# comment

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>


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 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. </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.</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>).</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>


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>- This is 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>


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 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. </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>).</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 style='margin-left:1em'><em>And He reckoned it to him for righteousness</em>- 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>


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 that has just been used 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 was Ishmael mocking. In what can only be described as unrestrained anger, 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 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>


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'>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.&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.</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.</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. </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>


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.</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.</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 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>


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>- 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>


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>


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>


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>


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 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>


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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous- </em>A close study of the record of Sodom's destruction will reveal that the 'Lord' spoken of there was one of the Angels who arranged the judgements on Sodom. "The Lord said, Because the cry (NIV 'Outcry') of Sodom... is great... I will go down now" (<em><a href='B:10 18:20-21'>Gen 18:20-21</a></em>). Perhaps this outcry of Sodom was from the Angels who were shocked at its sinfulness, whose concern prompted the senior Angel into 'coming down' in judgement.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Grievous" translates a Hebrew word meaning 'hardened' (it is the word used of Pharaoh's hardened heart) or 'honoured / glorified'. What was wrong with the Sodomites was that they were hardened in their sins, both sexual sins and the sins of pride and fullness of bread (<em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em>), to the point that they glorified sin. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will go down now, and see whether their deeds are as bad as the reports which have come to me</em>- The Angel seems to recognize His own limited perceptions: “I will therefore go down and see, if they completely correspond with the cry which comes to me, and if not, that I may know” (LXX). And we shall be made like the Angels (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If not, I will know</em>- God's way of using the Angels to punish Sodom gives insight into the relationship between them and&nbsp; God. God Himself knew exactly what He would do because of the wickedness He knew was in the city. The Angel who debated whether to reveal to Abraham His purpose with Sodom says "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great... I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me". The&nbsp; Angels responsible for Sodom had brought the "cry" or&nbsp; news of Sodom's sins to the attention of this senior Angel, who then investigates it further to see whether or not their news was correct. "And if not, I will know"- the emphasis being on the "I"- i. e. 'whether their&nbsp; news was correct or incorrect, I will know because I am blessed with greater powers than they'. This senior Angel seems to manifest God to a very great degree, as <em><a href='B:10 19:13'>Gen 19:13</a></em> describes the other two "men" (Angels) saying to Lot "we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord (the third "man"- the senior Angel); and the Lord (senior Angel) hath sent us to destroy it". These two Angels sent to execute the judgments were under specific guidelines- v. 22 "I cannot do anything till thou be come thither". Thus these Angels were given power conditional on certain things happening. Perhaps this was part of the work of Palmoni, the "wonderful numberer" of Daniel, who is the Angel responsible for all timing;&nbsp; maybe&nbsp; He&nbsp; decreed&nbsp; that they could only have power once the condition of Lot leaving the city was fulfilled. Maybe this Angel co-ordinates all the huge number of timings which go to make up God's purpose? This would explain the passages which imply that a set time is allowed to some human beings to bring about repentance and response to God’s offers. Thus Pharaoh was condemned because he “let the appointed time pass by” (<em><a href='B:300 46:17'>Jer 46:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before Yahweh</em>- There are several examples where there is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text which reflects the suggestion of mutuality. "Abraham stood yet before Yahweh”. And yet, as witnessed by several translations, this can just as well mean “The Lord stood yet before Abraham”.&nbsp; See on :33.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record of Abraham reasoning with God about how many righteous people could save Sodom's destruction is a lesson powerful enough. But it becomes the more powerful when we realize that <em><a href='B:10 18:22'>Gen 18:22</a></em> originally read: "Yahweh stood before Abraham". Walter Brueggemann speaks of the image of "Abraham as Yahweh's theological instructor. It is as though Abraham were presiding over the meeting. But that bold image of Yahweh being accountable to Abraham... was judged by the early scribes as irreverent and unacceptable. Therefore, the text was changed to read as we have it" (Walter Brueggemann, <em>Genesis</em> (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982) p. 168). If this is so, and there is good textual reason to accept it, then we are left saying 'Wow!' not only to God's humility, but to the extreme willingness which He has to hear and go along with the prayers of men. And further; <em><a href='B:330 14:12-20'>Eze 14:12-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 18:5'>Eze 18:5</a></em> teach that there can be no 'acquittal by association'; if a righteous man stands before God and pleads for others, he can save only himself. Yet Abraham had the spiritual vision, driven by a pure love of others and God's glorification, which led him to go beyond this basic principle, and stand before God, or have God stand before Him, and plead for others- and be heard! God clearly is willing to change even the application of His basic principles in the light of intense prayers for others. It's all a <em>huge</em> challenge to us in our prayers for others. Indeed, Abraham's prayer seems to show that God can be 'persuaded' to see things from quite another perspective; see on :25. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham drew near, and said, Will You consume the righteous with the wicked?</em>- The drawing near could mean that Abraham literally came near to the Angel. But to draw near to God means to come close in relationship, in prayer or sacrifice (<em><a href='B:90 14:36'>1Sa 14:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:28'>Psa 73:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:13'>Isa 29:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>) and specifically in intercession (<em><a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a></em>). It is used repeatedly of how Moses drew near to God in intercession for Israel (<em><a href='B:20 24:2'>Exo 24:2</a></em> etc.). In all this intercession, clearly Abraham has in view his relative Lot, "that righteous man" (<em><a href='B:680 2:8'>2Pe 2:8</a></em>). God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked, and so Lot was urged to flee Sodom lest he be consumed or destroyed in the destruction of the wicked (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 19:15'>Gen 19:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>). In this sense, the essence of Abraham's prayer was heard. For Lot was saved from Sodom as a result of Abraham's prayer (<em><a href='B:10 19:29'>Gen 19:29</a></em>). He didn't pray for it specifically, at least, not as recorded here. But the essential spirit of his requests was heard and understood. This is how God responds to our prayers. It is not the case that the person who can verbalize the best or the most accurately will have a better prayer experience than the one who is less gifted with verbalization. The essential spirit of our prayers is interpreted by the Lord the Spirit, and responded to- according to Romans 8.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will You consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?</em>- Circumstances were overruled by God to teach Abraham that he really would be a blessing to others, as He had promised. Twice he intercedes for blessing upon Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 14:14'>Gen 14:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:23-33'>Gen 18:23-33</a></em>); just as e.g. we may be called to care for a sick person, in order to teach us about how we really are to be a blessing to others. Perhaps the most telling example of the limitation of God's potential by men is in Abraham's request that God would spare Sodom for the sake of fifty righteous men there. He then lowers the number to 40, and then finally to ten, assuming that surely Lot's family were righteous and would comprise ten righteous. If Abraham had left off praying at, say, forty...then this would have been the limit God set. If there were ten righteous there, the city wouldn't have been saved. But Abraham went on to set the limit at ten. But we wonder, what would have happened if he had gone further and asked God to save Sodom for the sake of one righteous man, i.e. Lot? My sense is that the Father would have agreed. But the city wasn't saved for the sake of the one man Lot, because Abraham limited God's desire to save by the smallness of his vision. This principle can possibly be extended even wider. David asks: "Let thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in thee" (<em><a href='B:230 33:22'>Psa 33:22</a></em>). And whoever prayed <em><a href='B:230 132:10'>Psa 132:10</a></em> asked to be heard "for thy servant David's sake" - he or she believed that God would remember David and for <em>his </em>sake respond favourably (and how much more powerful is prayer uttered for the sake of the Son of God!).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Be it far from You to do things like that, to kill the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be like the wicked. May that be far from You- </em>Abraham reasons that God's Name will be profaned if the righteous perish with the wicked. "Be it far...." is the same Hebrew translated "profaned" in <em><a href='B:330 20:9'>Eze 20:9</a></em>. Abraham is saying that God's Name will be profaned if his prayer isn't heard... and that prayer required God to abrogate, at least temporarily, the principle that a righteous man can only ultimately save himself. The whole record of the Yahweh-Abraham encounter in Genesis 18 is perhaps intentionally intended to echo the language of barter in a Middle Eastern bazaar- the 'price' moves from 50 down to ten. But in Middle Eastern culture, the buyer has more 'power' than the seller... and again, we see the almost disturbing message that we in our prayers for others can have some sort of 'power' over God when praying for others. It's like Jacob wrestling the Angel to a draw; through his prayers that night, he had power (Heb. 'power as a prince') over the Angel and prevailed (<em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em>). I say all this is "disturbing" because it demands such a huge amount of us in prayer, if these indeed are the possibilities. But shining through it all is God's grace. For the required ten righteous people weren't found; yet all the same, for Abraham's sake, Lot and his immediate family were not destroyed in Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 19:29'>Gen 19:29</a></em>). And it could be argued that the whole theme of Isaiah 53, the innocent <em>one</em> saving the many, is somehow an allusion to Abraham's saving of Lot by intercession. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shouldn’t the Judge of all the earth do right?</em>- This could be seen as manipulative reasoning. But God goes along with it, leaving us for all time with an amazing example of how intimate a believer can get with God. "Right" or justice would be done, Abraham reasoned, by saving the sinners for the sake of the righteous. We would be inclined to reason that justice would be done by saving the righteous and destroying the sinners, i.e. making a distinction between them. But Abraham had learnt from his own personal experience that he a sinner had been counted right with God, by grace. And he considered that a righteous remnant could allow this to legitimately happen, according to God's principles. His problem was that he over-estimated the righteousness of Lot's family, and failed to rise up to the fact that he alone by his prayer could save the entire city. He failed to imagine the power of just <em>one</em> righteous person.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sake</em>- "Spare" is the same word translated "accepted" when we read that God "accepted" Lot's desire for Zoar to be spared when otherwise it would have been destroyed (<em><a href='B:10 19:21'>Gen 19:21</a></em>). Perhaps we are intended to join the dots and conclude that Sodom could have been spared or even "accepted" if Abraham or Lot had simply asked for it. The faith of one righteous is enough, as we have learnt in our experience of the work of the Lord Jesus for us. The word is even translated "forgive" in <em><a href='B:20 10:21'>Exo 10:21</a></em>. Acceptance, sparing and even forgiveness of sinners for the sake of a righteous one or minority is one of the most striking features of the Biblical record. We think of the emphasis upon how Noah saved those who were "with him", both people and animals. All this sets up the New Testament teaching of salvation on account of association with Abraham's seed, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham answered, See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord, who am but dust and ashes</em>- Living broadly contemporary with Abraham, Job would have been aware of his description of himself as merely dust and ashes. Yet Job was brought to realize that “I am become like dust and ashes” (<em><a href='B:220 30:19'>Job 30:19</a></em>). He always had been; but now he realized the desperation inherent in his nature. He clothes himself in ashes to mourn his material losses at the beginning of the book; but at the end, he does this again, as a sign of his repentance for his general sinfulness and weakness (<em><a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a></em>). Abraham's reference to "dust and ashes" may likewise indicate a sense of moral weakness, as well as referring to his mortality.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>What if there will lack five of the fifty righteous? Will You destroy all the city for lack of five? He said, I will not destroy it, if I find forty-five there</em>- If a person had been found who would have powerfully interceded for Jerusalem, 'stood in the gap' (<em><a href='B:330 22:30'>Eze 22:30</a></em>), God wouldn't have destroyed Jerusalem - "that I should not destroy it" is an allusion to Abraham interceding for Sodom here in <em><a href='B:10 18:28'>Gen 18:28</a></em>. There were simply so many possible scenarios! And this is what we must expect if even time periods can be shortened or extended in response to human behaviour. But if Sodom could have been saved for the sake of one man, the reason it wasn't was because Abraham lacked the faith and vision about it; he thought ten would be a respectable number. He over estimated the faith of Lot's family. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He spoke to Him yet again, and said, What if there are forty found there? He said, I will not do it for the forty’s sake- </em>Perhaps the most telling example of the limitation of prayer is in Abraham’s request that God would spare Sodom for the sake of fifty righteous men there. He then lowers the number to 40, and then finally to ten, assuming that surely Lot’s family were righteous and would comprise ten righteous. If Abraham had left off praying at, say, forty...then this would have been the limit God set. If there were ten righteous there, the city wouldn’t have been saved. But Abraham went on to set the limit at ten. But we wonder, what would have happened if he had gone further and asked God to save Sodom for the sake of one righteous man, i.e. Lot? Or even just asked for the salvation of the city for his own sake? My sense is that the Father would have agreed. But the city wasn’t saved for the sake of the one man Lot, because Abraham limited God’s desire to save by the smallness of his vision. This principle can possibly be extended even wider. David asks: “Let thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in thee” (<em><a href='B:230 33:22'>Psa 33:22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Oh don’t let the Lord be angry, and I will speak. What if there are thirty found there? He said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there</em>- Abraham becomes more confident in his vision of Divine possibilities, reducing by an increment of five and then by ten. But he didn't go down to where he was being led- to one. He stuck at ten. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord. What if there are twenty found there? He said, I will not destroy it for the twenty’s sake</em>- Abraham felt his own responsibility ever more intensely; he had taken it upon himself to speak to God for the sake of Lot and Sodom. The way God operates elicits from us the maximum initiative. He will work for others for our sakes; just as the paralyzed man was healed and forgiven for the sake of the faith of his friends (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). This means that our lives are totally taken up with the possibilities of service. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Oh don’t let the Lord be angry, and I will speak just once more. What if ten are found there? He said, I will not destroy it for the ten’s sake</em>- We enquire why Abraham feared God's anger with him for asking for mercy. There is no reason God should as it were get mad at a man seeking to save sinners. We can take this as a window onto Abraham's spiritual immaturity. Or we can read the Lord's anger as being against Sodom, and Abraham is asking for it to subside. "Angry" is literally "to become hot", and is used of how God's anger "waxed hot" with Israel, and they were saved from it my the mediation of just one man, Moses (<em><a href='B:20 32:10-11'>Exo 32:10-11</a></em> s.w.). Moses learnt the lesson from Abraham's limited vision here. He realized that the Lord's hot anger with Sodom could have been ameliorated by the intercession of Abraham alone, or by the righteousness of just one man in Sodom, i.e. Lot. And so Moses alone was inspired to alone intercede for Israel, so that His anger no longer "waxed hot". We too are to be directly inspired by such Biblical examples and implications. The connection with Moses supports the idea that if Abraham had gone even lower, from ten down to one, his intercession would've been successful. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If 40 righteous had been found there....it wouldn't have been destroyed, thanks to Abraham's prayer. And he reasons with God, down to 10 righteous. Now I ask...if Abraham had asked: " If...<em>one</em> righteous man be found there...??" . Would God have said 'No'? We don't know, but the impression I have is He would have agreed. The salvation of Sodom depended upon Abraham’s breadth of vision. God's mercy is upon us, and upon others, according as we hope in Him. Abraham's amazing spiritual ambition in changing the mind of God and reasoning with Him is really intended to be our example. Gideon picked up almost the very words of Abraham in <em><a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a></em> when he asks God "Do not let your wrath blaze...let me speak just once more" (<em><a href='B:70 6:39'>Jdg 6:39</a></em>). And if Abraham's spirit in prayer could influence Gideon... it can echo down through a few more centuries to influence us too. We will now read in <em><a href='B:10 19:21'>Gen 19:21</a></em> that the intercession of one man saved Zoar; and this feeds back into this theme developed in commentary here on chapter 18, that the intercession of one man, Abraham, and the righteousness of one man, Lot, could have saved a whole city- but Abraham lacked the vision and faith to actualize it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The calling of Lot out of Sodom is a type, on the Lord's authority, of our calling away to judgment. His position immediately prior to the Angels' coming must therefore connect with our situation now. We will see as this study continues that Lot was in no way as spiritually strong as he ought to have been, nor as enthusiastic for the Lord's coming as his complaining about the evils of the city recorded in <em><a href='B:680 2:7-8'>2Pe 2:7-8</a></em> might lead us to think. The very fact that he chose to live in the area whilst Abraham steered well clear of it is testimony enough to his worldliness (<em><a href='B:10 13:10-11'>Gen 13:10-11</a></em>). The offering of his two daughters to the Sodomites also betrays a certain unspirituality (<em><a href='B:10 19:8'>Gen 19:8</a></em>). The fact that Sodom's fate was revealed to Abraham rather than Lot may also be significant. Despite this, Abraham evidently rated Lot's spirituality- his conviction that Lot and his family must comprise at least 10 righteous people must have been the basis of his prayer for Sodom's destruction to be nullified (<em><a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a></em>). And so in the sight of the ecclesia, the high spiritual status of latter day believers may not be questioned- and yet the Lord's coming may find us seriously unprepared, as it did for Lot. It seems Jeremiah and Ezekiel likewise, on the eve of the coming of the Lord's day in their times, had to be taught that&nbsp; they had a far too exalted view of the state of the ecclesia. What latter day similarities with how the faithful remnant of today perceive things?&nbsp; It is significant that a ten-man remnant would have saved Sodom, representative of Jerusalem in the last days? (<em><a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham saved Lot out of Sodom by his earnest prayer for him; and there is ample reason to think from the Genesis record and his subsequent reaction to the Angel's invitation to leave that Lot of himself was simply not strong enough. Without those prayers and the concern of Abraham read by God as prayer, Lot may well have been left to suffer the condemnation of the world he preferred to live in. And yet Lot fleeing from Sodom is used in the NT as a type of our latter day exit from the world at the Lord's coming. Is this not to suggest that the latter day believers will be saved only by grace, they will not be strong and ready to leave; and their salvation will only be on account of the prayers of the faithful? Lot was not without spirituality; but he was simply swamped by the pull of the world in which he had become entangled, not to mention his unspiritual wife. He was the type on which one could have compassion, making a difference, and pull out of the fire. Indeed, it could even be that Jude's words about pulling a brother out of the fire may be a reference back to Lot being pulled out of the fire that came upon Sodom. Those in his position sin a sin which is not unto death only in the sense that we can pray for them, so that their sin will not lead them to condemnation. But only in this sense is sin not unto death; for the wages of sin, any sin, is death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). But in some cases this sentence can ultimately be changed on account of our effort for our brother.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh went His way, as soon as He had finished communing with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place</em>- Again we see mutuality between God and man (see on :22). God goes His way to His place, and Abraham goes his way, to his place. "As soon as He had finished" gives the impression that Abraham was as it were delaying the Angel, just as in chapter 19 we will read of the Angels being delayed in the destruction of Sodom by their dialogue and plea-bargaining with Lot. This explains some of the delays in the outworking of God's purpose, why time periods don't always fulfil exactly, and why it's impossible to compose a set in stone chronology of latter day events. God is so very sensitive to human prayer, positioning and repentance (or lack thereof) that His purpose can expand or contract in response.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The two angels came to Sodom at evening- </em>The third Angel was the one who dialogued alone with Abraham in <em><a href='B:10 18:22'>Gen 18:22</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them. He bowed himself with his face to the earth</em>- Lot sitting "in the gate of Sodom" (<em><a href='B:10 19:1'>Gen 19:1</a></em>) has been seen as an indication that he held some prominent public office in the city's administration. Yet despite this, he evidently maintained his separation- although this seems to have created suppressed bitterness amongst his colleagues, which they gave vent to in their sudden persecution of him just before the Angel came. They complained that he was "a judge" (:9). Note how initially Lot lived in the smaller "cities of the plain", and then "pitched his tent toward Sodom", resulting in him eventually settling within the city (<em><a href='B:10 13:12'>Gen 13:12</a></em>). One wonders if he kept his tent in the loft. <em><a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a></em> seems to allude to Lot's progressive apostacy, speaking of the righteous man <em>not</em> <em>walking, standing </em>or <em>sitting </em>with the wicked- in other words, the righteous man will learn from Lot's mistakes. The way Lot progressively moved Eastwards has to be connected with a strange theme in Genesis of all the apostates moving ever further East (<em><a href='B:10 4:6'>Gen 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em> <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:13:11'>Rev 13:11</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:16:12'>Rev 16:12</a></em> RVmg; 28:9). This is not the only indication in Scripture that many latter day saints, whom Lot represents, will not be spiritually fit when their Lord returns. This gradual slump into worldliness to the spiritual detriment of his family (the wife, sons and possibly other daughters refused to truly leave Sodom) is not difficult to see matched in the present ecclesia. The material prosperity of Lot just before his short, sharp persecution period at the Lord's 'coming', matches Israel's prosperity in Egypt just before their holocaust started (<em><a href='B:10 47:11'>Gen 47:11</a></em>). The wealth of the latter day ecclesia may well be proof in itself, in the light of these types, that we are heading for a like tribulation period.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet <em><a href='B:680 2:7-8'>2Pe 2:7-8</a></em> reveals how Lot "vexed (Gk. 