, is therefore the crucial defining feature of God’s people. And this at times cuts across the boundaries caused by differing interpretations of this or that passage of scripture, or issues of theology. To cite this verse as evidence that God or His word is somehow anti-women is to miss His subtlety. God is not so primitive.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin. It will be a token of the covenant between Me and you</em>- <em><a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a></em> presents baptism as the equivalent in our day if we wish to enter the new covenant, which is based upon the same promises to Abraham. But there is more to new covenant relationship than simply the ritual of baptism. Circumcision spoke of a cutting off of the flesh in the most private and intimate place. We always read of circumcision as being done to a person. Water baptism enables us to receive the birth of the Spirit, whereby the Lord will work through the Spirit to change our hearts, to cut off our flesh in the most private and personal recesses of human hearts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money from any foreigner who is not of your seed</em>- Cuttings of the flesh as a sign of tribal affiliation were common amongst the surrounding tribes, as they are to this day in less developed tribal areas of the world. The signs are always public and immediately evident- you can tell instantly that a person belongs to this or that tribe by a cut in the ear or nose or cheek, or the removal of certain teeth, or the painting of a certain symbol on a visible part of the body. But circumcision was not at all outwardly evident. It was not mere tribalism; it taught that God’s demands were upon the most private part of human life. Women also could be in covenant, and they must have wondered what was required for them. They would've quickly figured that lack of physical cutting was not to say they weren't in covenant, and that therefore, the real token of the covenant was not circumcision in itself, but what circumcision represented- the cutting off of the flesh in our most personal areas.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant</em>- Circumcision was the token of covenant relationship (:11), just as baptism is today. And yet just as there were household baptisms in Acts, when the head of the household decided to enter the same new covenant, so here it appears that there was no volition exercised by those who received circumcision. This at first blush strikes us as strange. Perhaps the idea of "must be circumcised" was that Abraham's family life was to be based around covenant relationship with God, and those who didn’t want to participate would have to leave the household. </p><p>We wonder why circumcision was chosen. Perhaps the idea was that the identification sign of God's people was going to be invisible, known only by the circumcised male and his wife. We likewise are externally indistinguishable from secular society; it is our circumcision of the heart which indicates everything to God. And it was a sign at the most intimate point on a man's body. Possibly the idea also was that God's covenant was to be reflected more than anything in sexual matters and intimate behaviour. Passages like Lev. 18 stress the need for Israel to have radically different sexual behaviour from that of the surrounding world. Those passages taught that this area of life was to be controlled by covenant relationship with Yahweh; and circumcision was the sign of that covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken My covenant</em>- <em><a href='B:580 2:11'>Col 2:11</a></em> speaks of circumcision as another type of baptism, in that only the circumcised were in covenant with God. We either "cut off" the flesh, or God will cut us off. "The uncircumcised (un-cut off) man... shall be cut off". He who would not accept Jesus as Messiah in Messiah were to be “destroyed from among the people” (<em><a href='B:510 3:25'>Act 3:25</a></em>), using a very similar phrase to the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>, where the uncircumcised man was to be “cut off from his people”. Circumcision was the entry point of covenant relationship with God. The record of these Old Testament occurrences also brings out the converse- what happened to all those who were not in covenant with God, who had not received the typical 'baptism'. The unbaptized Egyptians were "cut off" (<em><a href='B:20 9:15'>Exo 9:15</a></em>); "all flesh" that was not baptized into the Christ-ark was "cut off" (<em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>). The New Testament matches this by the oft repeated teaching that outside of Christ, there can be no salvation. The language is very similar to that of the punishment for those who refused to keep Passover, or did so with leavened bread (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>). Positively, the only ones to be cut off are those who wilfully refuse to accept and proclaim their covenant relationship with God in Christ. We can limit God’s plans to save others in the ecclesia by our attitude to them. We can make others stumble from the path to His salvation. If parents didn’t circumcise their children, then they made their sons break covenant with God- they made others excluded from the covenant by their decisions and laziness. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but her name will be Sarah</em>- As with "Abraham", the middle letter of the YHWH Name became part of her name. We are baptized into the Name, by which we accept our part in the Abrahamic promises. And thereby in spiritual terms and in heaven's book, the Name is mixed with our name. Our name, as that of Sarai, is not obliterated beneath the dominance of 'God manifestation'. We as persons shall be saved; but with God’s Name and ways intimately linked to our own. We are to be given a unique name for eternity (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>), it's not that we simply bear the Lord's Name and we thereby are subsumed beneath it into some kind of nirvana.</p><p>It could be argued that the command to Abram to leave his family was disobeyed by his continued relationship with his half sister, Sarai. Likewise he refused to break with Lot his nephew, until God's hand removed Lot from him. And yet despite this disobedience regarding Sarai, God as it were made a concession to him. And worked her too into His purpose. Despite Abraham suffering so much because of being married to her. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. Yes, I will bless her, and she will be a mother of nations. Kings of peoples will come from her</em>- This same promise is repeated concerning Hagar and her son Ishmael (:20). There was to be no reason for jealousy between Hagar and Sarah. But potentially at least, the son of the slave girl was being put on the same level as the son of the free. The paradox is, as Paul brings out in <em><a href='B:550 4:24-25'>Gal 4:24-25</a></em>, that the physical descendants of Sarah ended up in the same category as those of Hagar, in that they refused the new covenant promises to Abraham.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The promise that kings of peoples would be in Sarah's line never really came true on the level of natural descent. For Israel never had an empire, nor did they rule over Gentiles. The total lack of fulfilment encourages us to see that the promise came true but in a spiritual sense, in that those in Christ, the seed, shall be king-priests reigning on earth (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em>), some over five cities and others over two (<em><a href='B:490 19:19'>Luk 19:19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Abraham fell on his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, A child shall be born to him who is one hundred years old! Sarah, who is ninety years old, shall give birth!</em>- <em><a href='B:500 8:56'>Joh 8:56</a></em> says that “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad”. The only time Abraham is recorded to have laughed and been glad was when he was given the promise that he would have a seed; he understood that ultimately that promise had reference to Jesus (<em><a href='B:10 17:17'>Gen 17:17</a></em>). Abraham “saw” ahead to Christ through the promises made to him concerning Jesus. He cryptically commented about the future sacrifice of Jesus: “In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen” (<em><a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a></em>). It was in this sense that Jesus speaks of Abraham as having seen him. It is in this context of speaking about the promises that Jesus could say “Before Abraham was, I am”. He appreciated that God’s promises to Abraham were revealing the plan about Jesus which God had known from the beginning of the world. That purpose, which had been “before Abraham was”, had been revealed to Abraham in the promises to him, and was now being fulfilled in the eyes of the Jews of the first century, as they stood in a ring around Jesus, “the word (of promise) made flesh”.</p><p>But this view apparently runs into difficulty in the next verse, where Abraham asks God to work through Ishmael and not to as it were both to make Sarah pregnant with Isaac. I am therefore inclined to see this as the Lord in Jn. 8:56 putting a very positive take on a very negative attitude of Abraham. The New Testament does the same with Sarah's mocking comment "... my lord [Abraham] being old also". The positive is focused upon- she called her husband her "lord", and this is held up in the New Testament as a laudable example. Quite simply, God is very eager to read Abraham and Sarah positively. For He counted Abraham righteous because of the bit of faith he did have. And we ought to take away that same positive spirit in how we view God's stumbling people. God is quite clear that the covenant would be through Ishmael and not Isaac; and that circumcision was to be the sign of that covenant. And having heard that, Abraham goes and circumcises Ishmael. As if to try to force God to all the same extend His covenant through Ishmael. This is a quite startling refusal to humble himself before God's intended promise of the seed through Isaac. And it is likewise the "seed" aspect of the promise, rather than the "land" aspect, which is so hard to accept for Abraham's seed. "The things of the Kingdom" are often so emphasized to the exclusion or de-emphasis of the things of the Lord Jesus and His cross. We think of the terrible passage in John Thomas' diary of a train journey across America where he shared a carriage with a pastor who wished to enthuse about the cross of Christ, and John Thomas dismisses this as 'rubbish' compared to his own emphasis upon "the politics of the Kingdom of God". The New Testament unambiguously places the emphasis upon the things of the Lord Jesus, rather than upon those of a physical, political Kingdom of God.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before you!</em>- As Abraham used his handmaid to try to produce the promised seed (<em><a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a></em>), so Jacob, Rachel and Leah did. God had told Abraham clearly that the covenant would continue through Isaac rather than Ishmael, and that circumcision was the sign of that covenant; and yet Abraham remonstrates with God: "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!", employing the idea of 'living before God' in a covenantal sense. That is how God has just used the term, in asking Abraham to walk or live daily life before Him (:1). When God again repeats His purpose with Isaac, Abraham goes and circumcises Ishmael, as if he was to still participate in the covenant God wished to continue through Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 17:23'>Gen 17:23</a></em>). The fact that Abraham's circumcision of Ishmael is specifically recorded highlights his insistence on trying to make God’s promises fulfil as <em>he</em> would like them to. Isaac did the same, insistent upon giving the covenant blessing to Esau rather than Jacob; Jacob likewise did something similar when he tried to reverse the blessing upon Ephraim and Manasseh (<em><a href='B:10 48:18'>Gen 48:18</a></em>). </p><p>As noted on :5, Abraham believed in the land promise, and was enthusiastic for it, far more than he was for the "seed" promise. He was willing to see it fulfilled through Ishmael. Anything, it seems, to avoid having to have faith that 90 year old Sarah would conceive. And yet, as Romans 4 says, he had faith. Although unbelief can coexist with faith. But the fact he had faith was focused upon and accepted by God. Just as with Lot and so many others in our experience; an undoubted germ of faith is present, despite a general lack of faith otherwise. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But we can read this another way. Abraham didn’t want there to arise a situation whereby Isaac was the chosen covenant seed, and Ishmael was not. And God, ever so sensitive to human prayer and feeling, agreed to modify His plan accordingly. Ishmael was circumcised, receiving the token of the covenant, and thus lived before God, i.e. in covenant relationship with Him. He was given the same promises as Isaac, and from him also arose a great nation based around his 12 sons. The difference was simply that Ishmael chose not to abide within the covenant, and therefore it happened that God’s covenant was established with Isaac, because Ishmael didn’t want it. And Isaac's natural seed didn’t want the new covenant, which was and is based upon the promises made to him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, No, but Sarah, your wife, will bear you a son. You shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him</em>- The insertion of "No" is most unfortunate. There is no corresponding word in the Hebrew. And as explained on :19,20 and :21, God heard Abraham's request, and did give Ishmael the covenant; he was circumcised, the token of the covenant, and received the same promises. The covenant would be established with Isaac (see on :21) because Isaac was open to that relationship; it was made with Ishmael but not established with him because he was closed to it and wished to go his own way.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He will become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation</em>- The blessings upon Ishmael were exactly those upon Isaac, and he too was to become a great nation of 12 tribes, just as Jacob did. As explained on :21 and elsewhere, Ishmael could have remained within the covenant; for he was circumcised into it, and God heard Abraham's request that Ishmael might live "before God", in His covenant presence (:18). But he chose not to remain in the covenant, and became a nation with the material blessings, but without the spiritual blessing. And thus he became as Israel after the flesh, who were just the same as the seed of Ishmael (<em><a href='B:550 4:24-25'>Gal 4:24-25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But My covenant I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this set time next year</em>- This is a prediction of how things were to develop, rather than an arbitrary decision by God against Ishmael and for Isaac. See on :9, where God makes a similar prediction about Abraham. It is not that fate and predestiny are somehow against the seed of Ishmael. Any individual could and can enter the new covenant, based upon the Abrahamic promises. That God’s covenant was established with Isaac doesn't mean that it would not be established with Ishmael; the fact Ishmael was circumcised, receiving the token of the covenant, is proof enough. But Isaac was open to the further establishment of the covenant with him and his seed, whereas Ishmael was not. Ishmael was given the same promises as Isaac. It is emphasized that circumcision was the sign of the covenant- and Ishmael was circumcised. But Ishmael chose not to remain within that covenant, and became representative of Israel after the flesh (<em><a href='B:550 4:24'>Gal 4:24</a></em>), who likewise refused the new covenant, based as it was on the Abrahamic promises. We have to choose to accept the establishment of covenant relationship with us, and Ishmael's seed didn’t do so. The covenant is established with individuals who believe it and therefore it is established afresh with each believer (<em><a href='B:30 26:9'>Lev 26:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:18'>Deu 8:18</a></em>). It was not as if God’s establishment of a covenant with Isaac meant that all his descendants were automatically within it. We have many examples of where this didn’t happen- thus his own grandson Esau was presumably circumcised, but chose not to remain within the covenant, and his descendants were not within the covenant people. And Israel, Isaac's seed, broke the covenant bond (<em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>). Being in covenant with God, for those in Abraham's seed, was as simple as it is today- a willingness to say "Yes" to it, and to demonstrate the token of the covenant- which in our time is baptism, and possibly the taking of the cup of the covenant in the breaking of bread. I say "possibly" because now is not so particularly the age of ritual, but of faith in the heart.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham</em>- 'Went up' matches 'coming down', which is an idiom for a Divine manifestation. It could simply mean that the manifestation ended; although it could describe a literal ascent of the Angel to heaven, as experienced by Samson's parents.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were born in his house, and all who were bought with his money; every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the same day, as God had said to him</em>- The way Abraham personally circumcised all the males, having done so to himself, indicates his desire for intimate connection with them all. It was a delicate operation, requiring the men to trust Abraham, and to be revealed before him completely. This is a profound statement about the closeness of fellowship which arises between those who are all in covenant relationship. We wonder whether the men voluntarily submitted to circumcision, or whether they simply followed the pack, or did so at the insistence of Abraham as head of the household. The equivalent of circumcision under the new covenant is baptism, and we likewise have the same questions when we read of household baptisms in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham was ninety-nine years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin</em>- He was impotent at the time (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>), so this would have been perceived as a cutting off of that wherein he already had no hope. This is how God works- He brings us to a position whereby we cannot rely upon the flesh, but must throw ourselves completely upon faith in Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ishmael, his son, was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin</em>- Circumcision was the sign of the covenant- and it is emphasized that Ishmael was circumcised. He therefore had the opportunity of covenant relationship with God, and was given almost identical promises to those given to Isaac. Perhaps we are to perceive that God’s saving purpose could have flanged out to cover both lines, through Ishmael and Isaac; but Ishmael chose not to go further with it. Such potentials are often to be found in the Divine plan, but are so often not realized due to human dysfunction and allowing the immediate and concrete to blot out the implications of the long term, eternal and spiritual.