'tortured') his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds". Seeing that he failed to influence his family to properly appreciate the sins of that city, and that he was so attached to it that he was unwilling to leave, this must be interpreted as little more than the sort of middle class, respectable 'tut-tutting' that present day Christianity abounds with. After all, he had chosen to live there, he did not have to stay, and the record of his choice of Sodom in Genesis 13 spotlights his unspiritual, worldly thinking in this regard when compared to Abraham, the stranger and sojourner. Whether this assessment of Lot's character is felt to be correct or not, it must surely be accepted that there was a serious dualism in his position which has strong similarities with ours today- vexing his soul about the sins of the surrounding world, and yet increasingly involved in it and greatly benefiting from it materially, at spiritual cost to himself and his family. Lot was effectively willing to betray his daughters to the men of Sodom, pointing forward to the Lord's prophecy of how in the holocaust to come, many will betray each other (<em><a href='B:470 10:36'>Mat 10:36</a></em>), family life within the ecclesia will break up; a spirit of dissension will fall upon natural and spiritual families. The reason for this will be rooted in a lack of true spiritual concern for the family in the easier years of this present life. Not for nothing does Paul warn against marriage in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 7:28'>1Co 7:28</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And he said, See now, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, stay all night, wash your feet, and you can rise up early, and go on your way. They said, No, but we will stay in the street all night- </em>There are such distinct similarities between the record of Abraham meeting and entertaining the Angels and how Lot does likewise. They both bow to the visitors (:1) and personally entertain them, and are solicitous for their welfare. Both of them entertained Angels unaware (<em><a href='B:650 13:2'>Heb 13:2</a></em>). As noted with Abraham, Lot was on one level "unaware" they were Angels, but on another level he surely was.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He urged them greatly, and they came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate- </em>The Angels who visited Lot in Sodom wanted initially to lodge in the street, but they were persuaded by Lot to change their plans. And who is to say that to some extent this isn’t possible today, too? This connects with the theme encountered in chapter 18, of God being open to dialogue with men. The reason they wanted to stay in the street was perhaps to protect Lot, but they went to a plan B in the face of his insistence. The "feast" with unleavened bread was a sign of fellowship. To break bread together was from earliest times a sign of fellowship, and had religious significance. Always the Lord's people had an open table, as exemplified supremely by the Lord Jesus. There was no test of the worthiness of those who presented themselves.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One difference with the entertainment of Angels by Abraham is that Lot's wife plays no role in it, unlike Sarah. We are left to conclude that she was not of one mind with him about the matter. The way she longed for Sodom even after leaving it, despite the attempted rape of their visitors, indicates that she was very much in line with the local thinking rather than spiritual thinking.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter</em>- The double emphasis upon "the men" is in the context of their demand for sex with the attractive male visitors. As the Angels had entered at "the gate" (:1), the whole town knew of their arrival. But their desire to rape them was not pure lust, it was also xenophobia. The whole city is implicated as evidence of the fact that not even ten righteous could be found within it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them</em>- The specific sin of Sodom is well known- confirmed by the repeated emphasis on "the <em>men</em> of Sodom" in the record. The grossness of their perversion is shown by their clamouring for the Angels, who doubtless appeared as good looking young men. Lot's response and his offer of his daughters to them (<em><a href='B:10 19:7-8'>Gen 19:7-8</a></em>) clearly shows their intention. In the light of this, Jude warns the believers that their punishment for this was what awaited those of the new Israel who threw off their responsibilities. "As Sodom and Gomorrah... giving themselves over (implying this was a conscious apostasy?) to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth an example" to us (<em><a href='B:720 1:1'>Jud 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:7'>Jud 1:7</a></em>). In passing, it should be noted that all Jude's examples of Divine punishment involve people who were responsible to God, by reason of knowing His ways. Is Sodom an exception?&nbsp;Perhaps Lot had preached to them.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There can be no doubt that the sexual aspects of Sodom's sins have great similarity to the moral filth of our present world. But significantly it was not this aspect which our Lord chose to highlight when speaking of how "the days of Lot" typified those of His return. Instead He spoke of those things which were more likely to ensnare His people: "<em>They</em> (as well as our present world) did eat, <em>they</em> drank, <em>they</em> bought, <em>they</em> sold, <em>they</em> planted, <em>they</em> builded" (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). Their obsession with daily activities without an awareness of God was as bad as their other sins; a point we would do well to be aware of. However, their eating and drinking must have been to gross excess- <em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em> defines "the iniquity of Sodom" as being "fulness of bread" among other things. Some lavish Christian lifestyles frequently feature "fulness of bread"- but because it is not perceived as a gross sin, this unhealthy similarity with Sodom slips by unchallenged.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"They bought, they sold" suggests that Sodom was a major trading centre, rapidly increasing in wealth; "they planted, they builded" (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>) implies a real boom town. Such success resulted in the people being proud and haughty (<em><a href='B:330 16:49-50'>Eze 16:49-50</a></em>); the wealth created at the expense of others brought about "abundance of idleness in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (<em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em>). It is these aspects of Sodom which are so precisely matched by our self-centred, money mad world. As our Lord realized, it is these aspects which are most likely to ensnare the child of God. Yet Sodom's people were not completely unaware of their religious conscience. Jeremiah likened the false prophets of Israel who effectively taught that sin was service to God to the people of Sodom, suggesting that they too said the same (<em><a href='B:300 23:14'>Jer 23:14</a></em>). This is another hint that the people of Sodom had some degree of responsibility, as have latter day Israel whom they typify.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him</em>- Lot was willing to die in order to save the Angels. There is an intended similarity with the entrance door to the ark which was also opened and shut (<em><a href='B:10 6:16'>Gen 6:16</a></em>), and the Angelic defence of the "door" of Israelite houses in the night of Egypt's destruction (<em><a href='B:20 12:22-23'>Exo 12:22-23</a></em>). The same two Angels had also stood at the "door" of Abraham's tent (<em><a href='B:10 18:1-2'>Gen 18:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em> s.w.). There is without doubt a correspondence between Abraham and Lot, but it seems the similarities are more to point a contrast between the two men, in which Lot comes out negatively.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Please, my brothers, don’t act so wickedly</em>- Lot thought that he had authority over them, as a judge who sat in the gate of the city. But their anger and lust was beyond respecting anybody. Perhaps it is specifically this incident which Peter has in mind when he writes that Lot was "distressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked" (<em><a href='B:680 2:7'>2Pe 2:7</a></em>), and Peter even implies that it was because of this that he was "delivered". There is no other Biblical example of Lot being "distressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked" in Sodom. It was on behalf of Abraham's intercession that he was delivered, but confirmed in another dimension by this act of genuine distress at their wickedness. Although Lot is presented as weak, this heat of the moment response was indicative of his genuine distress at their wickedness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>See now, I have two virgin daughters. Please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them what seems good to you. Only don’t do anything to these men, because they have come under the shadow of my roof</em>- This is really indefensible, and is a deep reflection of Lot's weakness and yet also of his desire to somehow do the right thing on another level. On a psychological level, the daughters took their revenge later by making Lot drunk and sleeping with him. This is absolutely psychologically credible, and confirms the veracity of the Biblical storyline here presented.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, Stand back! Then they said, This one fellow came in to live as a foreigner, and he appoints himself a judge. Now will we deal worse with you, than with them! They pressed hard on the man Lot, and drew near in order to break the door</em>- The sense in which they felt he was a "judge" was in that Lot had told them that gang rape was "wicked". They were furious that he criticized their moral standards. We can assume that they intended to rape and murder Lot, and yet their passion for the Angels was unabated, and they attempted to break the door down to get in. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the men reached out their hand, and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door</em>- The same word is used of the Angelic shutting of the door of the ark (<em><a href='B:10 7:16'>Gen 7:16</a></em>). Salvation was to be within the house, prefiguring the ecclesia in the last days; for a brief moment as the judgments are poured out on this Sodom like world, we too shall be shut in behind a door (same Hebrew phrase, <em><a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a></em>). "Reached out (their) hand" is used of Noah in <em><a href='B:10 8:9'>Gen 8:9</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves to find the door</em>- <em><a href='B:430 1:17-18'>Zep 1:17-18</a></em> has a series of allusions to Sodom, indicating that its destruction prefigures that of Israel in the last days: "They shall walk like blind men (as the Sodomites did), because they have sinned against the Lord ("the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord", <em><a href='B:10 13:13'>Gen 13:13</a></em>)... neither their silver nor their gold (cp. Sodom's wealth) shall be able to deliver them... the whole land shall be devoured by the fire" (<em><a href='B:430 1:17-18'>Zep 1:17-18</a></em>). "Blindness" is literally 'dazzling'; the Angels showed their Angelic faces, and the light blinded the Sodomites. The similar blinding of Saul and Elymas was to bring them to repentance, and perhaps even at this late stage, the Angels were still seeking to elicit repentance. Truly we should never give up with people. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The smiting with blindness in a latter day context suggests <em><a href='B:450 14:12'>Zec 14:12</a></em>, where this is the plague with which God punishes those who have come against Jerusalem. In this case Lot would represent a feeble-faithed Jewish remnant in the last days, unsuccessfully pleading with others to obey the Lord's call.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The men said to Lot, Do you have anybody else here? Sons-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whoever you have in the city, bring them out of the place</em>- Perhaps they were mindful of the condition that ten righteous could save the city. And yet they reason as if the destruction of the city is already certain, and that ten would not be found. The destruction of Sodom is paralleled with that of Babylon; "Come out of her, my people" (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:4-5'>Rev 18:4-5</a></em>) is based upon this call. But Lot could 'bring them out', just as Noah is presented as the saviour of his family. "Whoever you have" is in AV "Whatsoever thou hast". All that we have, finally, is our believing, saved family members. And that should be our focus. Nothing material can be salvaged from this life.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is recorded that Lot only went to speak with his sons in law, and that the daughters who came with him were young unmarried girls who were still living at home, rather than&nbsp; speaking to his married daughters (<em><a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a></em>). There is no mention of his speaking to them or his sons- perhaps because he knew that spiritually they were too far gone to be interested? It is possible that his speaking only to his "sons in law" rather than directly to his daughters also indicates a lack of urgency or comprehension of the seriousness of the situation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown so great before Yahweh that Yahweh has sent us to destroy it</em>- The language is similar to that of <em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em> about the sin of the Amorites becoming "full". There are limits to the moral declension which God will tolerate. When the <em>eretz</em> was "full" of wickedness, the flood came; and when the sin of Sodom grew to a certain point, this was the trigger for judgment. It is hard to imagine that our world has much further to run until it reaches that trigger point. Angels sent to destroy points forward to the "destroyer" Angel sent to destroy at Passover, with a minority saved by grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot went out, and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters, and said, Get up! Get out of this place, for Yahweh will destroy the city. But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be joking</em>- &nbsp;Our last appeal to the world will probably meet a similar response from the "mockers" of the last days (<em><a href='B:680 3:3-4'>2Pe 3:3-4</a></em>); but it must be remembered that if Lot's leaving of Sodom represents the calling away to judgment, then those whom he asked to leave with him may primarily represent other believers. At the Lord’s coming, the willingness to respond to the call to leave the world is an indicator of our acceptability- those who refuse or delay to obey the call are punished (after judgment) in the sufferings of the world, whilst those who voluntarily obey the call to judgment immediately are those who will be accepted. The parable of the wise and foolish virgins illustrates this too. Thus Lot's appeal to those who presumably knew the true God to leave the city may parallel our frantic pleading with weak believers to immediately respond to the call to leave the world. Sadly there will be the same light hearted refusal on the part of some.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Lot went out" into streets filled with blind, angry men of Sodom, in order to spread the message as the Angels requested (<em><a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a></em>). This picture of preaching amidst bitter hostility but with Divine protection recurs in Revelation 11 concerning the two witnesses. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the morning came, then the angels hurried Lot, saying, Get up!- </em>"Get up" is the same word Lot uses to his relatives in :14. Perhaps his appeal for them to "get up!" and urgently leave was none too credible because he himself was reluctant to do so. Consistently in this record, we see that Lot was saved by grace. Like his wife, he was reluctant to leave Sodom and failed to perceive the urgency of the situation. He represents God's people of the last days; and we can infer therefore that they (we) will be very weak as Lot was, and saved by grace alone. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take your wife, and your two daughters who are here- </em>"Are here" in the Hebrew means literally 'to come out'- as if to stress that although living with Lot, they still had made the conscious decision to leave. The fact that they did not look back like their mother would indicate a certain degree of spiritual strength- and perhaps they were still virgins because they declined to marry "the men of Sodom (who) were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (<em><a href='B:10 13:13'>Gen 13:13</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lest you be consumed in the sin of the city</em>- It is apparent that "sin" is sometimes used as a metonymy for 'condemnation for sin'. The AV margin here rightly suggests that "the iniquity" of the city was the condemnation / punishment for their iniquity. And there are other examples in <em><a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:16'>Jer 14:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:450 14:19'>Zec 14:19</a></em>. This isn't just a matter of cold exposition; the reality is that every sin we commit- and we sin daily- is in fact a self-infliction of condemnation upon ourselves. We rather than the Lord are the ones who in essence have demanded our condemnation; His judgment is merely reflecting our own choice. The idea of self-condemnation is perhaps behind the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This command to leave Sodom is clearly one of the source passages for <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em> concerning Babylon: "I heard another (Angelic) voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues". Note that it was also an Angel who said this to Lot. Babylon is directly equated with Sodom in <em><a href='B:290 13:19'>Isa 13:19</a></em> and <em><a href='B:300 50:40'>Jer 50:40</a></em>. Babylon geographically and culturally represents the peoples surrounding Israel of our last days- and therefore it is not surprising that related Arab nations like Edom, Moab and Ammon are also paralleled with Sodom (<em><a href='B:300 49:18'>Jer 49:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 2:9'>Zep 2:9</a></em>). This continues a long-standing Biblical theme that the curses on apostate Israel are the same as those on the Arabs / people of the <em>eretz</em>- thus Sodom is representative of both Jews and Arabs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But he lingered; and the men grabbed his hand, his wife’s hand, and his two daughters’ hands, Yahweh being merciful to him; and they took him out, and set him outside of the city</em>- Lot had been attracted toward Sodom by materialism, and it had consumed most of his family, and almost himself. For despite all he had been through in the last 24 hours, he still lingered, thinking of his wealth, and was saved by special grace alone. He left Sodom with nothing but the clothes he stood up in. Just as we will at our exit from this world. Israel were not to "linger" in leaving Egypt on Passover night (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a></em>); the urgency of the situation becomes all the more relevant to us once we perceive that the call to leave "Sodom" is not just when the Lord comes, but right now; for we now are not to "look back" as Lot's wife did (<em><a href='B:490 9:62'>Luk 9:62</a></em>; <em>Php_3:13</em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The importance of leaving the world immediately the Angel comes is shown by the consistent impression in the record that the Angels urgently "hastened Lot" (<em><a href='B:10 19:15-17'>Gen 19:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:22'>Gen 19:22</a></em>), implying that if he did not hurry then he would perish. It was not foreordained that he would not perish- "Arise... <em>lest </em>thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city... escape for thy life; look not behind (the Hebrew root means 'to delay')&nbsp; thee, neither stay thou... <em>lest</em> thou be consumed" (<em><a href='B:10 19:15'>Gen 19:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em> AV). It is quite possible that the <em>speed</em> of our response to the call will be the proof of our acceptability. The speed of response was the basic difference between the wise and foolish virgins. It was only after he had left Sodom that the Angel said that he could not "do any thing till thou be come thither", i.e. to Zoar (<em><a href='B:10 19:22'>Gen 19:22</a></em>). Yet Lot "lingered", the Hebrew meaning 'to question or argue', as we see him doing later in the record in his discussion with the Angel concerning the danger of going to the mountain as he had been told, and asking leave to go to Zoar. "Lingered" literally means 'Why?' or 'What!', indicating severe incomprehension on Lot's part. We would be foolish to think that we too will not be prone to a serious sense of incomprehension when the Angel appears. Only repeated meditation upon that moment and a true love of the Lord's coming will stop us being so flustered by the Angel's call that we fail to respond to it with the necessary speed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Therefore the Angel "grabbed" Lot's hand, a Hebrew word elsewhere translated 'to take courage', and definitely meaning to strengthen or encourage. Angels frequently said to faithful men "Fear not" when they have appeared to them. It is therefore tempting to think that our Angel will speak similar words of strength and encouragement to us on their appearing. The typology of Lot would support this. But we have to remember that in Lot's case the Lord was "merciful unto him"- such grace as was shown to him cannot be presumed upon. "Merciful" certainly carries the idea of pity in Hebrew- if we have had a loving relationship with our guardian Angel now, surely we may look forward to their 'pity' then. Despite all this, Lot's wife still looked back; and 'remember her'. The pull of family and materialism was such for that woman, that all this supreme&nbsp;demonstration of mercy and love was not enough to convince her that nothing else mattered apart from obedience to God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Lot therefore was 'taken out' from the city which he had failed to separate from as he should; all by grace. And likewise with Abraham being 'taken out' from Ur by Divine providence, when he ought to have obeyed of his own volition.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It came to pass, when they had taken them out, that one of them said, Escape for your life! Don’t look behind you, and don’t stay anywhere in the plain. Escape to the mountains, lest you be consumed!</em>- The exit from Sodom was a type of our calling out of the world on the eve of its destruction in the last days; but when we first respond to the Gospel, we are likewise warned not to "look back" (<em><a href='B:490 9:62'>Luk 9:62</a></em>; <em>Php_3:13</em>). We are to try to live now in the intensity of the second coming, living on a knife edge, realizing that the ultimate issues of eternity are before us. The world in which we live is as Sodom, ripe for destruction. "The mountains" were exactly where Abraham was living, the barren uplands which Abraham had accepted when Lot chose the fertile plain. He was being driven to reconsider that decision he had taken, and to realize how much he had suffered because of it. The whole "plain", the fertile area once so attractive to Lot, was to be destroyed. And so on the eve of this world's destruction, we need to earnestly consider whether we are as Lot or Abraham.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "lest perhaps thou be overtaken together with them" shows that despite Abraham's intercession being a factor in Lot's salvation, he still would have lost that salvation if he chose to tarry longer. "Look" means to view intensely with love or pleasure; that these words were said to Lot must indicate that he was tempted to look on Sodom in that way. There seems to be a pointed contrast with Abraham, who looked at Sodom burning without being punished, presumably because he had no attraction towards it (<em><a href='B:10 19:28'>Gen 19:28</a></em>). Thus for all his vexing of soul for the sins of the city (<em><a href='B:680 2:8'>2Pe 2:8</a></em>), Lot was still tempted to love it. Our repulsion at the ways of the world is not necessarily a sign of our spiritual safety- there is an uncanny love within human nature for the environment we know. Thus there can be homesickness for drab streets and scenes which we despised whilst living among them. Such love, taken to its logical end, is a love of the world which militates against our desire to see the end of this age and to enter the Kingdom.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is amazing that with the clear command echoing in his ears, Lot could ask leave to live in Zoar, a small city of the plain, and not go to the mountain. He clearly failed to appreciate the reality and seriousness of the Angel's coming- and this will certainly be a temptation to us in that moment when the typology of Lot is fulfilled in us. The only way to guard against this is by consciously living our lives now in awareness of the fact that now we have been called to leave the world and its ways, and therefore our whole life now should have the spirit which we will have when we leave this world when the Angel comes. This is confirmed by an oblique allusion which our Lord makes to this Angelic command in <em><a href='B:490 9:62'>Luk 9:62</a></em>: "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God". The context shows that starting to plough represents the start of our new life in response to the Gospel call- but the allusion to the Angel's words to Lot show that we should live our whole lives in response to that call as if we are on the way to the judgment, having been called away by the Angel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is a breathtaking thought that all the intricate typology of the judgments on Sodom has been worked out for our benefit- the generation who will be alive at the second coming. To a lesser extent, the believers of the first century could have seen that the story of Sodom also represented the judgments to come upon Jerusalem in AD70. An impressive group of Old Testament prophets had associated Jerusalem with Sodom: <em><a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 4:11'>Amo 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:14'>Jer 23:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 4:6'>Lam 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:46'>Eze 16:46</a></em>. Jeremiah 4, 5 are prophecies which have relevance to Israel's latter day judgments (<em><a href='B:300 4:28'>Jer 4:28</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). <em><a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a></em> seems to allude to God's requirement for their to be some faithful men in Sodom to prevent its destruction: "Run ye to and from through the streets of Jerusalem, and see... if ye can find a man... that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it". This associates Sodom, Jerusalem and the last days. It confirms the exposition offered on chapter 18- that if only one righteous had been found in Sodom, it would have been saved. And there was one righteous, namely Lot (<em><a href='B:680 2:7'>2Pe 2:7</a></em>). But Abraham set the limit at ten, and God accepted that. As the faithful remnant were miraculously allowed to leave Sodom, immediately unleashing the Divine judgments by doing so, the faithful Christian remnant were allowed to leave Jerusalem just before the final Roman onslaught of AD70, doubtless spurred on by their Lord's command: "Let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it (Jerusalem) depart out" (<em><a href='B:490 21:21'>Luk 21:21</a></em>). The reference to fleeing to the mountains would have suggested a conscious allusion back to&nbsp; the command to Lot to flee out of Sodom "to the mountain".&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot said to them, Oh, not so, my lord</em>- Lot recognized he was dealing with Angels, and yet he felt he could dialogue with them, just as Abraham had done in chapter 18. But given the urgency of the situation, we tend to see his words here not so much as a reflection of his intimacy with God, but rather of his fearful lack of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>See now, your servant has found favour in your sight, and you have magnified your grace, which you have shown to me in saving my life. I can’t escape to the mountain, lest evil pursue me there, and I die</em>- Lot's response to the Angel's call illustrates the contradictions which abound within human nature. He claims to appreciate that the Angel has saved his life, but then goes on to say that what the Angel is telling him to do will result in the loss of his life. Similarly our calling away may well present us with the prospect of apparent pain or loss. He feared that "some evil" would "take me", using a Hebrew word that is not the one usually translated as "take". This one means strictly 'to pursue after and capture', indicating that Lot was all too aware of the Sodomites' desire to kill him, and feared that if he lived alone in the mountains they would easily pursue and kill him. Instead, Lot suggested, there would be more safety in living in the small city of Zoar nearby, which presumably the Sodomites would be loath to invade just to take Lot. Another consideration is that "the evil" (Heb.) referred to Lot's belief that there was some evil, satan-like figure in the mountains which would pursue and kill him there. That belief was so deep that it made him challenge the Angel-saviour even in this desperate moment. And yet for all that wrong doctrine, the Angel still showed mercy and condescended to his misbelief, just as the Lord used the language of demons to those for whom the idea was so entrenched.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All this shows an incomprehension of what the Angel had said. Firstly, Sodom was to be destroyed at any moment, including the men whom Lot feared. Either he did not properly believe this, or he thought that God's judgment would not involve total destruction. Secondly, he had been explicitly told "neither stay thou in all the plain (including Zoar)... lest thou be consumed" (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em> AV). Insufficient attention to the words of the Angels therefore resulted in his foolish reasoning which almost cost him his life. It is easy to imagine that the moment of the Angel's coming will fill the weak latter day believer, perhaps distracted as he will be by the persecutions of the holocaust to come, with such a sense of confusion and incomprehension that he too will fail to take careful note of what is said to him. A love of God's word now, rejoicing in its detail, is surely the preventive for this.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The connection between the Angels as God's eyes and His hearing of prayer becomes more relevant once it is realized that to 'find grace in God's sight' (eyes-Angels) is equivalent to saying 'please hear my prayer'- see <em><a href='B:10 19:19'>Gen 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:5'>Gen 32:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 33:15'>Gen 33:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 34:11'>Gen 34:11</a></em> - at least in Genesis. This again explains why early believers conceived of God in terms of an Angel, as they would have prayed to the Angel and received the answers and other revelation of God from one. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angels make things potentially possible, but the realization of their potential plans depended upon Israel's freewill effort. When Lot says that he "cannot" flee from Sodom, the Angel responds by saying that he "cannot" (same Hebrew word) do anything until Lot has left- as if to suggest that the Angel's mission depended upon Lot's freewill decision for its realization (<em><a href='B:10 19:19'>Gen 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:22'>Gen 19:22</a></em>). The same word is found on the lips of another Angel in commending Jacob that he had "prevailed" (<em><a href='B:10 32:28'>Gen 32:28</a></em>)- literally, he had 'coulded'. He had achieved what had been made potentially possible in terms of his relationship with that Angel. Caleb and Joshua perceived that Israel were "well able" to overcome the tribes and inherit the land, seeing that the Angel-hornet had gone ahead and prepared the way; and yet due to Israel's disabling of this possibility at the time, it was in some ways so that God Himself was "not able" to give them the inheritance, because <em>they </em>judged that <em>they </em>were " not able" to take it (<em><a href='B:40 13:30-31'>Num 13:30-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:16'>Num 14:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>See now, this city is near to flee to, and it is a little one. Oh let me escape there (isn’t it a little one?), and my soul will live</em>- The Hebrew for "flee" is also translated 'to hide in', carrying the idea of being chased into. Again, his fear of the Sodomites is shown to loom large in his thinking. The Angel had bidden him flee from the Divine wrath that was soon to consume all the cities of the plain. But instead Lot was preoccupied with the fear of human vengeance against him. Such an attitude appears crazy to our cool, armchair analysis of what happened. Yet Lot is certainly a type of the believers who are alive at the Lord's return. There can be no doubting, therefore, that whatever our theoretical willingness now to leave all and follow the Angel, there will then be at least the temptation to get consumed with the kind of double-think that seized Lot's reasoning. He even tried to accommodate his human desires to the desires of the Angel: "Is it not a little one?", as if to imply that there was little wrong with the place spiritually. The Hebrew translated " little one" is also rendered "a short time"- as if to say 'You are asking me to be quick about leaving Sodom- so I'll go to&nbsp; Zoar, as it won't take long to get there'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"My soul shall live" is really a reflection of his lack of faith in Divine salvation; he considered that he knew better than God in working out his salvation. All the way through, Lot is portrayed as a man of very weak faith. And yet he was counted righteous, as 2 Peter makes clear. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to him, Behold, I have granted your request concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken</em>- LXX "Behold, I have had respect to thee also about this thing". We see here God's sensitivity and even humility before men; His "respect" of humans in all their weakness. We too should respect people even if they are spiritually weak; and this will affect the language and jargon we use about people. The intercession of one man saved Zoar; and this feeds back into the theme developed in commentary on chapter 18, that the intercession of one man, Abraham, and the righteousness of one man, Lot, could have saved a whole city- but Abraham lacked the vision and faith to actualize it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The righteousness of a single man (cp. that of the Lord Jesus) wasn't perceived by Abraham as powerful enough. Perhaps Paul had this in mind when he writes in Romans of how for the sake of "the one", the Lord Jesus, many sinners can be counted righteous. And surely God was trying to bring out the same possibility when we read of how Lot asked for the sake of Zoar- just for his singular sake. And God spared Zoar- just for the sake of one man, Lot. Note how the Hebrew word used for "spare" in <em><a href='B:10 18:24'>Gen 18:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:26'>Gen 18:26</a></em> recurs in <em><a href='B:10 19:21'>Gen 19:21</a></em>, where God assures Lot that He will indeed <em>spare</em> Zoar (AV "I have <em>accepted</em>"). We are surely intended to reflect that God would have spared Sodom for Lot's sake too. Perhaps God is alluding to the same point when He says that for the sake of just one righteous man He would have spared Israel in Ezekiel's time (<em><a href='B:330 22:30'>Eze 22:30</a></em>). Surely there was one righteous man in Ezekiel's time, not least Ezekiel himself. But there was nobody with the spiritual vision to intercede with God to spare Israel for the sake of that one man; their lack of vision of His grace and pleasure in the righteousness of even one person was akin to Abraham's lack. And are we not intended to see some allusion to Abraham's failure in the way that Moses, just one man, prayed for and received Israel's salvation? And could not Abraham have asked for Sodom to be spared for his own sake, had he had a broader vision of God's grace? Perhaps his legalistic attitude is reflected in his appeal for "the judge of all the earth" to do what was <em>right</em>, in not destroying the righteous with the wicked. He perceives God as legalistic judge, not gracious Father. He asked for justice- not mercy. His basis is that the Judge of all the earth shall “do judgment”- note that “do right” is a poor translation. The Hebrew word translated “Judge” is the same root as “do judgment / justice”. It’s as if Abraham is almost simply observing that the Judge / Justice will of course do justice, and so he’s drawing to His attention that there are in fact just people in Sodom, and therefore God’s justice will surely preclude Him from destroying them. He assumed there were ten people in Sodom who were righteous; but perhaps later Scripture alludes to this by stressing that there is not one truly righteous person, not one (<em><a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a></em>). Paul brings out the point that therefore salvation is by grace, not personal righteousness. And in the end, Lot was saved- but only because he threw himself upon God's grace. Yet he too perhaps suffered from Abraham's legalism; it is possibly referred to by the men of Sodom when they complain that he who had come in to sojourn amongst them "would play the judge" (<em><a href='B:10 19:9'>Gen 19:9</a></em>). Significantly, Lot's salvation out of the burning Sodom is applied to all God's people in <em><a href='B:370 4:11'>Amo 4:11</a></em>. His entire people are saved by a like grace. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham saved Lot out of Sodom by his earnest prayer for him; and there is ample reason to think from the Genesis record and his subsequent reaction to the Angel’s invitation to leave that Lot of himself was simply not strong enough. Without those prayers and the concern of Abraham read by God as prayer, Lot may well have been left to suffer the condemnation of the world he preferred to live in. And yet Lot fleeing from Sodom is used in the NT as a type of our latter day exit from the world at the Lord’s coming. Is this not to suggest that the latter day believers will be saved only by grace, they will not be strong and ready to leave; and their salvation will only be on account of the prayers of the faithful? Lot was not without spirituality; but he was simply swamped by the pull of the world in which he had become entangled, not to mention his unspiritual wife. He was the type on which one could have compassion, making a difference, and pull out of the fire. Indeed, it could even be that Jude’s words about pulling a brother out of the fire may be a reference back to Lot being pulled out of the fire that came upon Sodom. Those in his position sin a sin which is not unto death only in the sense that we can pray for them, so that their sin will not lead them to condemnation. But only in this sense is sin not unto death; for the wages of sin, any sin, is death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). But in some cases this sentence can ultimately be changed on account of our effort for our brother. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hurry, escape there, for I can’t do anything until you get there. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar</em>- When Lot says that he “cannot” flee from Sodom, the Angel responds by saying that he “cannot” (same Hebrew word) do anything until Lot has left- as if to suggest that the Angel’s mission depended upon Lot’s freewill decision for its realization (<em><a href='B:10 19:19'>Gen 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:22'>Gen 19:22</a></em>). The same word is found on the lips of another Angel in commending Jacob that he had “prevailed” (<em><a href='B:10 32:28'>Gen 32:28</a></em>)- literally, he had ‘coulded’. He had achieved what had been made potentially possible in terms of his relationship with that Angel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar</em>- Just as God reads the situation of the righteous as prayer even if they don't verbalize it, so God sees the behaviour / situation of the wicked as a cry ascending up to Him, as prayer does. Sodom's cry reaching unto Heaven is the obvious example (<em><a href='B:10 18:20-21'>Gen 18:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:23'>Gen 19:23</a></em>); but <em><a href='B:230 74:23'>Psa 74:23</a></em> also speaks of the voice of God's enemies 'rising up' (Heb.) to Him in Heaven. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The rising of the sin invites comparison with the description of the second coming as the rising of the sun in <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>; the judgments upon this Sodom like world are to come the moment the Lord returns. "But his wife looked back from behind him" (<em><a href='B:10 19:26'>Gen 19:26</a></em>) suggests the picture of the wife following behind Lot, filled with remorse at the loss of all she had held dear. Our Lord comments concerning not desiring our "stuff which is in the house" in the day of his coming: "Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever (like her) shall seek (Greek: 'plot') to save his life shall lose it". We can infer from this that she plotted and schemed how to save her possessions- i.e. her 'life', seeing that for her, her life did consist of the abundance of the things which she possessed (<em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>). These feelings grew so strong that she paused to take a loving, wistful look at the city. Remember that the fire only fell after Lot was in Zoar; therefore the city was looking as it normally did. Their exodus was at night- "the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar" (<em><a href='B:10 19:23'>Gen 19:23</a></em>), so she would have seen the flickering lights of the city in the distance. Compare this with how the virgins of Matthew 25 go out to meet their Lord at night.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As a result of Abraham's intense prayer, believing that this coupled with the spiritual preparedness of others really could change God's stated purpose, the judgment of Sodom need not have come. So with Jerusalem in AD70, had there been a suitably large, repentant 'remnant' those horrific judgments could have been avoided. Despite the definite associations of Jerusalem with Sodom in the prophets, the Old Testament also uses Sodom as a symbol of total, permanent destruction of the type which has not and will not come on Jerusalem, the future capital of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:32'>Deu 32:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 13:19'>Isa 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 49:18'>Jer 49:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:40'>Jer 50:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 4:11'>Amo 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 2:9'>Zep 2:9</a></em>). It is for this reason that Paul makes the point that for the sake of the tiny group of Jews who did still hold and practice the truth, Israel would not suffer the judgments of Sodom in totality (<em><a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 1:9'>Isa 1:9</a></em>). This would indicate that there will also be a latter day Jewish remnant which will stop the faithless Israel of today receiving the judgment of permanent destruction. But of course for the individuals of both natural and spiritual Israel who have consciously rejected God, "it shall be more tolerable in that day (of judgment) for Sodom" than for them (<em><a href='B:490 10:12'>Luk 10:12</a></em>). <em><a href='B:300 20:16'>Jer 20:16</a></em> has a graphic description of the people of Sodom screaming out in anguish, both mental and physical, as the judgments of God fell upon them: "The cry in the morning (when the judgments began, <em><a href='B:10 19:23-24'>Gen 19:23-24</a></em>), and the shouting at noontide". This is in reality a picture of the rejected in the last days.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulphur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky</em>- The 'raining' invites us to compare this with the coming of the flood, thereby connecting Lot with Noah. They both sinned through wine after their gracious deliverance. Evidence of this has been uncovered by Albright and other archaeologists, finding it superimposed upon a once fertile area: "Evidence of five freshwater oases have been located at the southeast corner of the Dead Sea, obviously used for irrigation to service the cities of the circuit when they were in existence. Adjacent to these oases, on a plain elevated above the level of the Dead Sea some 500 feet (152:4m), there were found the remains of a great fortified enclosure, a high place for religious festivals. According to these archaeologists, the evidence suggests that the population of the area ended abruptly about 2000 B.C. It also showed, that at that time, the area was densely populated, fertile and prosperous".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham prayed for the city of Sodom to be saved for the sake of ten righteous who might be there. He didn't specifically mention what was his heart's desire- that <em>Lot</em> be saved. But God discerned the <em>spirit</em> of his prayer, and saved Lot, even though Abraham 'knew not what to pray for' and asked for the 'wrong' thing in order to obtain what he really wanted, i.e. the salvation of Lot.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew on the ground</em>- This is mentioned because the fertility of the area had been so initially attractive to Lot. The "all" excluded Zoar; so we have another example of "all" not meaning 'every', in a global sense. The scale of destruction, utter totality, of man and animal and vegetation, recalls the effects of the flood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt</em>- She was walking "behind him", so Lot would not have actually seen her turn into a pillar of salt. As he ceased to hear her footsteps behind him he must have guessed what had happened- but now the Angel's words seemed more vital to him: "Look not behind you". Likewise it will be a sore temptation for us to be side-tracked from our obedience to the Angel's call by consideration for our natural family. <em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em> and <em><a href='B:430 2:9'>Zep 2:9</a></em> show that Sodom was turned into an area of salt, which explains why <em><a href='B:10 19:25'>Gen 19:25</a></em> says that the fire destroyed "that which grew on the ground", by making the area salty. This salt was presumably formed through the fire intensely burning the rocks and earth until the elements dissolved into a 'salt'. It is reasonable to think that as Sodom was turned into salt by fire, so Lot's wife suffered the same punishment through a bolt of fire striking her and turning her too into salt. This is a prime example of how the unworthy will suffer the same punishment as the surrounding world which they failed to truly leave. There is good reason to think that their punishment may also involve an element of literal fire, as that of Lot's wife did.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Remember Lot's wife" suggests that we should meditate upon her position as it has especial warning for the last days. Her leaving of Sodom appears to have been due to the personal influence of Lot her husband, yet ultimately she failed to have that personal desire to obey God. It would not be pushing the type too far to suggest that the wives of latter day believers may feel that they can enter the Kingdom in the spiritual shadow of their husbands. One cannot help wondering whether she left Ur not through personal response to the promises but because the others were leaving. Doubtless her husband's uncle Abraham would have led her and the whole family in regular prayer and meditation during the journey towards Canaan. But somehow the reality of the God of Israel was never allowed to touch her inner being, and the years of the soft life in Sodom would have sealed her spiritual state. It is hard to avoid making the point that many of us may be in a similar position. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a></em> RVmg. brings out the likely immediate background to her decision. Lot’s sons in law “were to marry” his daughters. The Lord too perceived that they were marrying and giving in marriage the very day the flood came, and He pointed out the similarities with the Sodom situation (<em><a href='B:490 17:27-29'>Luk 17:27-29</a></em>). Could it not be that the very day of the double wedding, they had to leave? With all the build up to the wedding, Lot and his wife would so wanted to have stayed just another day to see the wedding of their two daughters. It is to the girls credit that they both left. But Lot’s wife had invested so much in it emotionally that she just had to look back. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before Yahweh</em>- He went there to see whether the destruction had happened, whether in fact ten righteous had been found there. He went there in faith, responding to the Angel's words. And he found they had come true. Remember that Abraham was informed of the promised destruction of Sodom by the Angel just after the same Angel had promised the conception and birth of Isaac. It's as if the short term fulfilment of the Angel's words was encouragement that the longer term Angelic prediction would likewise happen; and the yet longer term fulfilment of the promises would also occur. We too find the Father operating in a similar way with us. We are given short term experiences of faith rewarded to encourage our faith in longer term outcomes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and looked, and saw that the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace</em>- Of Gog's destruction it is written: "I will rain upon him... great hailstones, fire and brimstone" (<em><a href='B:330 38:22'>Eze 38:22</a></em>), associating latter day Gog with Sodom. At the same time, Gog and his supporters will be fighting each other (<em><a href='B:330 38:21'>Eze 38:21</a></em>), clearly connecting with Zechariah's prophecy that the local surrounding invaders of the last days will do the same (and cp. Jdg . 7:22). God's pleading against Gog with these things is the language of <em><a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a></em>, again about the destruction of Israel's latter day Arab enemies. The Hebrew word for 'locust' in Joel is almost identical to 'Gog'. All this results in an association between the latter day invaders, the Sodomites, Gog and the northern invader. This prepares the way for the view that " the beast" is a symbolic epitome of all Israel's enemies.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is to be expected, therefore, that the fall of Babylon chronicled in Revelation 18 is shot through with allusions back to the Sodom record. The following are the more evident points of contact:&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td>Babylon (in Rev.)</td><td>Sodom</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore" (Babylon); 17:2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>Cp. God showing Abraham the judgment of Sodom.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The beast supporting Babylon "was and is not and shall ascend"; 17:8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>Sodom and surrounding cities were strong, then overrun by Abraham,&nbsp;then revived.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Her sins have reached unto Heaven,&nbsp; God hath remembered her iniquities";&nbsp;18:5</td><td>"The cry of Sodom... is great because their sin is very grievous&nbsp; ... the cry of it is come unto me" (<em><a href='B:10 18:20-21'>Gen 18:20-21</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"She hath glorified herself, and lived&nbsp;&nbsp; deliciously"; 18:7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>"Pride... fulness of bread" (<em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Utterly burned with fire"; 18:8&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>'Sodom' = 'burning'.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Her plagues... death... and famine";&nbsp; 18:8</td><td>"He overthrew all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground" (cp. "famine"; <em><a href='B:10 19:25'>Gen 19:25</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"The great city... great Babylon"; 16:19 </td><td>The city of Sodom.</p>&nbsp; </td><td></td></tr><tr><td><p style='margin-left:1em'>"There fell upon men a great hail out&nbsp;&nbsp; of heaven" (16:21)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>"The Lord rained upon Sodom...&nbsp; brimstone and fire from the Lord&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; out of heaven" (<em><a href='B:10 19:24'>Gen 19:24</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"They shall see the smoke of her burning, standing afar off for the fear of her torment (18:9,10)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>Abraham standing far away and seeing the smoke of Sodom's&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; burning indicates that the surrounding kings did likewise (<em><a href='B:10 19:28'>Gen 19:28</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Merchants suffered through&nbsp; Babylon's fall (18:11-19)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </td><td>Sodom was a trading centre (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>" ...a great millstone cast into the sea&nbsp; ... thus with violence shall... Babylon... be found no more at all" (18:21)</td><td>Sodom now appears to be submerged in the Dead Sea, to be found no more.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Her smoke rose up" (19:3)</td><td>"Sodom... the land of the plain... the smoke of the country went up" (19:28)</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>We have reasoned that Lot's call out of Sodom represents how the Angels will call us out of this present evil world. Indeed, our Lord said that Sodom represents the world just prior to the second coming (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). The evident connections with latter day Babylon would suggest that 'Babylon' too represents the world of the last days; " Come out of her my people" (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em>) therefore refers to the Angel's plea&nbsp; to us at the second coming, in addition to any previous historical reference it may have to the Catholic apostasy. The call for the first century Jews to leave Rome or for true believers to come out of apostate systems were pointers towards the ultimate fulfilment of these words, which will be in our leaving this life at the behest of the Angel who comes to call us away. Our obedience then will be the summation of all the previous decisions God's people have made to 'come out' from the 'world' in its various forms.