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the same day both Abraham and Ishmael, his son, were circumcised</em>- This again serves to reflect the unity between them. As noted on :25 and elsewhere, Ishmael was indeed Abraham's son and was within the bonds of the covenant. But he later chose to not go further with the potential set up.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him</em>- This is similar to the language later to be used about how the Gentiles living with the Israelites were to obey the Passover legislation. "With him" suggests that they entered covenant relationship on account of this one man Abraham, just as the record of the flood stresses that the other seven and the animals were saved with Noah, on account of their connection with him. This is the power of one in the salvation of others. And it points up the crucial importance of the things encompassed in the promises made to Abraham, the new covenant, the things of Jesus and His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day</em>- The surrounding religions understood oaks as religious places, where such Divine appearances might well occur. They were associated with idolatry (<em><a href='B:330 6:13'>Eze 6:13</a></em>). We see therefore how God presents His truth in ways which can be understood by men and in terms which they can relate to, even if their worldviews are erroneous. This is not to say that the Bible doesn’t challenge paganism and wrong beliefs- it does. But God also realizes, if you like, that flatly presenting His truth with no regard to the pre-existing religious beliefs and psychological associations within people is not going to help them. And we can learn a lesson from that. We may also pick up yet another hint here that the 'holy family' of the times were not so holy; Jacob, Rachel and his sons were all involved with paganism and idolatry at times, and Abraham's association with "the oaks" doesn't sit completely well.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for ‘appeared’ is literally ‘to see’, and the same word is used of how man cannot see God (<em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em>). But through manifestation of Himself to men, God allows Himself to be seen. Once this is appreciated, it becomes utterly facile to assume that the three Angels were the Trinity, God Himself. For God cannot be seen. And more practically, it provides comfort in our almost childish complaint that we cannot see God. We cannot directly, but He appears / is seen to us so that effectively we do see Him. This idea is behind the Lord’s teaching that through possession of the Comforter, it is as if we see Him personally, even though the disciples were to “see Him no more” in the flesh. This is at the root of our sense of God’s presence. We are not in heaven, not literally in His personal presence; but His presence can be experienced and lived in just as much as if we were actually in heaven. In this sense, God’s seeing of us becomes our experience of having seen Him- once we perceive it. Hagar grasped something of this: “She called the name of Yahweh who spoke to her, You, God, see me, for she said, Have I even stayed alive after seeing Him?” (<em><a href='B:10 16:13'>Gen 16:13</a></em>). The same is recorded here with Abraham; God “appeared” or ‘saw Himself’ to Abraham, and then <em><a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a></em> twice emphasizes that Abraham “saw (“looked”)… and saw” the Angels. He saw God as God saw Him. To see is to perceive, to know; and thus Paul writes of how we are known by God and thereby know Him (<em><a href='B:530 8:3'>1Co 8:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Mamre” is to be understood as Hebron (<em><a href='B:10 23:19'>Gen 23:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:27'>Gen 35:27</a></em>), and <em><a href='B:10 35:27'>Gen 35:27</a></em> notes that Abraham lived there as a stranger. Despite his great wealth, he still lived in his tent, just outside the city. It was whilst he was not working, “in the heat of the day” (<em><a href='B:100 4:5'>2Sa 4:5</a></em>), that the Lord appeared to him. Perhaps he was using the rest time for prayer and meditation, and his spirituality was rewarded by the Lord’s appearance to him- just as we can experience in essence. Or perhaps on the contrary he was doubting the promise of chapter 17, and the Angels appeared in order to strengthen his faith. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood opposite him. When he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth</em>- The three Angels may each have had distinct roles. Perhaps one was concerned with giving the promise to Abraham about Isaac; another was dedicated to the destruction of Sodom, as “the destroyer” Angel of the Passover night which slew the firstborn in Egypt; and the other Angel may have been concerned with the salvation of Lot. Even if we are simply being shown Abraham's generosity and respect toward strangers (<em><a href='B:650 13:2'>Heb 13:2</a></em>), his bowing reflects a humility. For in any primitive society, there is a pecking order; you don't bow to strangers in case they are beneath you in the social hierarchy. But Abraham did; he who was both wealthy in this world, and had been promised the eternal inheritance of the land. And this humility was doubtless part of his psychological response, the change of personality elicited, from having received the very same promises which we too have received in the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). He is twice recorded as having bowed to God in chapter 17; his humility before God led to a humility before men. We note too his energy at 99 years old. "He ran... and bowed himself". We have an impression of energy and speed in this incident, characteristic of the Abraham family.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And said, My lord, if now I have found favour in your sight, please don’t go away from your servant</em>- The desire for them to stay and not leave recalls the attitude of Manoah's wife to the Angelic 'stranger' who visited her.