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If 'Babylon' refers specifically to the powers surrounding Israel, it is possible to see Sodom representing the world under Arab control in the last days, offering great material wealth. Yet the obvious Biblical basis for the language of "come out of her my people" is in the many references to Israel being called on to leave the soft life of Babylon and return to the land during the restoration (e.g. <em><a href='B:450 2:6-7'>Zec 2:6-7</a></em>). In this there is a remarkable similarity with Sodom. The Jews in Babylon maintained their separateness, and yet became heavily involved in the government of Babylon (as witness Daniel and his friends, along with profane history). This is parallel to Lot's position in Sodom. Yet the prosperity of Babylon made the Jews disinclined to leave it in order to go to Jerusalem, as Lot had a similar disinclination. And the easy life of the present world will also seem a greater attraction to the unworthy of the new Israel, when the Angel calls them to go to Jerusalem to meet their Lord.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the middle of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived</em>- The situation has many connections with the flood, where God likewise "remembered Noah" and saved a remnant from the total destruction which came (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We learn from this verse that Lot had lived in the cities of the plain, until he eventually settled in Sodom. This adds to the impression of a steady slide downwards in his spirituality. It was only by taking all his wealth and family away from him, until he ended up living as a caveman, that he could be saved. Such is the terrible power of materialism and the soft life.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The days of Sodom are to be read as types of our last days. Thus in the type of the last days, the prayers and loving spiritual concern of the faithful remnant really can have an effect on the salvation of our weaker brethren. Note that Abraham's prayer that Sodom would be saved if ten righteous were found there, was not answered; but God knew the real spirit of his prayer, that Lot should be saved, and that God's justice should be upheld in not destroying the righteous with the wicked. It was this which God recognized and answered, even though Abraham had not specifically verbalized those thoughts in prayer. Our true spiritual love for our brethren, expressed in such intense prayer, will likewise be heard in these last days. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record of Lot's leaving of Sodom (a remarkable type of our 'exodus' at the second coming) has the repeated hallmark of 'haste'.&nbsp;This is found repeated in the record of both the Passover and the crossing of the Red Sea.&nbsp;They were told, "You shall eat it in haste" (<em><a href='B:20 12:11'>Exo 12:11</a></em>);&nbsp;"they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry" because " the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste" (<em><a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:33'>Exo 12:33</a></em>).&nbsp;Lot was "sent out" of Sodom by the hastening of the angels.&nbsp;It may be that in some cases our angels will hasten us to leave through their influencing of the surrounding nations (Egypt), rather than through their physical presence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to live in Zoar- </em>Again, we see Lot being brought back to the obedience he should have made originally. He had been told to flee to the mountain, and now he does so of his own volition. His fearing to live in Zoar was really another lack of faith- in the Angelic promise that Zoar would not be destroyed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He lived in a cave with his two daughters</em>- This is a picture of his absolute poverty, having been plunged from wealthy affluence to cave dwelling.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The firstborn said to the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in to us in the way of all the earth</em>- There were still plenty of men in the <em>eretz</em>, and Zoar was still intact, protected by the promised Angelic deliverance of that city for the sake of one man's intercession, Lot. See on :36.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Come, let’s make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve our father’s seed</em>- Incest was likely commonplace in Sodom, and the young women were still influened by it, although saved by grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father. He didn’t know when she lay down, nor when she arose</em>- We wonder how this could quite have been the case. To achieve ejaculation when so drunk that there is a memory blackout, and for both women to conceive within 24 hours of each other after only one act of intercourse... all seems a straining of physical credibility. It could be that we have here an example of human perception being stated, without any footnote to the effect that 'this is just how they liked to see it and present it'; we have plenty of examples of this kind of thing when we consider the language of demons and exorcism in the New Testament. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It came to pass on the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine again tonight. You go in, and lie with him, that we may preserve our father’s seed</em>- As noted on :33, the physical likelihood of conception occuring from one act of intercourse with a man so drunk that he suffers memory blackout, and both sisters conceiving within 24 hours of each other... is so unlikely that we get the impression that we are reading the agreed version of events which the family agreed to publicize. The simple fact may be that seeing Lot thought little of offering those girls for sex to a gang who wanted to rape his guests... he didn't see too much wrong with sleeping with them himself. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They made their father drink wine that night also. The younger went and lay with him. He didn’t know when she lay down, nor when she got up</em>- There are strong similarities with Noah getting drunk and apparently being involved in some incestuous sex at the time. It is a sad anticlimax to the life of a man who did show spirituality and faith, despite so much weakness. His life almost comes to this end purposefully, in order to highlight the amazing grace of the statement that in the end, Lot was counted righteous, will be saved, and is to be remembered for how much he detested the immorality of Sodom (<em><a href='B:680 2:7-8'>2Pe 2:7-8</a></em>). The contrast is so severe that we are driven by it to accept the power of Divine grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus both of Lot’s daughters were with child by their father</em>- I have suggsted on :33-35 that those verses are a transcript of the agreed version of events distributed by the family. Perhaps this is the force of the word "Thus", as if to say, "This is the explanation offered as to how Lot's daughters were with child by their father". But this doesn't have to mean that it actually happened as they said; the girls' complaint that there were no males to marry was also untrue, as noted on :31.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day</em>- "Moab" = 'begotten of my father'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben Ammi. He is the father of the children of Ammon to this day</em>- 'Son of my own people'; and "Ammon" means "tribal", with the implication "inbred". "To this day" again reminds us the initial purpose of the Pentateuch was to explain to Israel in the wilderness the origins of the peoples with whom they were coming into contact as they approached Canaan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham travelled from there toward the land of the South, and lived between Kadesh and Shur. He lived as a foreigner in Gerar</em>- Locating where these places were is not as simple as looking at a "map of Abraham's journeys". The idea may well be that Gerar was "between Kadesh and Shur", the two clauses being in parallel; although that is not how the locations are presented on most maps. In this case, "lived" (Heb. 'settled down') is parallel with the different Hebrew word translated "lived as a foreigner", or better 'lived temporarily', 'lived as one passing through'. In this case, a powerful lesson emerges: that no matter how stable our living place may appear, even if we lived in the house we were born in all our lives, it is still a passing through, as a foreigner, just temporarily- because the true permanence is yet to come, when the promises to Abraham are fulfilled. See on <em><a href='B:10 21:34'>Gen 21:34</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said about Sarah his wife, She is my sister. Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah</em>- Gerar was the very place where Isaac also lied about his wife. Abraham had previously been rebuked for doing the very same thing in Genesis 12; but he failed to learn the lesson. Indeed this time he excuses himself by saying that he regularly did this (:13). Abraham like Lot is presented as a man of consistently weak faith and behaviour; and yet he believed God at His word, that he would really be saved, and showed that in the stellar act of obedience in being prepared to offer Isaac. He believed, and demonstrated that faith by that work; but much of the rest of his life isn't presented as being very full of faith. And in this sense he is indeed the father of the faithful- we who likewise are weak, so weak; and yet cling on to God's promise of final salvation, and with a gun at our head, act accordingly.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, Behold, you are a dead man, because of the woman whom you have taken. For she is a man’s wife</em>- God told Abimelech that he would surely die, with evident allusion to God’s judgment of Adam; no conditions were stated. But later, it became apparent that the death penalty was conditional upon his not releasing Sarah (:7). Prophetic statements are made in the Bible without the conditions being mentioned; more prophecy is conditional than we might imagine at first encounter with the Bible text.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abimelech was "a dead man" for taking Sarah, as if although he was alive, for that sin he was in God's eyes condemned and dead. But that verdict for that case was changed by his change of the situation. The unfaithful now walk naked (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:3:17'>Rev 3:17</a></em>); but they will do so in the final condemnation of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>. They can walk naked <em>now </em>and repent, clothe themselves so as to cover the nakedness of condemnation which they now have; but not then. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Abimelech had not come near her- </em>Repeatedly, the surrounding pagan world is portrayed as being of more integrity than the Abraham family. The conclusion is that the people of God believe in His grace, but sadly aren't necessarily good people; although they ought to be.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Lord, will you kill even a righteous nation?</em>- This was precisely the reasoning of Abraham with God in chapter 18. Maybe Abimelech had heard of this and was influenced by it, even though he must've thought Abraham was good at his theory but hardly walked the talk in practice. We too must see beyond the hypocrisy of others and be prepared to accept that even they have something to teach us. Or perhaps the similarity is in order to demonstrate the parallels between Abraham and Abimelech; in order to point up the fact that Abraham was not much better than the surrounding chieftains, apart from the fact that he believed in God's grace to save him. And that made all the difference.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Didn’t he tell me, ‘She is my sister?’ She, even she herself, said, ‘He is my brother’. In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands have I done this</em>- Despite this innocence, he was but "a dead man" because of his intentions to commit a sin of ignorance (:3). We see here how sensitive God is to human sin; even the intention to sin in ignorance nets death. This gives backdrop and perspective to the vast extent of His grace in forgiving and saving sinful man. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to him in the dream, Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also withheld you from sinning against me. Therefore I didn’t allow you to touch her</em>- God will strengthen the heart / spirit of those who try to be strong (<em><a href='B:230 27:14'>Psa 27:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:24'>Psa 31:24</a></em>). He can even, somehow, withhold men from sinning, and keep us from falling (<em><a href='B:230 19:13'>Psa 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:39'>1Sa 25:39</a></em> s.w.; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>). We should therefore have no essential objection to the idea of the Lord granting us His Spirit, in the sense of His thinking, His heart / mind. For the gift of the Spirit, the blessing to Abraham, is not just forgiveness, but to turn us away from our iniquities (<em><a href='B:510 3:25'>Act 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, restore the man’s wife. For he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will live. If you don’t restore her, know for sure that you will die, you, and all who are yours</em>- There seems here to be a connection between prayer and God's word being within us- for exactly because Abraham was a prophet, therefore he could pray for Abimelech. Faith comes from our appreciation of the word (<em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>), and faith is the basis of answered prayer (<em><a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a></em>)- to the point that we believe we have received the answer the moment we pray (as in <em><a href='B:230 56:9'>Psa 56:9</a></em>). God cried to Israel in the prophetic word, but they would not hear; and so when they cried to Him, He also did not hear (<em><a href='B:450 7:13'>Zec 7:13</a></em>). If the Lord's words dwell in us, we will ask what <em>we</em> will, and it will be done. Yet only if we ask according to <em>God's</em> will can we receive our requests (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 5:14'>1Jn 5:14</a></em>). The implication is that if the word dwells in us, our will becomes that of the Father, and therefore our requests, our innermost desires, are according to His will, and are therefore granted. Therefore the word was what directed and motivated David's regular daily prayers (<em><a href='B:230 119:164'>Psa 119:164</a></em>); they weren't standard repetitions of the same praises or requests, but a reflection of his Biblical meditation. He asks God to hear his prayers because He keeps God’s word (<em><a href='B:230 119:145'>Psa 119:145</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:173'>Psa 119:173</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language is alluded to in <em><a href='B:220 42:10'>Job 42:10</a></em>, where Job prays for his friends and they are saved; and later in the Pentateuch we will read of Moses praying for Pharaoh, and having the possibility of obtaining forgiveness for him. Forgiveness is likewise predicated upon the faith and intercession of third parties in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>. This opens up the vista of huge and constant work for us all in praying for others.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"And all who are yours" may seem extreme, a kind of guilt by association. But that principle isn't supported in the Bible. They would've died because they knew Sarah was Abraham's wife, and hadn't spoken out against their master in this matter. Keeping silent about wrongdoing is therefore seen by God as making us culpable for the wrong being done. We think of the price paid by John the Baptist for speaking out against Herod's wrongdoing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ear. The men were very scared</em>- As noted on :7, their knowledge of the proposed wrongdoing made them culpable if they didn't speak out against the King if he still went ahead and did it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said to him, What have you done to us? How have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? You have done things to me that ought not to be done!</em>- Abimelech noted that he was "a dead man" (:3) already, and therefore he was guilty of a great sin already- the sin of intending to commit a sin of ignorance. He fully accepted God's standards of judgment and morality in a way which Abraham did not; for he had now multiple times (:13) led Sarah and her suitors into potential sin. Abimelech did this just once, and in ignorance, and is truly penitent and sensitive to God's view of the matter; but Abraham was not. This is the more commendable when we realize that the pagan gods and idols knew nothing of this kind of sensitivity to potential sin.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech said to Abraham, What did you see, that you have done this thing?</em>- Abimelech is angry that Abraham has led him into sin (:9 also), and he focuses upon that, rather than the more obvious comment that Abraham was hardly a good husband to Sarah. The Lord likewise taught that one aspect of sexual failure is that it can cause others in some cases to commit adultery (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said, Because I thought, ‘Surely the fear of God is not in this place. They will kill me for my wife’s sake’</em>- As noted above, all Abimelech says shows that he did in fact fear God. So the record presents Abraham as wrong and spiritually inferior to Abimelech on some points. Abraham's words appear to be purposefully recorded in such a way as to beg the observation that according to the New Testament, the husband should die for his wife's sake. Abraham is consistently presented as weak and with the fear that comes from lack of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife</em>- "Iscah" in <em><a href='B:10 11:29'>Gen 11:29</a></em> is understood by some as another name for Sarah, seeing that she and Abram had the same fathers. The question remains as to why she is given a different name there; 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 of Genesis 10, 11. 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><p style='margin-left:1em'>God clearly and simply promised to make a great nation out of him. But there was a time when his faith in this wavered, and he lied about his wife Sarah, exposing her to great risk, because he feared losing his life more than his wife. She was his half sister (<em><a href='B:10 20:12'>Gen 20:12</a></em>), and so he said she was his sister, not his wife... we are left to imagine the complicated thought processes and contorted reasoning that took place within him before finally doing this. He could justify it, apparently. But he would have been better holding to a simple faith in God’s clear statements. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 20:12-13'>Gen 20:12-13</a></em> could be translated as meaning that Abraham married Sarah at the time he left Ur: “She (Sarah) is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife when it happened that God caused me to wander from my father’s house; at that time, I said to her, ‘This is your kindness which you shall show to me. Everywhere that we go, say of me, He is my brother’”. In this case we see that Abraham didn’t at all leave his family- he married his half sister! In doing so he was repeating the behaviour of his brother in marrying close family relatives- Nahor married his brother Haran’s daughter (<em><a href='B:10 11:29'>Gen 11:29</a></em>). They left Ur and went to live in Haran- and it’s surely not coincidence that they had a brother of the same name, Haran. Surely there was a connection between the man and the city- and that’s where they went to live. This was hardly the individuation from family members which God had required of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her, ‘This is your kindness which you shall show to me. Everywhere that we go, say of me, He is my brother’- </em>Abraham's weak attitude to leaving Ur is reflected much later too, when he tells Abimelech that "the gods caused me to wander from my father's house" (<em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>). The Hebrew <em>ta'ah </em>("wander") has the idea of wandering aimlessly (<em><a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:15'>Gen 37:15</a></em>) and even sinning (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>). It wasn't a very nice term to use about God's providence. That seems to me to be a believer in a moment of weakness speaking about his faith in very worldly terms, as one pagan to another. He doesn't see his leaving of his father's house as obedience to Divine command and promise; but rather he portrays that response as his being somehow manipulated by the gods, picked up and taken out of the situation. See on <em><a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a></em>. The LXX has "when God brought me forth out of the house of my father"; even in this case, we see the emphasis upon God bringing him out to separation from his relatives, rather than his obedience to the call to do so. By saying this, he would be growing closer to appreciating grace; that God caused him to be obedient when he of himself was not. This is the same work of the Spirit which continues in our days. The Gentile believers are in this sense 'made obedient' by the Spirit's work (<em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a></em>). Truly our salvation is not of works of obedience, lest any man should boast (<em><a href='B:560 2:9'>Eph 2:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham's comment that God caused him to go astray from his father's house would likely have been understood by those who first heard it as a negative reference to God- for the word "gone astray" is used of a lost sheep (<em><a href='B:300 50:6'>Jer 50:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:4'>Eze 34:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:16'>Eze 34:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a></em>); and it was understood that "A bad shepherd causes a sheep to go astray from the flock because he is careless". Perhaps God recognized Abraham's failure by instructing His people to confess every year that "An Aramean gone astray was my father" (<em><a href='B:50 26:5'>Deu 26:5</a></em>). I take this to be a reference to Abraham and not Jacob; for it seems that the people of Aram migrated to Ur, and that Abraham having settled in Padan Aram, Abraham could also for that reason be called an Aramean. So Israel were asked to remember that their forefather Abraham had gone astray both literally and spiritually; and thus Abraham's God was a God of grace, and was thereby their God too. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Our own calling out of this world is likewise a matter of God’s grace; He wishes to save us, and leads us out of situations and into new ones, when we ourselves ought to have made the moves of our own volition. He makes us wander from our father’s house (<em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>). This is all part of the “blessing” to Abraham, which involves turning us away from sin (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>). God was the one who brought about Abraham’s obedience. "From thence (Haran)... <em>God</em> removed him into (Canaan)" (<em><a href='B:510 7:4'>Act 7:4</a></em> R.V.). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"This righteousness thou shalt perform to me" (LXX) sounds as if Abraham kidded himself and Sarah that lying was a form of righteousness. And so often in the heat of moments we too are tempted to justify wrong behaviour as being necessary for the cause of righteousness. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham is commended for being a wanderer and sojourner; but this meant he was constantly in new situations. And according to his own words here, he lied each time about his wife. But righteousness was imputed to him, and God focuses upon the positive, as we should with others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech took sheep and cattle, male servants and female servants, and gave them to Abraham, and restored Sarah his wife, to him</em>- Abraham ought to have apologized to Abimelech. But instead Abimelech gives him a present. We see here an example of grace; and how the unbelieving world is favourably contrasted with the family of faith at this time. The same happened in chapter 12. This is all the spirit of going the second mile, offering the undergarment if someone takes your jacket. It leaves us with the upper hand.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before you. Dwell where it pleases you</em>- We would rather expect Abimelech to consider Abraham a hypocrite and leave the area. But rather he seems to want a man of the true God living amongst him; he wasn't fazed by personal hypocrisy, but saw through to the higher truths.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Sarah he said, Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver. Behold, it is for you an adorning of the eyes before all that are with you. In front of all you are reproved</em>- Sarah was “reproved” by King Abimelech for going along with Abraham’s lie about her not being his wife. And yet Kings were reproved for her sake, and were not allowed to do anything harmful to her (<em><a href='B:230 105:14'>Psa 105:14</a></em>)! And Abraham reproves Abimelech later- for something Abimelech claimed he had not done (<em><a href='B:10 21:25'>Gen 21:25</a></em>). The repeat of the word “reprove” is surely meant to indicate that here is an example of Abraham and Sarah being counted righteous because of their faith- when clearly they were not wholly righteous. Abraham, the man who had to be reproved, was used by God to reprove the man who had reproved him… it would have sounded very hypocritical to Abraham’s neighbours. Yet the point was, that God saw him as being righteous. See on <em><a href='B:10 26:11'>Gen 26:11</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Concerning not outwardly "adorning", the Greek text in in <em><a href='B:670 3:4-6'>1Pe 3:4-6</a></em> is alluding to the Septuagint of <em><a href='B:10 20:16'>Gen 20:16</a></em>, which says that Abimelech told Sarah that he had given Abraham many silver pieces "that these may therefore be for thee to adorn thy countenance"; or in another version of the LXX, "those shall be to thee for the price of thy countenance", as if to say 'this is the cost of being a pretty woman'; the suggestion would be that it was the payment for whoredom, although she had not slept with him. Thus Abimelech is speaking sarcastically (note how he calls Abraham "your brother", referring to Sarah and Abraham's family relationship). It was a custom for married women to wear their silver pieces on their face (cp. <em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). Presumably she had taken these off, in order to appear single and sexually available. Abimelech is saying: "I've given your so-called 'brother' Abraham 1000 silver pieces, so just make sure you wear them in future and don't lead any more men into sin". And what does the Spirit comment? "Thus she was reproved". Her willingness to pretend she was single and not refusing the sexual advances of Abimelech can only be seen in a negative light from the Genesis record. She lacked continued faith in the promises of a seed, and she disregarded God's marriage principles for the sake of an all too convenient 'obedience' to her husband. It may have been that she regarded her inability to have children as partly his fault (cp. the deadness of Abraham's body, <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>). The thing is, she had already shown enough faith to conceive (<em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>), and presumably the effect of this was seen in the physical rejuvenation of her body, which made her so attractive to men, although she was 90 years old. Both Sarah and Abraham had shown faith, she was living with her own body as the constant reminder of God's faithfulness, and yet in the incident with Abimelech she wavered and had to be reproved. Yet she is seen in a positive light by the Spirit; her lack of wearing ornaments, even though it was to show she was single, is commended; as is her obedience to her husband, even though she was reproved for this. The point is, like all of us, her motives were probably mixed. She did want to be truly obedient to Abraham, she did want to have a meek spirit rather than outward adorning. Her wrong motives surfaced, and were rebuked. But God saw deep inside her heart, and saw the good motives, and drags them out and holds them up as an example. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"And speak the truth in all things" (LXX) would be a well deserved and stinging rebuke to her; for even today in Semitic cultures, to call someone a liar to their face is an insult. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham prayed to God. God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his female servants, and they bore children</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 45:5'>Gen 45:5</a></em>. This is the language of Job praying for his friends; see on :7. Abraham's weakness leads Abimelech's wives to become barren; yet through the faith and prayer of an undoubtedly spiritually weak Abraham, their fertility is restored. Again, God was teaching Abraham through circumstances. It could also be reasoned from <em><a href='B:10 20:6'>Gen 20:6</a></em> that God weakened Abimelech's body so that he had no sexual desire for Sarah- and again, this was to teach Abraham the impotent old man that virility and conception is a gift which God can give and take at ease. The wonderful thing is that all these lessons were taught to Abraham through the incident of lying about and betraying his wife, which shows the weakness of his faith in God's promises. The way God works with and through human weakness is awesome.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh had closed up tight all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife</em>- Time and again Biblical history demonstrates that sins of silence and omission are just as fatal as sins of public, physical commission. Sarah omitted to say that Abraham was her husband; and was reproved. Abraham’s lie about Sarah and unfaithfulness to his marriage covenant with her became a source of God’s blessing and the curing of&nbsp; Abimelech’s wife from infertility (I read her infertility as a state that existed prior to the incident with Abraham). The righteousness of God becomes available to us exactly because we have sinned and come short of the glory of God (<em><a href='B:520 3:23-24'>Rom 3:23-24</a></em>). God works out His plan of salvation actually through man’s disobedience rather than his obedience. As Paul puts it again, we are concluded in unbelief, that God may have mercy (<em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em>). It was and is the spirit of Joseph, when he comforted his brothers: “Now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life” (<em><a href='B:10 45:5'>Gen 45:5</a></em>). And again, speaking about the sin of Israel in rejecting Christ: “Their trespass means riches for the (Gentile) world” (<em><a href='B:520 11:12'>Rom 11:12</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh visited Sarah as He had said, and Yahweh did to Sarah as He had spoken</em>- The double emphasis "As He had said... spoken" emphasizes the fulfilment of His word of promise, and perhaps stands in contrast to her laughing in mockery at that same word. "Spoken" refers specifically to the spoken word; so the "Yahweh" in view is the Angel who had visited Sarah nine months previously. Angels can bear the Name of Yahweh, as can His Son, without being one and the same as God Himself. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him</em>- It could be that the Divine visitation of :1 refers rather to God 'visiting His people' in the sense of getting involved with them and identifying with them, rather than a literal visit. This would mean that the conception was Yahweh visiting Sarah. But it's also possible that the visitation was in order to give Sarah both conception and childbirth at the same time. I suggest this because Paul writes of how Isaac was born after the Spirit, and Ishmael after the flesh (<em><a href='B:550 4:29'>Gal 4:29</a></em>). Whilst Isaac was not the only begotten Son of God as the Lord was, all the same it is possible to argue from Paul's language that Isaac was somehow Divinely conceived, by the Spirit, and not as a result of "the flesh" as Ishmael was, i.e. Abraham having intercourse with Sarah. Whatever, her conception is attributed to the visitation of the same Angel who had appeared to her previously. In this case, we have yet another hint at the weakness of Abraham and Sarah's faith. They ought to have slept together, firmly believing the Angelic promise that they would have a child. But if Isaac was born after the Spirit and not after the flesh, we could draw the conclusion that they did not, and the conception and birth were of special Divine intervention, although the resulting child was miraculously of the seed of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham called his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac</em>- The name was a reminder for all time that initially, Sarah had laughed at the promise of Isaac, and been rebuked for it (<em><a href='B:10 18:12-15'>Gen 18:12-15</a></em>). The laughter of joy at his birth was memorialized in his name, but so was Sarah's terrible mocking laughter at God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him</em>- The circumcision of both Isaac and Ishmael is emphasized; they were both in covenant with God and thereby heirs of the promises, which were at different times made to them both. But Isaac held in with these things, whereas Ishmael pushed off to Egypt and despised them, as Esau was to do later.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him</em>- This was 25 years after the first promise of a seed. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarah said, God has made me laugh. Everyone who hears will laugh with me</em>- The same word is used of how Sarah had mockingly laughed at God at the news of Isaac's conception (<em><a href='B:10 18:12-15'>Gen 18:12-15</a></em>). And we wonder whether her skepticism may still carry through here, as if to say: 'I can't believe this is for true, everyone who hears I bore a child will laugh their heads off in disbelief'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She said, Who would have said to Abraham, that Sarah would nurse children! For I have borne him a son in his old age</em>- The answer to her question is "God". Only God would say such a humanly bizarre thing. Likewise Peter reasoned that if it was the Lord Jesus walking on the stormy lake, then the Lord would bid him come unto Him. Nobody else would think of making such an invitation. There is something uniquely challenging about God's way with us, and the possibilities which He alone perceives and seeks to make real for us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The child grew, and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned</em>- Weaning could take up to three or four years, which would make Ishmael 16 or 17 at this time, and not a toddler. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking</em>- Ishmael was a mid teenager; and yet his behaviour was judged as sinful. Children and young people can and do sin, such is God's sensitivity to human failure. What he did to the toddler Isaac is called "persecution" (<em><a href='B:550 4:29'>Gal 4:29</a></em>). So there may have been more to it than "mocking" a toddler. We observe however that Sarah too had mocked- and mocked God's promise (<em><a href='B:10 18:12-15'>Gen 18:12-15</a></em>). The record carefully balances out the wrongdoing, to stress that it is not the case that Abraham and Sarah were <em>per se</em> more spiritual than others. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore she said to Abraham, Cast out this handmaid and her son! For the son of this handmaid will not be heir with my son Isaac!</em>- Sarah's screaming indignation can be well imagined. Consider which words were probably stressed most by her: "Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman <em>shall not be </em>heir (just hear her voice!) with my son, even with Isaac" (<em><a href='B:10 21:10'>Gen 21:10</a></em>). This is in harmony with her previous bitterness and aggression to Hagar and Abraham. But both Ishmael and Isaac had received circumcision, the token of the covenant, and identical promises were made to them both. Sarah was out of step with God's intentions. Her attitude in implying that Ishmael was not the seed is gently rebuked by God in his subsequent words to Abraham concerning Ishmael: "He <em>is</em> your seed" (:13). And yet Sarah's words are quoted in <em><a href='B:550 4:30'>Gal 4:30</a></em> as inspired Scripture! Here we see the wonder of the God with whom we deal, in the way in which He patiently bore with Sarah and Abraham. He saw through her anger, her jealousy, the pent up bitterness of a lifetime, and he saw her faith; or even counted righteousness to her, as He did to Abraham and Lot. And He worked through that screaming, angry woman to be His prophet. According to <em><a href='B:550 4:30'>Gal 4:30</a></em>, God Himself spoke through her in those words, outlining a principle which has been true over the generations; that the son of the slave must be cast out, and that there must always be conflict between him and the true seed. Sarah in her time of child-birth is likened to us all as we enter the Kingdom, full of joy (<em><a href='B:290 54:1-4'>Isa 54:1-4</a></em>); and yet at that time she was eaten up with pride and joy that she could now triumph over her rival. And yet Sarah at that time is seen from a righteous perspective, in that she is a type of us as we enter the Kingdom. God's mercy to Sarah and Abraham is repeated to us daily.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Cast out" is a word used elsewhere about divorce. Sarah's attitude here is altogether wrong; remember that it was her idea that Abraham should effectively marry Hagar and have a child by her. </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. Consider all the times when God’s apostate people are recorded as acting in terms of their Arab cousins. Thus apostate Israel and the Jewish system were to be "cast out" (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>) just as Ishmael had been (<em><a href='B:10 21:10'>Gen 21:10</a></em>). Indeed, Hagar and Ishmael are representative of Israel "after the flesh" and the earthly Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:550 4:29-30'>Gal 4:29-30</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight on account of his son</em>- It is stressed in the record that Ishmael was "his son". Abraham had other sons by Keturah, but clearly Ishmael had a special place for him; for he had been circumcised, and was therefore within the covenant. "Grievous" is the usual word for "evil" and has a definite moral connotation. In Abraham's opinion, he was being manipulated to do something morally wrong. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to Abraham, Don’t let it be grievous in your sight because of the boy, and because of your handmaid. In all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice. For in Isaac will your seed be called</em>-&nbsp; What Sarah was proposing was indeed morally evil ("grievous", see on :11). But God asks Abraham not to take that guilt upon himself. I have argued on <em><a href='B:10 16:11'>Gen 16:11</a></em> that Ishmael means "God hears" because God heard Abraham's request that Ishmael might live before God in covenant relationship, and this was confirmed by Ishmael being circumcised as the token of the covenant and receiving the same promises as Isaac. It was a Divine observation that Isaac would be the one through whom the promised seed would come; rather than saying to the effect that 'Don't worry, you can throw Ishmael away, I'm against him and he's not in covenant with Me, but Isaac will be'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So God asks Abraham not to take that guilt upon himself. There was wrong, but God is saying that in the end, Ishmael will survive and He has a potential purpose with him. But the higher level surely would've been for Abraham to refuse any part in this evil treatment of Hagar and Ishmael. It's a case of different levels and God's willingness to be sympathetic to those who feel they are caught up in a situational ethic... As we should be.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will also make a nation of the son of the handmaid, because he is your seed</em>- The promises to Ishmael are very similar to those to Isaac and the seed of Abraham; God is surely saying that sending Ishmael away didn't of itself mean that the promises could not apply to him. In this, God was as it were disallowing Sarah's desire to disinherit Ishmael. This confirms that the comment in :12 that Abraham's seed would be called in Isaac is not saying that Ishmael was not Abraham's seed. He was, and the record often stresses that Ishmael was Abraham's son.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder; and gave her the child, and sent her away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a word play here, where the word <em>shawkam </em>occurs twice. Abraham "rose up early" (<em>shawkam</em>) in the morning, took bread, water and Hagar's child, and "laid (them) on her shoulder" <em>(shawkam</em>). I understand from this that Abraham really fellowshipped with the suffering laid upon Hagar; he did it with a very sad heart, feeling for Hagar to the point of realistic empathy.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham's behaviour towards Hagar and Ishmael was actually illegal in terms of the near Eastern legal codes. Those of Lipit-Ishtar and Hammurabi, as well as the laws of Nuzi amongst the Hurrians, all specifically stated that a husband with a barren wife may take a concubine through whom he could have offspring, but if his wife then has children, he must not ever disinherit or expel from the family the concubine and her children (Angel Gonzales, <em>Abraham: Father of Believers</em> (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967) p. 74). Yet Abraham did exactly this, effectively casting out Ishmael and Hagar into the desert, to walk until they perished of heat exposure. Perhaps God's later demand of Abraham to sacrifice his son, "your son, your only son, Isaac" (<em><a href='B:10 22:2'>Gen 22:2</a></em>), when he had other children apart from Isaac, was an implicit criticism of Abraham for having rejected Ishmael as his son; and he was asked to enter into the loss of a child, of how Hagar felt for her only son, as he had effectively sacrificed Ishmael to the desert.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba</em>- Abraham and Sarah had also been caused to wander by God (see on <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>). Again the point is being made that the supposedly holy family were not radically different from Hagar and Ishmael. God wanted them too; but they chose to step out of God's program and return to Egypt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the bushes</em>- Travel in the desert was done by moving from well to well, rather like a light aircraft flies between beacons. The Bedouins only carry as much water as is required until they reach the next well. Hagar had apparently missed her way; or more likely, the Angel had closed her eyes from seeing the well, which is why when her eyes were "opened" she immediately saw the well (:19). Ishmael had been thirteen when Isaac was born, and they were cast out by Sarah when Isaac was weaned, which would likely have been at 3 or 4 years old. So Ishmael was a mid teenager. He apparently fainted because of the lack of water. Hagar tried to carry him, but unable to do so any longer, left him under a bush to die. This tragic situation was brought about not as punishment, but to attempt to intensify her relationship with God, in the hope she would now raise a Godly seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She went and sat down opposite him, a good way off, about a bow shot away. For she said, Let me not see the death of the child. She sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept</em>- Her voice of weeping was heard as "the voice of the boy" (:17). Ishmael was about to die and had likely lost consciousness. Our prayers can be heard as the prayers of others, which is how the Lord's prayer intercession for us is described in Romans 8. The language however is similar to how God heard Israel's cry in Egypt. The cry of distress at a situation is read by God as prayer; it is our inner spirit or attitude which is read as prayer (Romans 8). This is comfort for those who feel they cannot well verbalize things in prayer. God hears the spirit of our situation rather than the verbalization.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God heard the voice of the boy- </em>As noted on :16, the voice or situation of someone is heard by God as if it is their prayer; and there is also the possibility that the prayer of another for us, in this case Hagar (:16), is read as prayer by God. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of God called to Hagar out of the sky, and said to her, What ails you, Hagar? Don’t be afraid. For God has heard the voice of the boy where he is</em>- The fact we read a phrase like "the Angel of elohim" here suggests that individual angels can be messengers of other Angel-elohim, and that there is a degree of hierarchy in the Heavenly organization.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Get up, lift up the boy, and hold him in your arm. For I will make him a great nation</em>- Ishmael was&nbsp; around 16 or 17. The lifting up was therefore the language of sacrifice- for that is the idiom used for sacrifice and prayer. Again we see a parallel with Isaac, whose parent was also commanded to lift up his beloved son to God. As she looked into the eyes of her helpless, dying son, probably unconscious or delirious, it would have seemed such a juxtaposition with such a great promise. And so it was with the promise repeated to the helpless baby Isaac. But we are brought to know our weakness, that God's grace might be the more revealed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. She went, filled the bottle with water, and gave the boy drink</em>- See on <em><a href='B:230 119:18'>Psa 119:18</a></em>. I suggested on :15 that travel in the desert was done by moving from well to well, rather like a light aircraft flies between beacons. The Bedouins only carry as much water as is required until they reach the next well. Hagar had apparently missed her way; or more likely, the Angel had closed her eyes from seeing the well, which is why when her eyes were "opened" she immediately saw the well.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God was with the boy, and he grew. He lived in the wilderness, and as he grew up he became an archer</em>- We read in :22 that God was also "with" Abraham. We are being taught that Ishmael was potentially just as much within the covenant purpose of God. God was not against Ishmael, the record really emphasizes this. Despite Abraham having other sons by Keturah, Ishmael and Isaac are mentioned as his sons in <em><a href='B:130 1:28'>1Ch 1:28</a></em>. He was circumcised, part of the covenant; God was with him; but Ishmael chose the way of his mother and stepped out of the purpose of God, resigning, effectively, the covenant relationship into which he was born.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He lived in the wilderness of Paran. His mother took a wife for him out of the land of Egypt</em>- Hagar was an Egyptian, and when she fled from Sarah in Genesis 16 she began on the road back there. And she takes a wife for her son from there. Egypt clearly represents the world; she was driven out from association with the Abraham family, thanks to Sarah's awfully wrong attitude, but failed to hold on to the covenant which Ishmael had been given.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his army spoke to Abraham, saying, God is with you in all that you do</em>- Sarah has effectively tried to kill Hagar and her son Ishmael as she did in chapter 16, apparently because of the teenage Ishmael mocking the baby Isaac. Whilst this incident is symbolic of the persecution of the righteous by the wicked (<em><a href='B:550 4:29'>Gal 4:29</a></em>), this in no way justifies Sarah's behaviour. And yet straight after this shameful business, God blesses Abraham in all that he does, and Sarah would have benefitted from this. Clearly material blessing is not related to spirituality. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son. But according to the kindness that I have done to you, you shall do to me, and to the land in which you have lived as a foreigner</em>- Abimelech had first encountered Abraham when he lied about Sarah, and Abimelech reproved him for his immorality. It must've been a strange experience- to begin relationship with this man realizing he was a hypocrite and didn't walk his talk, and yet coming to see that God was with this man. Abimelech is presented as a God fearer, contrary to what Abraham initially thought. He saw through the weakness of God's representatives, as we should, and came to perceive that this one true God is characterized by grace- working with and blessing those who were not worthy of it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said, I will swear</em>- This is the first time this Hebrew word for "swear" is used, and we will now read an unusually elaborate ritual of 'sevening' or swearing, involving seven lambs to represent the 'sevening'. This swearing to a covenant was to be kept carefully and seriously. It was to set Abraham up for God 'swearing' to him in even more solemn terms that the promises to Abraham would really come true (<em><a href='B:10 22:16'>Gen 22:16</a></em>). God likewise uses circumstances in our lives in order to prepare us for the next stage in our lives.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a water well, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away</em>- Earlier, Abimelech had rightly reproved Abraham for what he had done wrong in deceiving Abimelech about Sarah. Perhaps psychologically, Abraham wanted to get equal with Abimelech, although again, as in the incident with Sarah, Abimelech has sinned in ignorance. The similarities point up a comparison between the two which consistently leaves Abimelech in the more positive light. And yet Abraham was the one whom God chose. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech said, I don’t know who has done this thing. You didn’t tell me, neither did I hear of it, until today</em>- As noted on :25, again Abimelech is finding himself involved in a sin of ignorance. The same Divine hand was at work in his life; and we likewise find situations repeat in life, to teach us. Abimelech's implication is: 'And why ever didn't you tell me about this matter earlier?'. This was exactly what he said to Abraham regarding the deception over Sarah. Abimelech must have had the impression that Abraham was a strange, furtive guy, somewhat lacking in integrity; and yet the God of all grace was strangely with him. See on :23. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham took sheep and cattle, and gave them to Abimelech. Those two made a covenant</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; <em><a href='B:70 2:1-2'>Jdg 2:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a></em>). Yet Abraham made covenants with those very people (<em><a href='B:10 14:13'>Gen 14:13</a></em>; <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?</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves</em>- The idea was that they were separate from the two men, observing them ("by themselves"), but witnesses. Seven is the number of perfection; or perhaps he had in view the 'plural of majesty', the one great, perfect lamb. Did Abraham perceive that there was some 'perfect lamb', perhaps his future promised seed, who would be the ultimate witness between men?</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abimelech said to Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which you have set by themselves?</em>- This way of swearing was unknown to Abimelech and the surrounding culture. As noted on :24, Abraham had thought up a new ceremony in order to emphasize the gravity and utter dependability of his 'swearing'; and this was then used by God in <em><a href='B:10 22:16'>Gen 22:16</a></em>, to show Abraham that now God Himself was going to 'swear' to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, You shall take these seven ewe lambs from my hand, that it may be a witness to me, that I have dug this well</em>- As noted on :31, to seven oneself was to swear, and Beer Sheba was literally the well of the sevens. This was perhaps the reason for the seven lambs. For the meaning of the seven lambs, see on :28.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore he called that place Beersheba, because they both swore there</em>- Literally, the well of the sevens; to seven oneself was to swear. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they made a covenant at Beersheba. Abimelech rose up with Phicol, the captain of his army, and they returned into the land of the Philistines</em>- The sober gravity of this covenant was to prepare Abraham for the wonder of God making a covenant with him in the next chapter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and called there on the name of Yahweh, the Everlasting God</em>- AV "grove". The idea was of a roofless temple; and the tamarisk was hard and had evergreen leaves and plants growing on it, rather like mistletoe. Groves of such trees were typically associated with idol worship. We note that Abraham didn't build an altar for worship, but rather this grove; and we wonder whether he was not mixing Yahweh worship with idolatry, as Jacob and his family also did.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham lived as a foreigner in the land of the Philistines many days</em>- I noted on <em><a href='B:10 20:1'>Gen 20:1</a></em> that Abraham is described as both living temporarily, and yet also permanently dwelling. No matter how stable our living place may appear, even if we lived in the house we were born in all our lives, it is still a passing through, as a foreigner, just temporarily- because the true permanence is yet to come, when the promises to Abraham are fulfilled. And no matter how long Abraham lived in an area, even for "many days", he "lived as a foreigner", just as we should, realizing that we are only passing through.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! He said, Here I am</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a></em>. Temptation comes from internal processes (<em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em>), but God does test, as He did Adam in Eden and Israel in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:20 15:25'>Exo 15:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>). The primary audience of the Pentateuch was Israel under testing; and so the example of Abraham was presented in that context.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Now take your son, your only son, whom you love, even Isaac-</em> Isaac was not Abraham's only son. He had Ishmael, and other children by Keturah. Clearly the incident is framed to point forward to the sacrifice of God's only and beloved Son; "the son of His love" (<em><a href='B:580 1:13'>Col 1:13</a></em>) surely alludes back here. Perhaps we are to read the words here as meaning that Isaac was the "only" son whom he loved so much. Or it could be that Isaac is framed as Abraham's only son, just as Melchizedek is spoken of as having no parents, and no beginning nor end of life. The reference is to how the record is framed in Genesis; no genealogy nor chronological markers are provided for him. And so it might be there, with this presentation of Isaac as "your only son". But perhaps the idea is that Isaac was the only son of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham had frequently lied about her during their marriage (<em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>), and hardly comes over as willing to die for her. And yet God here speaks to Abraham as if he is Sarah, alluding to the unity which He counted as being between them. The decision to sacrifice Isaac would have ideally needed her agreement. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And go into the land of Moriah. Offer him there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you of</em>- It seems reasonable to conclude that Isaac was offered on or near the hill of Calvary, one of the hills (Heb.) near Jerusalem, in the ancient “land of Moriah" (where the temple was built, <em><a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham rose early in the morning- </em>The flesh would naturally like to delay our response in case we can avoid the sacrifice required. But Abraham arises early in immediate obedience. He may have discussed the situation with Isaac, who would've been about 20, and he would have agreed of his own volition. However, Isaac's question in :7 suggests that he was not aware that he personally was to be offered.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him- </em>The details are added so that we can play "Bible television" with the scene and imagine it. "His young men" may refer to other sons he had had by concubines or Keturah. Perhaps he was willing to sacrifice them too if required.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Isaac his son. He split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him</em>- There are examples of Abraham being 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. I've elsewhere pointed out how circumstances tend to repeat both within and between the lives of God's faithful. 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.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place far off</em>- The name given to the place, Yahweh-Yireh, means ‘in this mount I have seen Yahweh’. The events of the death and resurrection of the Lord which Isaac’s experience pointed forward to were therefore the prophesied ‘seeing’ of Yahweh. When Abraham ‘<em>saw</em> the place (of Isaac’s intended sacrifice) afar off", there is more to those words than a literal description. <em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em> alludes here in saying that Abraham <em>saw</em> the fulfilment of “the promises" “afar off". The Lord in <em><a href='B:500 8:56'>Joh 8:56</a></em> says that Abraham <em>saw</em> His day or time (usually a reference to His sacrifice). And yet that place of offering was called by Abraham ‘Jehovah Jireh’, ‘Jehovah will be <em>seen</em>’. Note the theme of <em>seeing</em>. In some shadowy way, Abraham understood something of the future sacrifice of the Lord Jesus; and yet he speaks of it as the time when Yahweh Himself will be ‘seen’, so intense would the manifestation of God be in the death of His Son. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said to his young men, Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go yonder. We will worship, and come back to you</em>- True sacrifice is praise of God; thus Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac was "praise" (s.w. "worship"). Israel in their repentance "will account our lips as calves" (<em><a href='B:350 14:3'>Hos 14:3</a></em> LXX, RVmg.), i.e. as sacrifices. The "fruit of the lips" there was repentance. Which is why the Hebrew writer says that we "make confession to his name" with the fruit of our lips (<em><a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a></em> RV). Continually we should offer this sacrifice of praise (<em><a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a></em>), the thankfulness that wells up from knowing we are forgiven, the joy born of regular, meaningful repentance. And we do this "by" or 'on account of' the sacrifice of Jesus for us, which enables this forgiveness and thereby repentance (<em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:470 26:36'>Mat 26:36</a></em> has the Lord saying to the disciples: “Sit in this place (<em>kathisate autou</em>) until going away, I pray there”, and then He takes along with him (<em>paralambanein</em>) Peter. These are the very words used in the Genesis 22 LXX account of Abraham taking Isaac to ‘the cross’. Jesus is seeking to encourage Peter to see himself as Isaac, being taken to share in the cross. Now whether Peter discerned this or not, we don’t know. But the Lord gave him the potential possibility to be inspired like this.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"And come back to you" means that Abraham was certain that Isaac would be resurrected. <em><a href='B:650 11:19'>Heb 11:19</a></em> says that Abraham went in faith that "God was able to raise him up, even from the dead". Like Job, he worked out by inference that there had to be a resurrection of the body to fulfil the implications of the promises made to them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. He took in his hand the fire and the knife. They both went together</em>- Twice emphasized (:8), this speaks of the unity between Father and Son as the Lord walked the Via Dolorosa to the place of crucifixion; and of Isaac's willing involvement in the sacrifice, when he was easily old enough to escape from it. The scene looks forward to the Lord carrying the wood upon which He would be offered. Indeed the Hebrew for "wood" is strictly "tree". The same word is used of how Abraham had earlier "laid" provisions upon Hagar and Ishmael's shoulders and sent his son Ishmael away (<em><a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a></em>). That experience in 'losing' his begotten son was to prepare him now for this apparent loss.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and said, My father? He said, Here I am, my son. He said, Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?</em>- This would suggest that Isaac had not been told of the plan. And yet he was old enough to have resisted. His willingness to cooperate would therefore have been a result of deciding to give his life at the very last moment. "Here I am" is the very Hebrew phrase Abraham uses in responding to the Lord's call in :1. We are given the impression of a man absolutely ready to obey any call.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said, God will Himself provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son. So they both went together</em>- 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 “You God see 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. Perhaps Abraham learnt from the words of his slave girl, whom he and his wife had abused. This is how we are to be, remembering and learning from incidents, even those which involve our own failures, to prepare us for future understandings and commitments.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They came to the place which God had told him of. Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, on the wood</em>- "They came to the place" is echoed in the description of the Lord's arrival at "the place called Golgotha" (<em><a href='B:470 27:33'>Mat 27:33</a></em>). Again the details are given, so that we can reconstruct the scene. Thus we read of the wood ("tree (branches)") being laid "in order", literally 'in rows'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to kill his son</em>- This is the Hebrew term used of Adam and Eve stretching out their hand to take the forbidden fruit (<em><a href='B:10 3:22'>Gen 3:22</a></em>). Abraham by contrast stretches out his hand in obedience rather than disobedience. The 'taking the knife to kill ('slaughter in sacrifice')' really does invite us to see Abraham silhouetted against the sky, with the knife in mid air. He really was taken to the brink. Surely this incident is in mind in <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>: "No temptation ('testing', as in <em><a href='B:10 22:1'>Gen 22:1</a></em>) has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and He will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation He will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it". Abraham is no longer left as an icon to be admitted from afar, as if in stained glass; but rather is he everyman in Christ.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh called to him out of the sky, and said, Abraham, Abraham! He said, Here I am</em>- This is presented as his characteristic response (:1,7). He was willing to do and be as directed, both in sacrificing or not sacrificing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Don’t lay your hand on the boy, neither do anything to him- </em>His hand was literally less than a meter from Isaac's heart, with a knife in that hand, just seconds away from plunging the knife into Isaac.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For now I know that you fear God- </em>Because the Angels are of limited knowledge, it seems that they bring some trials upon us in order to find out more about us. This is language of limitation- God Himself knows all things, but the Angel wanted to test Abraham. Indeed, the apocryphal <em>Book Of Jubilees</em> claims in so many words that it was an Angel called Mastema who was responsible for the idea of testing Abraham in order to determine his level of obedience.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me</em>- "Your only son" (see note on :2) reflects how God was fully aware of the cost of the sacrifice He was asking for. He too did not spare or withhold His only Son, and this passage is alluded to in <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>: "He that spared not His own Son". Therefore He was so thrilled with Abraham's attitude because He perceived how a man was connecting with Him in having the same spirit. We too can thrill God by being likewise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and saw that behind him was a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son</em>- This was the "way of escape" of <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>, which alludes to this incident and presents Abraham as every one of us. When the Lord on the cross cried out "How have You forsaken Me!" (<em><a href='B:480 15:34'>Mar 15:34</a></em>), the Aramaic <em>sabachthani </em>&nbsp;also means "entangled". It's as if He is saying "You have entangled <em>me</em>, I am not Isaac who was saved atthe last minute, I am like the entangled ram!". I have elsewhere commented concerning the possibility that Christ felt that although He would be tied to the cross as Isaac was, yet somehow He would be delivered. Clearly the offering of Isaac is to be understood as prophetic of the Lord’s sacrifice. The Lord's growing realization that the entangled ram represented Him rather than Isaac would have led to this sense of panic which He expressed in that cry from the cross. There is more evidence than we sometimes care to consider that Christ's understanding was indeed limited; He was capable of misunderstanding Scripture, especially under the stress of the cross.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham called the name of that place ‘Yahweh Will Provide’. As it is said to this day, On Yahweh’s mountain, it will be provided</em>- See on <em><a href='B:220 42:1'>Job 42:1</a></em>. Jehovah-Jireh can mean “Yahweh will show Yah", in eloquent prophecy of the crucifixion. There Yahweh was to be manifested supremely. 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'. 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 "You God see 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. Note that <em><a href='B:240 28:27'>Pro 28:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 29:7'>Pro 29:7</a></em> RV speak of ‘hiding the eyes’ in the sense of not making provision for the need of others. God’s eyes are not hidden, and therefore He makes provision. <em><a href='B:50 2:7'>Deu 2:7</a></em> speaks of how God ‘knew’ Israel’s journey through the wilderness, and therefore they “lacked nothing”. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time out of the sky</em>- There was no Angel standing in front of Abraham to provide as it were visible backup. Really Abraham's faith in and response to the spoken word at this point is commendable. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And said, I have sworn by Myself, says Yahweh-</em> The New Testament comments that this was because God could swear by no greater (<em><a href='B:650 6:13'>Heb 6:13</a></em>). God was solemnly promising that all Abraham's seed would be saved because of this faith of Abraham confirmed now in his works.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son</em>- According to <em><a href='B:650 11:12'>Heb 11:12</a></em>, God’s promises to Abraham were fulfilled on account of his faith; God in some way allowed Himself to be potentially limited by Abraham’s faith. Indeed, the promised world-wide blessing of all nations was promised only “because you have obeyed my voice” (<em><a href='B:10 22:16'>Gen 22:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>). In this sense the covenants of salvation were partly due to another man (Abraham) being faithful (although above all our salvation was due to the Lord Jesus). In this sense he is the “father” of the faithful. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offering of Isaac was without doubt an act of faith by Abraham. His trust in the invisible God, His reflection upon a series of promises which amount to no more than about 200 words in Hebrew, was balanced against his natural hope for his family, human affection, common sense, love of his beloved son, lifelong ambition... and he was willing to ditch all those things for his faith in God's promises. You can speak 200 words in a minute. The total sum of God's recorded communication with Abraham was only a minute's worth of speaking. Abraham had so much faith in so few words; and perhaps the number of words was so few so that Abraham would memorize and continually reflect upon them. Yet the total number of words God or an Angel spoke to Abraham about anything was pretty small- the total (including the words of the promises) comes to only 583 Hebrew words- which can be spoken in less than three minutes (=<em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em><em> (20</em> words); <em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em> (4 words); =<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em><em> (18</em> words); Gen. 15 = 117 words; Gen. 17 = 195 words; Gen. 18 = 87 words; Gen. 21 = 26 words; Gen. 22 = 82 words). And remember that all these words, these snatches of brief conversation, were spoken to Abraham over a period of 100 years or so. His faith in God's word, His mediation upon it and following its implications, really does make him a spiritual "father of us all". We have the Bible, a whole book of God's words, which we can instantly access and read. Would we were to have a like sensitivity to every word spoken.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Spiritual ambition means that we will desire to do some things which we can’t physically fulfil- and yet they will be counted to us. Abraham is spoken of as having offered up Isaac- his intention was counted as the act. And <em><a href='B:240 19:22'>Pro 19:22</a></em> RV appropriately comments: “The desire of a man is the measure of his kindness”. It is all accepted according to what a man has, not what he has not.&nbsp; Faith is perfected / matured by the process of works (<em><a href='B:660 2:22-23'>Jas 2:22-23</a></em>). The works, the upward spiral of a life lived on the basis of faith, develop the initial belief in practice. Thus Abraham believed God in Genesis 15, but these 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>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God ‘spared not’ His own son (<em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>)- alluding to the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 22:16'>Gen 22:16</a></em>, where Abraham spares not his son. Clearly the offering of Isaac is to be understood as prophetic of the Lord’s sacrifice. The Lord's growing realization that the entangled ram represented Him rather than Isaac would have led to the sense of panic which He expressed in "My God, why have You forsaken me?". Christ felt that although He would be tied to the cross as Isaac was, yet somehow He would be delivered.&nbsp; The Greek phrase for 'not withholding' is elsewhere used about God not sparing people when He assigns them to condemnation (<em><a href='B:520 11:21'>Rom 11:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:4-5'>2Pe 2:4-5</a></em>). The Lord Jesus knows how not only sinners feel but how the rejected will feel- for He ‘bore condemnation’ in this sense. We should be condemned. But He as our representative was condemned, although not personally guilty. He so empathized with us through the experience of the cross that He came to <em>feel</em> like a sinner, although He was not one. And thus He has freed us from condemnation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That I will bless you greatly, and I will multiply your seed greatly like the stars of the sky, and like the sand which is on the seashore. Your seed will possess the gate of his enemies- </em>The promise Paul refers to in <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> was given to Abraham because of, <em>dia</em>, on account of, his being declared right with God by faith in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>. Perhaps Paul specifically has in mind the promise of <em><a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a></em>. Having been declared right with God, Abraham was then promised that he personally would be heir of the world- the implications of being right with God, counted righteous, were thereby fleshed out and given some more tangible, material, concrete form. He would therefore live for ever, because he was right with God; and the arena of that eternity would be “the world”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God appears to use language with no regard as to whether the people who first heard it could understand it. God spoke to Job about snow (<em><a href='B:220 37:6'>Job 37:6</a></em>), to Abraham about sand on the sea shore (<em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>), to Noah about rain (<em><a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a></em>) – things which they had never seen. And the New Testament concepts of grace, agape love, humility etc. were outside the ability of first century Greek to properly express; new words had to enter the language in order to express these ideas. Yet God is also capable of speaking in the language of the day, bringing Himself right down to our human level of language use. It is vital to appreciate that God uses language in different ways in different parts of the Bible – otherwise our interpretation of it will be inconsistent and contradictory. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In some cases God uses language in a relative sense in order to emphasize something. Thus we read here of many being saved (<em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>), yet in another sense few will be saved (<em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:23'>Luk 13:23</a></em>). Relative to the wonder of salvation, many will be saved; but numerically, the figure will be small, from the perspective of this world. The way to the Kingdom is easy relative to the wonder of what is in store for the faithful (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:17'>2Co 4:17</a></em>); and yet from our human perspective it is hard indeed, a life of self-crucifixion (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em>). Our sufferings now are only for a moment compared to the glorious eternity of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:230 37:10'>Psa 37:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:17'>2Co 4:17</a></em>), and yet the language of the Bible also expresses God’s appreciation that from our perspective, our time of probation is “a long time” (<em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>). “Many” – relatively- would be converted to the true ways of God by the work of John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:490 1:16'>Luk 1:16</a></em>), whilst numerically the majority of those who heard John’s message eventually turned away from it, culminating in their crucifixion of the Messiah. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice</em>- Those seminal promises to Abraham hinged around what would be realized <em>in</em>, not "by", his seed. All that is true of the Lord Jesus is now true of us, in that we are in Him. Often the promises about the seed in the singular (the Lord Jesus) are applied to us in the plural (e.g. <em><a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 89:30-35'>Psa 89:30-35</a></em>). Baptism is not an initiation into a church. It isn't something which just <em>seems</em> the right thing to do. And even if because of our environment and conscience, it was easier to get baptized than not- <em>now</em> this mustn't be the case. We really are <em>in</em> Christ, we are born again; now we exist, spiritually! And moreover, we have risen with Him, His resurrection life, His life and living that will eternally be, is now manifest in us, and will be articulated physically at the resurrection. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's later command to preach to "all nations" would ring bells in Jewish minds with these 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 Christ'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, for the extent of the fulfilment of the promises depends to some extent upon us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for ‘hear’ is also translated ‘obey’ (<em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:8'>Deu 30:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 95:7'>Psa 95:7</a></em>). We can hear God’s word and not obey it. But if we <em>really </em>&nbsp;hear it as we are intended to, we will obey it. If we truly believe God’s word to be His voice personally speaking to us, then we will by the very fact of hearing, obey. The message itself, if heard properly and not just on a surface level, will compel action. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba. Abraham lived at Beersheba</em>- We are left with the impression that they didn't perceive what had happened, neither did Abraham and Isaac tell them. They both returned to them just as Abraham had said they would (:5). Some of our finest acts of devotion and most intimate moments with God are by their nature very personal; so much so, that we do not share them with others. That seems almost axiomatic from the very nature of the encounters.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she also has borne children to your brother Nahor</em>- The Genesis record seems to frame the confederations of Arab tribes contemporary with the 12 tribes of Israel as being a kind of pseudo-Israel- for they too are described as being 12 tribe confederacies. Here we have 12 Aramean tribes who came from the 12 sons born to Nahor, Abraham's brother (<em><a href='B:10 22:20-24'>Gen 22:20-24</a></em>); and there were 12 tribes from Ishmael (<em><a href='B:10 25:13-16'>Gen 25:13-16</a></em>); and the five tribes from the sons of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 36:9-14'>Gen 36:9-14</a></em>) joined with the seven Horite tribes in Seir (<em><a href='B:10 36:20-28'>Gen 36:20-28</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Uz his firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel the father of Aram</em>- Job was from "the land of Uz" (<em><a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a></em>) but was a true servant of God. We have here confirmation of what I suggested about Ishmael on Genesis 16 and Genesis 21 - all the seed of Abraham could have been within the covenant, although most of them chose not to, and the faithful line continued through Isaac and Jacob. That was how it was, but it wasn't like that because God rejected Abraham's wider seed only in favour of Isaac. Even if we reject this view, we are still left with the fact that people outside the immediate line from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob could be in fellowship with God. Elihu likewise is presented as a righteous man, and he was a "Buzite" (<em><a href='B:220 32:2'>Job 32:2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel</em>- The genealogy is introduced at this point to demonstrate that even before Isaac was offered, God had been preparing a potential wife for him. So many people were involved in the wider family, but God was working through Bethuel and Rebekah. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bethuel became the father of Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother</em>- Perhaps the information is given so that we can see that how through the mass of humanity, God's purpose has worked out through a minority.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His concubine, whose name was Reumah, also bore Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah</em>- Again we wonder why this detail is given, when the children named don't seem to have played much part in the Biblical record. Maybe we are being introduced to the idea that most significant men of the time had concubines, and children by them. Abraham was no exception, and yet Isaac has just been presented as his "only" son; as if he had a special connection with him, which made his sacrifice of him all the more meaningful. Or maybe it is again to just provide us perspective; rather like our wondering why the cosmos is so huge, why so many uninhabited planets, why so many life forms on earth, why such complexity. And one answer to all that is simply "perspective"; to help us appreciate the breadth of God's grace in focusing in upon little me, and the small group of humans which comprise His special people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarah lived one hundred and twenty-seven years; this was the length of Sarah’s life</em>- No other woman has her age at death recorded in Biblical history. For all her weakness, Sarah is being presented as the spiritual mother of us all. She and Abraham are mostly commendable for hanging on to faith in God's program, for going along with it willingly, despite multiple weaknesses of character. In this senses they become our forbears.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarah died in Kiriath Arba (the same is Hebron), in the land of Canaan. Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her</em>- Abraham 'came' to her presumably in the sense that he came into her tent; or perhaps the reference is to some funeral procedure, at which very time he asked the funeral guests from the surrounding peoples if he could buy a burial place for her.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham rose up from before his dead, and spoke to the children of Heth, saying</em>- Abraham walked around in his promised land with the attitude of a stranger just passing through, although he was probably the most powerful man in it. The record of his purchase of Machpelah seems to exemplify this. Not only is the presence of the children&nbsp; of Heth highlighted (<em><a href='B:10 23:3'>Gen 23:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:5'>Gen 23:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:7'>Gen 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:10-13'>Gen 23:10-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:16'>Gen 23:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:18'>Gen 23:18</a></em>), but the record of Abraham's words demonstrates his appreciation that he was only passing through: "<em>Entreat&nbsp; </em>for me to Ephron... that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which <em>he has</em>...&nbsp; for full money he shall <em>give it</em>&nbsp;me for a possession... <em>amongst you</em>... and Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land... and the field... in all the borders round about (was) made sure" (23:9-17 AVmg.). The mention of the borders really rubs it in. Not only was the land promised to Abraham, but he was politically more powerful than the children of Heth; he could have annexed it for himself at ease. The children of Heth were willing to giver it to him for free anyway (:11). Yet the realization by Abraham of his present position, the humility created by faith, shines through the narrative. Zacchaeus is called a son of Abraham in that he too humbly repented of his self-centred materialism (<em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am a stranger and a foreigner living with you. Give me a possession of a burying-place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight</em>- The surrounding peoples were likewise all nomadic and may have also come from other areas (see on :10). The early Hittites (:5) were well know for this. Abraham had been in the area long enough to count as a local. But his receipt of the promises meant that he always considered himself merely passing through- just as we should, no matter what level of apparent permanence we have in our lives. Being a stranger and foreigner is the characteristic of all God's people who are in the spiritual family of Abraham (<em><a href='B:230 39:12'>Psa 39:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:15'>1Ch 29:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him</em>- "Heth" means 'destruction' or 'dismay', the father of the Hittites (<em><a href='B:10 26:34'>Gen 26:34</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a></em>). Rebekah later considered their daughters too unspiritual for Jacob to marry (<em><a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a></em>). This points up the clear difference between the Abraham family and those amongst whom they lived. Yet Abraham had been there for a long time. No matter how long we are in a particular location, employment or situation, we should always remember that we live "amongst" this world and are separate from them because of the longer term perspectives which we have.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Hear us, my lord. You are a prince of God among us. Bury your dead in the best of our tombs. None of us will withhold from you his tomb. Bury your dead</em>- They recognize that Abraham lived "among" them rather than being "of" them. No matter how long he lived there, he was never seen as a local. See on :5. The locals perceived that he was a mighty one in God's eyes; his faith had not remained hidden. The offer of any tomb is typical of Middle Eastern business- you can have anything, but of course later, you must pay for it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham rose up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth</em>- The 'people of the land' in later scripture (e.g. <em><a href='B:450 14:1-2'>Zec 14:1-2</a></em>) would refer to the Canaanite tribes who originally lived in the land, who are the forefathers of many of the present Arab peoples.&nbsp;They are called "the people of the land (earth)" in <em><a href='B:10 23:7'>Gen 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:12-13'>Gen 23:12-13</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:24'>Jos 4:24</a></em>.&nbsp;&nbsp;Another possibility is that they are 'people of the land' in the sense that at the times they gather themselves against Jerusalem they are present within the land of Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He bowed himself to those whose land he would eternally inherit. It was all part of the ritual of purchase, but Abraham surely was aware that kings were to bow down to <em>him</em> on account of his seed, who would be the blesser of all nations (<em><a href='B:290 49:23'>Isa 49:23</a></em>). The blesser was understood as superior to the blessed (<em><a href='B:650 7:7'>Heb 7:7</a></em>); and these nations of the land were to be blessed in him. But he now bows to them. We constantly feel the same Divinely intended paradox as we pass through life, inferior to those whom we shall soon reign over.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He talked with them, saying, If it be your mind that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar</em>- Ephron was there with them (:10), but because he was himself only dwelling amongst them (:10 AV), he needed the permission of the locals to "sell" the property. This would have heightened the sense of paradox- that Abraham, also living "amongst" the children of Heth for some time, had to buy a parcel of land which was eternally his.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he has, which is in the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me for a possession among you of a burying-place</em>- The land was already promised to Abraham as an eternal possession. And yet he had to pay "full price" for it. This entire incident seeks to bring out the paradox, knowing that we as Abraham's seed will have many similar ones in our dealings with this world. It was "<em>his</em> field"- and yet the field and the whole land were eternally Abraham's. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Ephron was sitting in the middle of the children of Heth- </em>AV "dwelt among". Although note :11 "my people".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the children of Heth, even of all who went in at the gate of his city, saying</em>- As noted on :4 and :8, Ephron may well have been a nomad himself who had come to live amongst the Hittites. This heightens the sense of paradox, that Abraham was likewise, and yet he had to pay a fortune for a burial plot.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No, my lord, hear me. I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it. In the presence of the children of my people I give it to you. Bury your dead</em>- This has the ring of credibility to it; this is exactly how things are done in the Middle East. Something is offered "free" and yet with the expectation of payment later.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham bowed himself down before the people of the land</em>- <em>- </em>See on :7.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He spoke to Ephron in the audience of the people of the land, saying, But if you will, please hear me. I will give the price of the field. Take it from me, and I will bury my dead there</em>- Abraham understood that what was offered free in such situations really had to be paid for. The record really is accurately recording words spoken thousands of years ago.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ephron answered Abraham, saying to him</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There really is such strong emphasis that Abraham didn't own the land whilst he lived in it. <em><a href='B:10 23:4'>Gen 23:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:7'>Gen 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:12-13'>Gen 23:12-13</a></em> seems to draw a difference in legal categories between "resident aliens", "natives" and "the local people". Abraham was an alien, and needed approval from the local community council to buy a burial place; and even then, the council had to speak with the owner and as it were do Abraham a favour. Further, the price of 400 shekels for some land with a cave in it to bury the dead was exorbitant (<em><a href='B:10 23:14'>Gen 23:14</a></em>). There are records of the sale of whole villages in northern Syria dating from about this time, recorded in the Alalakh Tablets (E.A. Speiser, <em>Genesis</em> (The Anchor Bible) (New York: Doubleday, 1964), p. 171). They were sold for between 100 and 1000 shekels. Jeremiah paid 17 shekels for a field (<em><a href='B:300 32:9'>Jer 32:9</a></em>); Omri paid 6000 shekels for the entire site of Samaria (<em><a href='B:110 16:24'>1Ki 16:24</a></em>). If ever we feel ripped off by this world, unreasonably treated in this land which is eternally ours, powerless to protest, left without option as Abraham was- then we are following in his steps, and are truly his "seed". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One senses a growing humility within Abraham. Despite being a great man, called a "mighty prince" by local people, with a large household and private army, he personally runs to entertain the strangers who later turned out to be Angels. He so believed in the promised land being ultimately his that he could offer to his younger relative Lot the choice of the best land to live in- when in their culture, the leader of the community, the elder, naturally had the best of everything. Progressive faith in the promises led Abraham to greater integrity and openness. In <em><a href='B:10 21:25-32'>Gen 21:25-32</a></em> we see Abraham as a secretive, furtive character, secretly digging wells in Abimelech's territory without telling him. By <em><a href='B:10 23:1-20'>Gen 23:1-20</a></em> we see Abraham buying land from the Hittites in a very public manner, sealed by witnesses- the record emphasizes the integrity and openness of the whole transaction. And this purchase of land is quoted in the New Testament as an example of Abraham's faith that he would inherit the land ultimately. The same effects will be seen in the lives of all those who truly believe in those same promises. Seeing it was traditional to bury people with their ancestors, the purchase of a family "burying place" was also a statement that Abraham had finally separated from his father's house back in Ur and Haran. From no w on, he saw Canaan as truly his land. We saw earlier how Abraham had struggled with this commanded separation from his father's house. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My lord, listen to me. What is a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver between me and you? Therefore bury your dead</em>- This was an invitation to barter, stating the starting price, and yet being willing to go lower. But Abraham breaks with tradition and pays this very large price, without responding to the traditional invitation to barter. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham listened to Ephron- </em>As noted on :15, the significance of this was that Abraham declined to barter, and the language of :15 was an invitation to knock him down from 400 to something far less.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver which he had named in the audience of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the current merchants’ standard</em>- Abraham surely realized the paradox, that he was buying his own eternal possession. The price was very high, and yet Abraham must have paid it with almost a smile on his face, knowing that actually all the land was his. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, the cave which was in it, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all of its borders, were deeded</em>- The stress upon "deeded" is to highlight the paradox, that the land had been eternally deeded to Abraham and his seed. The language of "borders", defining where the parcel began and ended, is also almost ironic, seeing that the whole land belonged to Abraham. Likewise the strict legal definitions of what was included in the deal are almost laughable when we perceive that the entire land was eternally Abraham's.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all who went in at the gate of his city</em>- It was God who had given Abraham the entire land for an eternal possession. And yet the elders of the city sat there in all solemnity as if they were global power brokers. The contrast and paradox is being highlighted. <em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em> spoke of how the gate of all would be in Abraham's power; but he lived in faith of that day as then unseen.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre (that is, Hebron), in the land of Canaan</em>- "After this" refers not to the initial meeting with the local elders, but to the receipt of the property deed from those "at the gate of the city" (:17,18). There is extreme emphasis upon the legal process; to highlight the paradox in the fact that Abraham had the whole earth deeded to him in possession for ever- by God and not man. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The field, and the cave that is in it, were deeded to Abraham for a possession of a burying place by the children of Heth</em>- The repetition here of :17,18 serves to rub in the paradox- that the whole land, including the field and cave. were deeded to Abraham <em>by God </em>and <em>for ever. </em>"Deeded" translates the same Hebrew word used of God 'establishing' His covenant (<em><a href='B:10 6:18'>Gen 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:9'>Gen 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:7'>Gen 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:19'>Gen 17:19</a></em>). The weakness of human deeding is set up against the power of God's eternal deeding. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham was old, and well stricken in age. Yahweh had blessed Abraham in all things</em>- The promised blessings referred to the things of the Kingdom and the Lord Jesus, but Abraham had a primary experience of these blessings in his secular life; we too experience the Kingdom blessings "now but not yet". Peter interprets the blessing as the forgiveness of sins (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>). The stress on their material blessings therefore points forward to our spiritual riches of blessing in Christ. Even earlier in Abraham's life, "Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver&nbsp; and in gold" (<em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>). Other references to Abraham's wealth occur in <em><a href='B:10 13:6'>Gen 13:6</a></em> and <em><a href='B:10 14:23'>Gen 14:23</a></em>. Jacob too was&nbsp; blessed with material wealth (<em><a href='B:10 31:16'>Gen 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em> AVmg.). His parting with Esau because they were both so wealthy (<em><a href='B:10 36:7'>Gen 36:7</a></em>) echoes the division between Abraham and Lot&nbsp; and Abraham and Abimelech for the same reason (<em><a href='B:10 13:6'>Gen 13:6</a></em>). The similarities between these incidents serves to emphasize the wealth of the family. The prosperity of Lot in Sodom is also highlighted (<em><a href='B:10 14:12'>Gen 14:12</a></em> Heb.). Each of them seems to have accumulated wealth in their own right in addition to inheriting it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who ruled over all that he had- </em>Presumably Eliezer. Eliezer had once been chosen by Abraham to <em>inherit</em> all that he had (<em><a href='B:10 15:2'>Gen 15:2</a></em>); but he had now made him just manager over it all, and signed it all over to Isaac after his death (:36). And yet Eliezer very commendably seeks only the best for the Abraham family and the extension of God's purpose through them.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please put your hand under my thigh</em>- This appears to be a reference to Abraham's circumcised, reproductive organ. The oath was relative to the covenant made with him, which Abraham knew included Isaac and the raising of a Godly seed in Isaac's line. Clearly Abraham didn't think that the promised blessings would be given automatically; he realized that he and his descendants must do what they could to realize them and live according to them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make you swear by Yahweh, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live</em>- It could be argued that Abraham was again trying to force through the fulfilment of God's promises. He had been told that he would have a great seed, and the promises of blessing were made to Isaac and Ishmael alike. But Abraham and Sarah wanted the Divine purpose to extend through their beloved Isaac; and so therefore Abraham wished to ensure that he married someone who had also been exposed to Yahweh worship. More positively, it could be argued that Abraham realized that having a common faith in Yahweh was critical to the production of a Godly seed, and he simply wanted the best for his son in spiritual terms.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In this chapter we have several occurrences of "Yahweh Elohim"; here and also in :7,12,27,42,48; the phrase also occurs in Genesis 2, 3 often, as well as in <em><a href='B:10 26:24'>Gen 26:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:20'>Gen 27:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:13'>Gen 28:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:9'>Gen 32:9</a></em>. There is a theory that Genesis is comprised of two accounts, one written by someone who used the Yahweh Name, and another by one who used <em>elohim</em>. They supposedly were fused together. But the occurrence of the names together makes this theory problematic. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But you shall go to my country, and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac</em>- It follows that there were none of Abraham's country or kindred, which he had been commanded to leave, living anywhere near him. He had truly and fully obeyed the command to separate from them, although as noted on Genesis 11, 12, it took him decades to get there.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The servant said to him, What if the woman isn’t willing to follow me to this land? Must I bring your son again to the land you came from?</em>- Servants were accustomed to fulfilling requirements to the letter, but not taking any initiative. This is where the parables which speak of us as servants have an element of unreality- for we are servants who are left to trade talents and manage the household affairs of our Lord on our own initiative. And for the one talent man, he felt this was too much to ask.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abraham said to him, Beware that you don’t bring my son there again</em>- Abraham knew that Canaan and not Mesopotamia was the promised land, and he wanted Isaac to remain within the things of the Kingdom, rather than returning to Abraham's land of origin. We see here how totally Abraham now self-identified as a man of the<em> eretz</em> and had fully broken with his background. Abraham considered that if a woman wasn't willing to come and live in the promised land and live the Kingdom life now, then she wasn't worth marrying in order to raise a Godly seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my birth, who spoke to me, and Who swore to me, saying, ‘I will give this land to your seed’- </em>See on <em><a href='B:670 1:10'>1Pe 1:10</a></em>. As with many Christian youngsters today, the avoidance of marrying those in the surrounding world just seemed too much to ask. But Abraham knew that a way would be made. As God had <em>taken</em> Abram from Ur and Haran and Lot, so God would <em>take</em> a woman from there, suitable for Isaac.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham was made to us wander from his father’s house (<em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>). God was the one who brought about Abraham’s obedience. "From thence (Haran)... <em>God</em> removed him into (Canaan)" (<em><a href='B:510 7:4'>Act 7:4</a></em> R.V.). Yet Abraham was, in the end, a willing participant in the process. It could be argued that even here, Abraham was slipping backwards- because he wants his son to marry into his own family, just as he had married Sarah and his brother had married his own niece. Yet Abraham believed that as God had <em>taken</em> Abram away from Ur and Haran and Lot, so God would <em>take</em> a woman from there, suitable for Isaac. That Abraham did finally break with his family is hinted at by the way that Laban speaks of "the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor- may they judge between us (<em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em> Heb.). Laban recognized that Nahor and Abraham worshipped different gods- whereas we know that initially, they worshipped the same gods. <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. 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>) is surely the beginning of the wonderful theme of righteousness being imputed to Abraham!</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there</em>- Abraham told his servant that God would send His Angel before him, so that his mission to find a suitable wife for Isaac would succeed. The Angel prepared in prospect for the success of the mission; but it still depended upon the woman’s freewill. The whole incident in Genesis 24 can be read as typical of the search, through the preaching of the Gospel, for the bride of Christ. And yet Abraham realized that even with the Angels preparing the way, there has to be some element of human freewill. It was possible that despite all the preparation, some might still refuse.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the woman isn’t willing to follow you, then you shall be clear from this my oath. Only you shall not bring my son there again</em>- The implication could be that Isaac would have to remain single, and God would raise up a seed for him in some miraculous way. We are reminded of how Abraham said that he and Isaac would return, after sacrificing Isaac. The promises meant to him what they should to us- that somehow, even if we don't see the way, if the path seems impossible- they will be fulfilled. Despite God potentially preparing the way for individuals to become part of the bride of the promised seed, the Lord Jesus- there is still the genuine possibility that we may not respond, preferring the cozy status quo of our lives rather than pushing off into the unknown and resigning all we one held dear.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter</em>- As noted on :2, this request to touch Abraham's circumcised reproductive organ was because the whole question of a wife for Isaac was related to the covenant. It was to be done in response to the covenant, which implied that Abraham's seed would marry within the faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The servant took ten camels of his master’s camels, and departed, having a variety of good things of his master’s with him. He arose, and went to Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor</em>- Ten camels could carry a lot. It would have been an impressive display that the promised blessings had received an incipient fulfilment. "For all the good things of his master were in his hand" (AV) helps us to see the servant as representative of the Lord Jesus in His role as the seeker of the bride, as well as being the groom. The Hebrew for "good things" is used of the blessings of all "good things" which were to come upon Abraham's seed (<em><a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:14-15'>Jos 23:14-15</a></em>); and this language is behind the description of the things of the new covenant as "good things" (<em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:1'>Heb 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:15'>Rom 10:15</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham had been asked to separate from Mesopotamia and his entire family. He struggled over the decades to do this, only doing so when Lot left him. We wonder why Abraham should assume that his family there knew about Yahweh and would have more spiritually minded young women there than in Canaan. They were after all idolaters; we must give due weight to <em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em>: "Thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, ‘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". But Abraham is apparently sure that the family of Nahor will be a good family to marry back into. Perhaps he had sent message back to them about his experiences with Yahweh, and they had positively responded. Laban does uses the Yahweh Name; but his later behaviour suggests he didn't believe in Him. And we hardly get the impression that Eliezer knew the family. So perhaps Abraham's attraction to his father's family was still so strong, that he saw them more positively than he ought to have done.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the camels kneel down outside the city by the well of water at the evening time, the time that women go out to draw water</em>- The well was the logical place to go to meet local young women. Moses wrote Genesis, and he will go on to record how he also met his wife by a well. And we think of the Lord meeting the Samaritan woman at a well, and Jacob meeting his wife likewise. Clearly there is a kind of Divine hallmark stamped on all these experiences. He works in the same outline manner with us all, and there are points of connection between our lives and those of others, both in our generation and in Biblical history. Man is not alone, we are not adrift, at the mercy of the winds of fortune. God is active through His Spirit, and working according to a plan. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, please give me success this day, and show kindness to my master Abraham</em>- "Kindness" is a word often associated with God's keeping covenant with His covenant people. It is a way of pleading the promises, asking God to fulfil His promises to Abraham, rather than simply wishing for God to be "kind" to Abraham. The fulfilment required a Godly seed, and that was what Eliezer was seeking. He prayed according to God's will. "Success" is literally 'to bring the face to'. Jacob uses the phrase in <em><a href='B:10 27:20'>Gen 27:20</a></em> in claiming to have had "success" from God in bringing venison so quickly. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I am standing by the spring of water. The daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water</em>- God of course knows all things; but like David in the Psalms, Eliezer shares with God his location and situation. This is not to inform God, as it were; but rather for our benefit. It helps us to verbalize our situation before God, it brings about an openness toward God on our side.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let it happen, that the young lady to whom I will say, ‘Please let down your pitcher, that I may drink’, and she will say, ‘Drink, and I will also give your camels drink’--let her be the one You have appointed for Your servant Isaac. By this I will know that You have shown kindness to my master</em>- This raises the issue of whether it is correct to set God signs to fulfil. Yet God seems to have worked through it in this case. The condition which Eliezer set was pretty tough; to water ten camels was a major task which would have taken some hours, and it was already evening (:11). The family would worry what had become of their young lady, and the only appropriate thing to do would be to accompany the woman back home. The chance of a woman making this offer was very slim; so slim that we wonder if Eliezer might possibly have been trying to release himself from the responsibility. And as they had come on a long journey, the servants riding the camels would have been quite capable of watering their camels as they had done many times already on the trip. We note that Eliezer prays, he is no atheist, and yet maybe he doubts whether the promises to Abraham will be fulfilled; he sets this rather difficult hoop for anyone to jump through, and then says that if it happens, then he "will know that You have shown kindness to my master". I have earlier suggested that "kindness" is a technical term which often refers to the covenant. Seeing the condition being set was so unlikely, it could be argued that he was trying to disprove the fulfilment of the promises. God could have ignored this kind of manipulation; but He didn't, and instead brought Eliezer to his knees by actually making the girl jump through the hoop. For God clearly made Rebekah respond as she did, when she had no reason to. The whole incident is parabolic and typical of the calling out of the bride of Abraham's seed; and we too are made to do things which we otherwise would never have done. Thus the Spirit works, to bring us to be the Master's bride.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Appointed" translates a Hebrew word which carries the idea of being declared right; it has a moral sense to it, and is similar in form, although not identical with, the word used about Abraham being 'counted righteous' on account of his faith (<em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>). The reference is not to prior choosing or predestination, but to being declared as the right one; the theme of imputed righteousness is therefore continued. It was not that Rebekah was spiritually minded, but rather that she, like her relative Abraham, was counted right because she believed on some level.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher on her shoulder</em>- This is the classic example of God hearing prayer before it is spoken. Prayer is therefore for our benefit rather than for the sake of transmitting information to God which He didn't know. We note from <em><a href='B:290 65:24'>Isa 65:24</a></em> that this experience of prayer being heard and answered before it is uttered is one of the joys of the Kingdom age; and yet this is part of the Kingdom life which we can even now experience. The details are added to encourage us to play Bible television with the words- her pitcher on her shoulder, silhouetted against the setting sun; and a relative of Abraham just as he had wished for.