&nbsp;Although Abraham is presented as having entertained Angels unaware (<em><a href='B:650 13:2'>Heb 13:2</a></em> surely alludes here), it seems he subconsciously sensed they were Angels. For he bows to them (:2) as he does to God / an Angel in chapter 17; and the way he speaks to them here would suggest that he considers them his superiors; and see on :7. I think we have here far more than the exaggerated courtesy culture of the east. And the whole picture is (yet again, as with all the Biblical record) so psychologically credible. On one level he is "unaware" they are Angels; but he senses they are on a subconscious level. We will read the same kind of thing in the Joseph story, where on one level the brothers don't recognize Joseph when they meet him; and yet subconsciously they do, clearly enough.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now let a little water be fetched, wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree</em>- The Angels had an appearance of needing to rest. We see there God’s willingness to engage with us in human terms. And this is going to set the scene for Abraham's bargaining with God which we encounter later. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will get a morsel of bread so you can refresh your heart. After that you may go your way, for this is why you have come to your servant. They said, Very well, do as you have said</em>- There are similarities with how the same Angels come to visit Lot, who likewise sees them and then urges hospitality upon them. Just as Abraham persuades the Angels to eat a large meal, so Lot urges them (against their initial will) to stay in his home. This is all part of the theme to be showcased in the dialogue between God and Abraham over Sodom- of how God is open to persuasion by men.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham ran into the tent to Sarah, and said, Quickly prepare three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes</em>- The emphasis on running, receiving into the home and rejoicing at the good news of the promised salvation in Isaac is all strangely alluded to in the record of Zacchaeus (<em><a href='B:490 19:4-9'>Luk 19:4-9</a></em>). This would explain the Lord’s otherwise strange comment that Zacchaeus was a “son of Abraham” (<em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em>), meaning that he was similar to Abraham, bearing his characteristics. The amount of meal used here was huge, enough to make many kilograms of bread. The picture may simply be of the hospitality culture of that time, whereby vast amounts of food were prepared in order to demonstrate how welcome the guest was. Such hospitality is common in primitive societies. When the Czar visited rural Russia, there are stories of farmers slaying every animal they owned in order to provide just one meat meal for the revered visitor. But it may be that although Abraham did this 'entertaining Angels unawares', thinking they were merely "strangers", according to <em><a href='B:650 13:2'>Heb 13:2</a></em>, it may be that he sensed something of the Divine in them. For they just appeared in front of him; and he lived as a foreigner in the area. Clearly they had come specifically to him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham ran to the herd, and fetched a tender and good calf, and gave it to the servant. He hurried to dress it</em>- The impression is given that Abraham and Sarah personally did all these things. And yet Abraham was a chieftain ruling over a group which must have numbered a few thousand people (see on <em><a href='B:10 14:14'>Gen 14:14</a></em>). I suggested on :3 that although Abraham was "unaware" these men were Angels, he sensed they were subconsciously. This would explain his desire to personally serve them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took butter, milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them. He stood by them under the tree, and they ate</em>- As a chieftain over thousands of people (<em><a href='B:10 14:14'>Gen 14:14</a></em>), we must note the more this extremely humble attitude, standing as a waiter to the visitors whom he assumes are far superior to him and demand his personal attention. As noted on :3 and :7, on one hand he was "unaware" they were Angels, but subconsciously he recognized them as Angels. This is a feature of being human; to know or recognize something on one level, but not on another. That may be a simple explanation as to how the Lord knew Judas was the betrayer, from the beginning; and yet He acted and felt the shock of being betrayed by his "own familiar friend in whom I trusted". And we think of the attitude of Samson to Delilah in the dramas with his hair. The psychological reality of the Biblical record gives it huge credibility as quite simply "true".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They asked him, Where is Sarah, your wife? He said, See, in the tent</em>- The "visitors" used Sarah's new name, and clearly knew the name of his wife. This was surely done to encourage Abraham to join the dots and perceive that they were Angels. The Genesis record opens with God asking Adam where he is, and we noted there that the idea is really 'What are you doing?' or 'Why are you there?'. It was obvious that Sarah was in the tent, for she was not in sight, it was midday, and she was not standing by them under the tree as Abraham was. So the question was probing far further. Was she really just an elderly childless woman preparing for the final stage of her life? Was that how Abraham and Sarah were to perceive her? There may even be an implicit rebuke. They were not to consider her just shut up in the family tent / home, facing the inevitable end. This old lady was to have a significant baby. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, I will certainly return to you when the season comes round- </em>The "certainly" and "I will" may hint that they had somewhat lost faith in the promise of a seed. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfill their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em> describes the Angel saying to Abraham "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son". On that first visit, the Angel must have enabled&nbsp;Sarah to conceive, and then He physically returned nine months later. See on <em><a href='B:10 24:40'>Gen 24:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:12-15'>Gen 28:12-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:13'>Mat 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:23'>2Ki 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 14:15'>1Ch 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:30'>Mat 22:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:7'>Deu 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 57:3'>Psa 57:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 144:7'>Psa 144:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:11'>Luk 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 3:28'>Dan 3:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 10:13'>Dan 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:5'>Act 10:5</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:1'>Rev 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 2:21'>1Sa 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 31:4'>Isa 31:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, Sarah your wife will have a son. Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him</em>- The "<em>will</em> have a son", stressing the "will", speaks to their disbelief in the implications of the promises so far received, especially in chapter 17. It seems that Abraham, father of the faithful, was not that faithful. He had flashes of faith and spiritual brilliance, but the record seems to be full of his weakness. What faith he had was counted as righteousness to him; and he was saved because he held on to being in God’s program, and because God by pure grace just wanted to save this man. And so it is with all his seed, who bear these same characteristics.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Abraham and Sarah were old, well advanced in age. Sarah had passed the age of childbearing</em>- <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em> says that additionally, Abraham was impotent by this time. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I have grown old will I have pleasure, my lord being old also?</em>- For "pleasure<em>" </em>she uses the word <em>ednah</em>, related to the word <em>Eden</em>. Yet in the events of Genesis 19, she sees how the land around Sodom that was once "like the garden of Eden" (<em><a href='B:10 13:10'>Gen 13:10</a></em>) is made barren and sowed with salt so that nothing could grow there (<em><a href='B:10 19:25'>Gen 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>). She was being taught that God can give and take away fertility on a huge scale. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sarah is commended for calling Abraham her "Lord" (<em><a href='B:670 3:6'>1Pe 3:6</a></em>). She is recorded as doing this in one place only, and it's here. She doubted God’s promise by laughing; she is rebuked for this by the Angel. Yet in doing so, when she came to think of Abraham, in her heart she called him "my lord". So in the midst of her lack of faith in one respect, she also had a commendable attitude to Abraham. And yet she seems to be employing sarcasm; Abraham was impotent (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>), and had additionally just cut off part of his reproductive organ. "My lord being old also" sounds as if she was mocking him as well as the promise. But the Spirit focuses upon the positive; she referred to him as "my Lord", however sarcastically. All this, don't forget, was going on "within herself". God searched her thoughts, He saw her wrong attitudes there deep in her heart, and He saw what was commendable there too; and through Peter He drags this out and reveals it to us all as an inspiration. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All this opens up a wider issue. There are many Bible characters who appear to behave wrongly, but are spoken of in later revelation as if they were righteous. Lot is a classic example. Why is this? Why, for example, is the Genesis record about Sarah so open about her weakness, but the New Testament commentary sifts through this and reveals the righteous aspect of her motives? Lot would be another example. Surely it's to show that God sees us very differently to how we appear on the surface, both to our brethren and even to ourselves. He knows every motive, He alone untangles our motives and thoughts; He sees what is truly behind our actions. It is not just that He has the power to do this if He wishes; He does it all the time. God is thinking of us and our inner thoughts and motives every moment. Every piece of body language reveals something, every thought. And yet as with Sarah, God imputes righteousness to His people.</p><p>It is easy to assume that people like Lot and Sarah repented of their weaknesses and came to stronger faith; although this is not recorded. So another angle on this is that indeed, the Old Testament record is negative about such people, whilst the New Testament praises their faith. But this is because God recognizes that faith is never total nor absolute. It is always a case of "I believe, but...". Our "unbelief" coexists with our faith; spirituality with unspirituality. This of course should not be the case, but the reality is, that this is how it is with all men apart from the Lord Jesus. But God sifts through it all, and focuses upon the faith, the spirituality, and accepts that. This is a huge inspiration to us, to do likewise with others; recognizing that this is how God analyzes and treats us. This is no mere naievity, no turning a blind eye to sin.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Will I really bear a child, seeing I am old?’</em>- She laughed in her heart (:12). But Abraham is apparently held responsible for his wife's inner thoughts. Perhaps she had scoffed at the reported word of promise which Abraham had told her about three months previously (see on :14), and Abraham had not rebuked her as he ought to have done. The way Abraham is rebuked for Sarah's mocking disbelief is perhaps because he too had something of this, although at the time of the promise three months previously he had joyfully believed it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Is anything too hard for Yahweh?- </em>The Hebrew word translated "hard" is that usually translated "wonder". In our moments of wonder, and as the afterglow of them permeates our lives, it becomes easier to believe that nothing is too wonderful for our God of wonders to do for us. For He <em>is</em> the God who does wonders, He <em>is</em> wonderful and awesome. Jeremiah theoretically learnt the lesson from God’s words to Abraham and Sarah; for he alludes to it in <em><a href='B:300 32:17'>Jer 32:17</a></em>: "Ah Lord God! Behold, you have made the heaven and the earth by your great power and by your stretched out arm; there is nothing too hard (wonderful) for you". But God has to remind him soon afterwards in <em><a href='B:300 32:26-27'>Jer 32:26-27</a></em>: "Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, saying, Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh:<em> is</em> there any thing too hard (wonderful) for me?". We think we know all about wonder, when actually we don't. Our lack of total faith shows that we do indeed think God’s wonder is limited. Because something is hard / marvellous in our eyes doesn't mean it is in God’s eyes (<em><a href='B:450 8:6'>Zec 8:6</a></em>). Again we are surely to realize that Abraham and Sarah considered the promise of a child too wonderful or "hard" of literal fulfilment. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At the set time I will return to you, when the season comes round, and Sarah will have a son</em>- "The season" appears to refer to the nine month gestation period. <em><a href='B:10 17:21'>Gen 17:21</a></em> had stated that after a year, Sarah would have a child. So it seems that a three month period had elapsed. Things were structured like this so that they would have the chance to exhibit faith in the promise. Having been circumcised at 99 (<em><a href='B:10 17:24'>Gen 17:24</a></em>), Abraham would not have been able to immediately have intercourse. But now after three months he was able to. Perhaps the question about Sarah being in the tent (:9) was a way of telling Abraham that he should now be attempting to get her pregnant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Sarah denied, saying, I didn’t laugh, for she was afraid- </em>Her fear was because she realized that these visitors were Angels. And yet she lies to them. Perhaps her lie was because she considered that she had only laughed in her heart (:12), and not out loud. The Angelic insistence that "You did laugh" was therefore teaching that the inner, concealed thought is indeed judged as the external action, just as the Lord was to later teach. This has huge implications.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, No, but you did laugh</em>- It’s been observed that Biblical Hebrew has no word for ‘yes’; instead, in order to show agreement, the preceding actions or words of the speaker are repeated. Another example is in <em><a href='B:190 5:7'>Est 5:7</a></em> Heb.. Seeing that Biblical Hebrew reflects to us something of the mind of God, it seems to me that we’re being taught by this to believe that what we ask for from God, we will receive; our request is the nature of the answer. Hence the need for care in formulating <em>what</em> we ask for, believing that God’s ‘yes’ will be effectively a repeating back of our words to us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em> says that at this time, Sarah had faith: "By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed when she was past age, since she counted Him faithful who had made the promise". We would not perceive this from the Genesis narrative. That faith was not immediate; it was only after her desperate repentance at having lied to and laughed at the Angel who made the promise. Her failure and unrecorded begging for forgiveness were therefore used to deepen her faith. The destruction of Sodom was surely to further teach her that the prophetic word of Angels does come powerfully true. We marvel at God’s positive attitude to Sarah, commending her for calling Abraham "lord" and discerning faith in her at this time. We too are to be positive about each other, and to believe how positively God looked at us, reflecting His pure love for us on account of His grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The men rose up from there, and looked toward Sodom. Abraham went with them to see them on their way</em>- If Abraham had not personally escorted the guests further, up the ridge to where they could look toward Sodom, he would not have had the opportunity to plead with God for Lot's salvation. This is how spiritual life goes; effort to go with God in the way leads to more meetings and opportunities. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, Will I hide from Abraham what I do</em>- When we read that “Surely the Lord does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (<em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>), we might tend to take that as a statement of absolute principle that is obvious to all the Angels. But we find an Angel discussing with others: “Shall I hide from Abraham (who was a prophet) what I am about to do?” (<em><a href='B:10 18:17'>Gen 18:17</a></em>). My point quite simply is that the Angels have more debate, expend more mental and physical energy than we surely realize, in order to operationalize things which we might consider to be standard and automatic in God’s work with men. In our context, what this means is that when men reject the machinations and schemings of God’s love, they reject an awful lot; and it grieves and disappoints Him, and appears tragic to those like the prophets who see things from His viewpoint. We make know our secrets and our plans to our friends (<em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>); and indeed, Abraham was the friend of God (<em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:23'>Jas 2:23</a></em>). The 'gap' between God stating His plan and its actual fulfillment is the opportunity for men and women to plead with Him, as Moses did, as Abraham did regarding Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 18:17-22'>Gen 18:17-22</a></em>), as so many have done... and He is most definitely open to human persuasion.