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The young lady was very beautiful to look at, a virgin, neither had any man known her- </em>The three terms are all saying the same thing- a "young lady... virgin... neither had any man known her". The triple emphasis is to prepare us to expect that she is ideally suited to marry and bear a child into Abraham's line. When we go on to read that she was barren for 20 years, we are seeing how God doesn't automatically use those who are ideally qualified for a role. He may even delay or impede their usage, so that all is of His Spirit and grace rather than of the flesh. And we have all surely seen this in life many times. The word "neither" is used in the Semitic sense of 'not (only) B but also A". This must be remembered when we read things like "Christ sent me not to baptize"; the idea is "not (only) to baptize". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She went down to the spring, filled her pitcher, and came up</em>- As noted on :15, we are given the picture of her walking down the steps to the well and then climbing up again with her pitcher full- as if the Divine cameraman has zoomed in upon her, and we are watching her from where Eliezer was sitting. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The servant ran to meet her and said, Please give me a drink, a little water from your pitcher</em>- As observed on :16, the Divine camera is positioned where Eliezer was sitting, and it remains there. We see Eliezer running toward her, having prayed and set up a situation whereby if she responded in a most unusual way, then she would be the one. We notice the sense of speed in the narrative; he runs to meet her, she hurries (:18) in response, Eliezer refuses to eat at Laban's house until the matter is finished, and then he and Rebekah both wish to return to Abraham immediately. Once we are moving in step with the Spirit, life takes on a great speed once we perceive that every movement of ours will unleash the Spirit to lead us further.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She said, Drink, my lord. She hurried, and let down her pitcher on her hand, and gave him drink</em>- As we have seen in the previous verses, it's as if the Divine cameraman is zoomed very close in now; we see the "pitcher on her hand" and can imagine her letting it down to give drink to this stranger. Once a large pitcher was full and balanced on the head, it was a major inconvenience to let it down. She would naturally have wondered why the man had not run up to her before, seeing he was watching her, and asked for water before she had put it up on her head. The way Eliezer does this could almost lead us to think that he was setting her up to fail the preconditions which he was setting God. The normal reply would have been: 'Sorry I can't, now the pitcher is balanced on my head'. And in no way with the sun going down would the woman then offer to water ten camels of a stranger. Perhaps he was really looking for a way out of his mission; he set up the preconditions which appeared impossible for anyone to reach, and set the conclusion- that if they were failed, then he would be free of the oath and could return home. The fact Rebekah was moved by the Spirit to fulfil them all... therefore made him collapse before Yahweh in deep devotion, having been transformed from cynic to believer by Rebekah's response.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It shouldn’t just be the nearness of the Lord’s return that makes us urgent. Our decisions to give over each part of our lives, radically, to Jesus should be made not just because life is short and the Lord is at the door; but also because it might otherwise be too late to undo the damage a self-engrossed life has already caused, to the self and to others. Rebekah responded immediately to the call to go marry Isaac, in a story which is clearly to be read as an acted parable of the search for a bride for Jesus. Her ‘quick’ response is one of her characteristics (<em><a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:20'>Gen 24:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:26'>Gen 24:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:46'>Gen 24:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:64'>Gen 24:64</a></em>). Abraham likewise “rose up early” after his night time vision, requiring him to offer his son to God (<em><a href='B:10 22:1'>Gen 22:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>). Joshua “therefore” started to attack the confederacy of local kings, in the middle of the night, immediately after God had assured him of victory (<em><a href='B:60 10:9'>Jos 10:9</a></em>). David could write: “I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments” (<em><a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a></em>). We cannot be passive on receiving the opportunity to serve God. We will urgently seek to do something with what we have been enabled to do for the Lord: “The servant who got five bags <em>went quickly </em>to invest the money and earned five more bags” (<em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em> NCV). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When she had done giving him drink, she said, I will also draw for your camels, until they have done drinking</em>- As noted above, this was all a most unlikely response. She is presented as having no reason for making it. It was "evening", sun was setting; to water ten camels was a major job; the man had come running to her exactly when she had already got her own pitcher balanced on her head, and she had to take it down again, unstop it and give him drink from it, meaning she had to pour the rest away (:20). Why make this response? Surely God made her make it, in order to meet the rather bizarre preconditions which the (sceptical?) Eliezer had set up. There are times when we reflect that we have done or said something which was not what we naturally wanted to do. Or we do something having no idea why we did it. This is the movement of the Spirit, and in the great parable of our salvation and calling, Rebekah's humanly irrational response speaks of the Spirit's movement in our lives, that our response may be of grace and not of human volition.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She hurried, and emptied her pitcher into the trough- </em>I suggested on :19 that she had to unstop her pitcher to give Eliezer water, and once it was unstopped and she had given water to a stranger, she had to pour the rest of it away. This heightens the sense of extraordinary inconvenience which she was being put to, and yet she so willingly responded.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And ran again to the well to draw, and drew for all his camels</em>- Her hurrying may have been because the sun was going down and she didn't want to return home after dark, nor have her family worrying about her absence. But the rest of the narrative suggests that the 'hurrying' was because God's purpose was being worked out by willing people. He may appear very slow, but when people are willing, the speed of the Spirit's movement is amazing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man looked at her amazed, remaining silent, to know whether Yahweh had made his journey prosperous or not</em>- I suggested on :18 that Eliezer had set hoops for the girl to jump through which may have appeared unreasonable, in order to get himself out of the oath to find a wife for Isaac and return home. But his ridiculous preconditions have all been met. And yet despite being "amazed", or 'stunned' as the Hebrew means, he apparently still doubts whether Yahweh has prospered his journey. However, once the camels are watered, he then gives her the engagement presents (:22). It was as if he had to wait until the camels were all watered before proceeding. Or the Hebrew could imply that he was so stunned that he couldn't speak, because he had known / perceived that Yahweh had answered positively the question as to whether the journey had prospered or not. It clearly had been, and he was stunned, at how his skepticism and setting up a humanly impossible precondition had been answered.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ask, believing that you will receive. Otherwise, prayer becomes just a conscience salver, rattled off to calm ourselves rather than meaningfully request something from the throne of Heaven. Eliezer had the answer to his prayer, just as he had asked; but, initially, he didn't believe it had happened. We are <em>so</em> similar. It is in those moments that we realize just what a momentous thing it is, to ask something of God, to be performed on this earth. And to realize it actually happened. He did it, for me, a little ant crawling on the surface of a small planet that is hurtling through space, in a remote part of His universe…</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So it happened, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold</em>- "The man" was a messenger, and so Rebekah ranks amongst those who showed hospitality to strangers and thereby entertained messengers / angels unaware (<em><a href='B:650 13:2'>Heb 13:2</a></em>). The half shekel was later the price of the redemption money, the sign that one was numbered amongst Israel (<em><a href='B:20 38:26'>Exo 38:26</a></em>). Lange's commentary demonstrates that such a nose ring (Heb.) and bracelets of that weight were the engagement presents used at the time, and are still used amongst some Bedouin today. Rebekah is presented as having no say in the matter; she was moved to respond, and then for this she was decorated with engagement presents for an unknown man in an unknown distant land. It all rather sounds like the call of Abram- he didn't understand, but said yes to God, and was carried away by event and circumstance to an unknown land- the very same land to which Rebekah was now called away. So it is with our calling to become the bride of the Seed, the Lord Jesus. The essential and only critical thing is to remain part of the program, to keep responding, to never say "no". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And said, Whose daughter are you? Please tell me. Is there room in your father’s house for us to lodge in?</em>- Eliezer comes over as very 'forward'. It was not the done thing to invite yourself as a guest, especially when Eliezer had a group of servants and ten camels who also needed a bed for the night. The whole incident speaks of how God takes the initiative in coming into our lives with the unusual call, and our responding to it, partly from our own volition but largely from the prompting of the Spirit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She said to him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor</em>- Genealogy and self-identity was usually traced through males. But she identifies herself according to her grandmother Milcah, and this was of course the way of identifying herself as one of the Abraham family. Perhaps she had indeed heard of Abraham's experiences with Yahweh and chose to identify herself with that family; and God responded to that by sending Eliezer to call her away to marry into it. Now we see the significance of the comment in <em><a href='B:10 22:20'>Gen 22:20</a></em> that Abraham heard that Milcah had born children to his brother Nahor. "Milcah" means "queen" and this idea was behind Sarai being renamed to Sarah. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She said moreover to him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in</em>- Her response is as unusually positive as her offer to water the ten camels and give Eliezer water when her sealed pitcher was already balanced on her head or shoulder. She after all was the unmarried daughter, and such agreements had to be made by the male head of the family. 'Something' made her respond like this; that is the impression we get throughout the record. And that 'something' was the Spirit. It was not that a message was preached and she responded in faith. She was as it were made to respond, just as Abram was, by his own father taking him out of Ur. We too cannot claim that our positive response to the Gospel was all by dint of our own devotion, faith, appreciation and intellectual purity of understanding.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man bowed his head, and worshiped Yahweh</em>- As noted on :21, the man was 'stunned'. He had set up an apparently possible precondition in order to prove that this mission was over and failed; but God met that precondition. And so he gave in, and humbles himself before Yahweh. The Hebrew for "worshipped" means to prostrate. Eliezer fell down on the ground beside that well, as if in the presence of an invisible being. This is how real the invisible God came to be for him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Blessed be Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken His loving kindness and His truth toward my master. As for me, Yahweh has led me in the way to the house of my master’s relatives</em>- See on <em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>. I suggested on :21 and :26 that Eliezer had begun to doubt whether the promises to Abraham (the usual referent of "kindness and truth") would really be fulfilled in this way. But he praises Yahweh for fulfilling them. The "as for me..." may suggest he still didn't feel that this Yahweh was his personal God; he felt he had simply been used and directed miraculously as this wonderful God worked out His purpose and fulfilled His promises. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words for being 'led in the way' are used of how God led Israel in the way to Canaan, also by an Angel (<em><a href='B:20 13:17'>Exo 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:21'>Exo 13:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:12'>Neh 9:12</a></em>). Moses was retelling this story to encourage his primary audience, as well as us; that experience is not random, but part of being led.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The AV "I being in the way, the Lord led me..." would suggest that if we make the effort to follow in the way demanded by the promises of grace, then we will be led further. We think of how as the believers ministered to the Lord, they were led further to reach out to the Gentiles; we are led ever further (see on <em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The young lady ran- </em>There was a definite trait of energy and industrious activity amongst the Abraham family, indicated by the record of Rebekah running to respond to the call of Eliezer to marry Isaac&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:20'>Gen 24:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:28'>Gen 24:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:58'>Gen 24:58</a></em>). Laban too was spritely (<em><a href='B:10 24:29'>Gen 24:29</a></em>). And Abraham as an old boy <em>ran</em>&nbsp; to meet the Angels, he <em>hastened</em>&nbsp; into the tent, and personally <em>ran</em> unto the herd rather than wave his wand at the servants (or the wife) to do it (<em><a href='B:10 18:2'>Gen 18:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:6-7'>Gen 18:6-7</a></em>). The way in which it is stressed that he got up early in the morning gives the same impression (<em><a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:8'>Gen 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>; the same is said of Jacob, <em><a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a></em> and Laban, <em><a href='B:10 31:55'>Gen 31:55</a></em>). The mixture of zeal and business acumen is reflected in the way both Abraham and Lot greeted the Angels in a similar, outgoing, gentlemanly manner (<em><a href='B:10 19:1-3'>Gen 19:1-3</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 18:1-6'>Gen 18:1-6</a></em>). Note how Rebekah immediately says "I will go" (Heb. <em>elek</em>)- just as Abraham had been called to "go" from Ur (<em>lek</em>, <em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em>); "and he went" (<em>wayyelek</em>, <em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>). This would seem to suggest an undesigned similarity of character between the family members.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And told her mother’s house about these words</em>- We note "her mother's house" and not "her father's". We do not encounter her father in the record, so perhaps he was dead. Or as the women lived in separate dwellings, she may have gone and told them first. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rebekah had a brother, and his name was Laban. Laban ran out to the man, to the spring</em>- We can conclude that she left Eliezer and his caravan at the well, and ran home with the good news; for Laban then runs out to the well to meet Eliezer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when he saw the ring, and the bracelets on his sister’s hands- </em>They would have been valuable, and his basic materialistic instinct is portrayed here. When he saw them, he was interested.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, This is what the man said to me, that he came to the man</em>- This is similar to how the Queen of Sheba only believed the words she heard once she saw things (<em><a href='B:110 10:5-6'>1Ki 10:5-6</a></em>). And that basic psychology is true to this day; the message of the gospel, the Divine promises, only becomes real when concrete evidence is seen in human lives of the primary realization of the blessings in the here and now. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, he was standing by the camels at the spring</em>- Again we are invited to visualize the scene, the cameraman as it were travelling with Laban as he ran. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Come in, you blessed of Yahweh- </em>Although Laban is not presented as very spiritual, he uses the Yahweh name. It seems for sure that Abraham had sent message back to his family about his experiences with Yahweh. Perhaps it was news of positive response to it which led Abraham to seek a wife for Isaac from there. Laban recognizes that the Abraham household had been blessed by Yahweh; because he saw the material blessings which the camels were laden with. These were but a foretaste of the more essential spiritual blessings.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why do you stand outside? For I have prepared the house, and room for the camels</em>- The preparation must have been very quick, because the well was only running distance from their home. Laban's later invitation of Jacob into his home was also motivated by hopes of material gain rather than any desire for real spiritual fellowship. Rebekah is portrayed differently; despite the influence of Laban upon her, she focused upon the spiritual rather than the material.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man came into the house, and he unloaded the camels. He gave straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him</em>- We note that Eliezer is willing for the camels to eat, but not for himself; until the Lord's work is done. He is presented as taking thought for the life of his animals. But the text may suggest that although Rebekah and Laban had offered "straw and provender", Eliezer chose to use his own, and to use his own water- so that the discussions about spiritual things would not be compromised by any sense of material obligation. We note that he had his own water; his request for water from Rebekah was therefore part of his testing her. And likewise the Father brings many things into our lives, the response to which is not important of itself; but the process is all important, for what we show ourselves to be.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Food was set before him to eat, but he said, I will not eat until I have told my message. He said, Speak on</em>- As noted on :32, Eliezer was careful to ensure that the discussion about the essential question was not in any sense distorted by being in the debt of the host. And meals were long drawn out occasions. In our seeking of a bride for the Lord Jesus, our attitude must be the same. And this was why the Lord asked His preachers to not greet those they met on the way (<em><a href='B:490 10:4'>Luk 10:4</a></em>), however rude it seemed; but to focus directly and without distraction on the invitation of people to salvation </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, I am Abraham’s servant</em>- Eliezer has a commendable humility. He uses the standard word for "servant", when he could have introduced himself as the master of Abraham's household; which would have been a very senior position. In our work as seekers of the Lord's bride, there is to be a similar humility.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh has blessed my master greatly. He has become great. He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male servants and female servants, and camels and donkeys</em>- The allusion is to the promise of <em><a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a></em> which Abraham had received whilst still living in Mesopotamia; that he would be made great. If Abraham had shared that message with others even at that stage, they would realize that the strange promise had indeed been fulfilled in a primary sense. What is attractive and compelling in our presentation of the Gospel is that there has been an incipient fulfilment of promised blessings in our lives now; not in terms of material blessing, but the essence of the Kingdom life is to be seen in us right now. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sarah, my master’s wife, bore a son to my master when she was old</em>- The suggestion could be that the promises of becoming "great" and "many" had been fulfilled in a material sense, but Abraham had hardly become numerous. And that was why Eliezer had come; to seek a bride for Abraham's one legitimate son, so that the promised blessings of the seed could come true through her. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He has given all that he has to him- </em>It was usual for a father to divide the inheritance amongst all the children, with the firstborn getting a double portion. But whilst Abraham did provide for his children by Keturah, he gave all he had as inheritance to Isaac. This reflects how Abraham considered Isaac as his one and only legitimate son. The others were by concubines (Hagar and Keturah). And we can better perceive the magnitude of the sacrifice which Abraham had been asked to make, in sacrificing this son. The language is very much that of the father in the parable of the prodigal son- all that he had was the elder son's. But that son went out into the night in bitterness and left the family. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My master made me swear, saying, ‘You shall not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I live</em>- Although Abraham spent much of his life in Canaan, he always felt himself as one passing through, living in their land. We too, no matter how settled and stable our lives may be, are to feel likewise; that this land is not ours, but we are passing through. The day of eternal inheritance is still coming, and is not fully now.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But you shall go to my father’s house, and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son’</em>- This was not precisely what Abraham had said in :4. Perhaps Eliezer, realizing he was amongst the very close relatives of Abraham, interpretted his commission that way. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I asked my master, ‘What if the woman will not follow me?’</em>- Perhaps both Rebekah and her family had the impression that Abraham's son was looking to return to his ancestral homeland. But the condition of becoming part of the Abrahamic blessing and seed was to separate from family and to go to Canaan; exactly as Abraham had had to do, as they presumably knew full well. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to me, ‘Yahweh, before whom I walk, will send His angel with you, and prosper your way. You shall take a wife for my son of my relatives, and of my father’s house</em>-&nbsp; Because our Angel has been so zealous in acting for us, we too should be zealous in return- thus Abraham's servant, knowing that God had sent an Angel before him to prepare the way for his mission of finding a wife for Isaac, was eager to be as zealous as possible to do his part in the work- "Hinder me not, seeing the Lord (the Angel) has prospered my way" (:56). There are many other examples of this. Because the Angel is with us, we must joyfully and enthusiastically do our part. See on <em><a href='B:440 2:4'>Hag 2:4</a></em>.&nbsp; He felt he was on a roll, being led onwards by the Angel- and he didn’t want anything to interrupt that. The sensitive believer will perceive similar situations, time and again, as we seek to follow the leading of the Angel / cherubim before whom we walk. If we walk in step with the Angel, success is assured.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here clearly the Angel was physically sent. 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 fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>. Moses was writing these things for Israel in the wilderness, who were likewise lead daily by an Angel, to the same land of Canaan. Abraham felt that he walked ‘before Yahweh', reflecting how he too saw that he was following an Angel, as Israel were. But the idea is also of covenant relationship, for Abraham had asked that Ishmael might also live before Yahweh, i.e. still be in covenant with Him (<em><a href='B:10 17:18'>Gen 17:18</a></em>). And God had agreed, although Ishmael didn't want to know. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>On a practical level, a worthy wife in order to raise a Godly seed must herself personally have responded to the call to leave all; she must have personally acted in the spirit of Abraham, in response to the same promises. And Eliezer would not even take a meal from her family until this had been established. Perhaps the equivalent for us is that romance and personal considerations should come after the basic spiritual compatibility is established between two persons.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then will you be clear from my oath, when you come to my relatives. If they don’t give her to you, you shall be clear from my oath’</em>- The events recorded in Genesis 24 concerning a wife being sought for Isaac are all capable of symbolic interpretation; the steward (= the ministry of the preacher) is sent to seek a wife (= the bride of Christ, the ecclesia) for Isaac (cp. Jesus), and told not to bring Isaac back- i.e., they <em>had</em> to succeed in their search, and they would; as the shepherd of the Lord's parable sought the sheep until it was found. Yet there was the recognition that she <em>may not</em> be found (“If they don't give her to you…”); and yet the response to the question ‘Peradventure the woman will not follow me?’ was that the Lord would prosper the way “and you <em>shall</em> take a wife for my son” (:40). This wasn’t blind optimism. The possibility of failure was entertained. But there was a positivism that Yahweh’s intention would be carried out. The Lord Himself <em>marvelled</em> at the unbelief of men (<em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>), despite knowing what was in man. Surely He could only have genuinely felt such marvel because He began with such an essentially positive spirit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I came this day to the spring, and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now You do prosper my way which I go</em>- Again we get the impression that Eliezer didn't fully believe that the journey was being prospered. Maybe he had stopped at other towns in the area and not found anyone appropriate. And so he sets a most unlikely condition for Yahweh to fulfil His promise, as he was about to return home. And God made Rebekah perfectly jump through that hoop. </p>