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lack of ultimate Angelic knowledge results in the Angels taking time to think things out and discuss their action with&nbsp; each other, which may result in an apparent delay to we humans. However, this same incident shows that there are varying degrees of knowledge amongst Angels or in the same Angel over time. The Angel who destroyed Sodom reasoned: "I know him (Abraham), that he will command his children and his household after him" (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>). Yet perhaps the same Angel, or the mighty Angel of Israel which made the promises to the patriarchs said to Abraham a few months later after his offering up of Isaac: "Now I know that thou fearest God" (<em><a href='B:10 22:12'>Gen 22:12</a></em>), implying that he did not know whether Abraham's faith was genuine before that incident, and that the knowledge of <em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em> was merely that Abraham would 'teach his children the truth' and did not reflect any knowledge of Abraham's personal faith. In this case, Sodom might have been preserved by reason of Abraham's known willingness to teach others 'the truth' rather than because of any personal faith in God he may have had. Thus the&nbsp; lesson&nbsp; comes&nbsp; home&nbsp; that&nbsp; a man's&nbsp; zeal or&nbsp; success in preaching can be unrelated to his personal faith or spirituality. The elohim "found" Abraham's heart to be faithful (<em><a href='B:160 9:8'>Neh 9:8</a></em>). This was by a process of research and drawing of conclusions. And our Angels are in the process of doing the same with us this very day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him- </em>We have a unique insight here into the internal discussion of God through the Angels concerning us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's later command to preach to "all nations" would ring bells in Jewish minds with the promises to Abraham, concerning the blessing of forgiveness to come upon "all nations" through Messiah (<em><a href='B:10 18:18'>Gen 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:4'>Gen 26:4</a></em>). Therefore God’s people are to preach the Gospel of forgiveness in Christ to "all nations". The offer of sharing in that blessing did not close at the end of the first century. Putting the "all nations" of the Abrahamic promises together with the Lord's preaching commission leads to a simple conclusion: The Hope of Israel now applies to all nations; so go and tell this good news to all nations. Perhaps this is why there appears to be an intended grammatical ambiguity in the 'promise' that Abraham and his seed would be a blessing for all nations. It's unclear, as we've commented elsewhere, whether "be a blessing" is purely a prophetic prediction or a command. The commentary upon the promises to David in <em><a href='B:230 72:17'>Psa 72:17</a></em> is similar: "May his name resound for ever... may men bless themselves by him, may all nations pronounce him blessed". It is for us to go forth and be a blessing, and to make His Name great to the ends of the earth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Yahweh, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that Yahweh may bring on Abraham that which He has spoken of him- </em>At present it is the Angel-cherubim's job to "keep the way of the tree of life". They have been given this charge, and yet they chose men to fulfil it who will keep the way pure- thus the Angels decided concerning Abraham, "I know him, that he will command his children... and they shall keep the way of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em> AV). It will be our duty to take over as the way keepers from the Angels, although we should have had good practice in this life. Thus we will say to the mortal population "This is the way, walk ye in it" (<em><a href='B:290 30:21'>Isa 30:21</a></em>). There is an intended ambiguity as to whether we are to read as AV "I know him" or as NEV "I have known him, to the end that...". God’s knowing of us, using the Hebraism whereby 'to know' means 'to have a relationship with', is so that we might share that relationship or knowledge with others, particularly our family. The knowledge of God was not so that he could enjoy it alone; it was given to him as it is given to us <em>to the end that</em> we might share it with others. God has trusted us with the job of preaching His Gospel. That He trusts us, believes in us, is a surpassing thought. If you trust someone completely with a task, to the point it is clear that now if they don’t do it, it won’t be done, they often respond with a maturity and zest which wouldn’t be seen if they merely were given partial responsibility (children are a good example of this). And so God has done with us.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We perceive here a conditional aspect to the Abrahamic promises. What God had promised Abraham and his seed would come true because they would respond to it by doing righteousness. Abraham had been "counted righteous" in <em><a href='B:10 15:8'>Gen 15:8</a></em>, but we must try to live out in practice what we are counted as by status. Because of Sarah’s faith, “therefore sprang there... so many as the stars of the sky in multitude” (<em><a href='B:650 11:11-12'>Heb 11:11-12</a></em>). Those promises to Abraham had their fulfillment, but conditional on Abraham and Sarah’s faith. Those promises / prophesies were “sure” in the sense that God’s side of it was. <em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em> likewise comments that Abraham became “the father of many nations” precisely because he <em>believed</em> in this hope. Yet the promise / prophecy that he would be a father of many nations could sound as if it would have happened anyway, whatever. But it was actually conditional upon Abraham’s faith. And he is our great example exactly because he had the possibility and option of <em>not</em> believing in the hope he had been offered.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to <em><a href='B:10 18:17-19'>Gen 18:17-19</a></em>, the reason God told Abraham what He would do with Sodom was because Abraham would teach others, and his descendants would teach others. This implies that Sodom's destruction was to be a special lesson for all generations. And <em><a href='B:680 2:6'>2Pe 2:6</a></em> says the same- Sodom was to be a perpetual "example unto those that after should live ungodly"; in this sense Sodom was "set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (<em><a href='B:720 1:7'>Jud 1:7</a></em>). The fire was "eternal" in the sense that the example of destruction was to be to all generations. This paves the way for Sodom's destruction to be understood as a particularly significant type of the last days. Our Lord clearly understood the destruction of Sodom as being typical of the events of the second coming: "As it was in the days of Lot... the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven... even thus shall it be in the day when the son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away... remember Lot's wife... in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other left" (<em><a href='B:490 17:28-34'>Luk 17:28-34</a></em>). Not only is the city of Sodom representative of the world of the last days, but Lot's calling out of Sodom by the Angels is typical of our being 'taken' by Angels to meet the Lord.</p>


