Section 2 - Abraham - Friend of God
***************************************************************************
CHAPTER 1 - CONTRITION, PROMISES AND NAME CHANGES
CHAPTER 2 - TROUBLESOME SODOM AND ABRAHAM’S NEPHEW, LOT
CHAPTER 3 - ABRAHAM AND ABIMELECH
CHAPTER 4 - THE GREAT TRIAL OF ABRAHAM
***************************************************************************
CHAPTER 1
CONTRITION, PROMISES AND NAME CHANGES
“I am the almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee”, Genesis 17:1,2.
FOCUS:
There are some reassuring incidents in the story now, for Abraham and Sarah and Lot. They know that God has visited them, Genesis 17:1 to 18:15.
1. SIGNIFICANT NAME CHANGES
When Abram was 99 years old God appeared to him, again in Hebron, and asked him to be blameless, Genesis 17:1, reminding him that to be a recipient of the promises, and to have the covenanted benefits, and to be His representative on earth, he must be a faithful and obedient servant. There must have been some response from Abram, but it is not recorded, except that “Abram fell on his face”, which can be interpreted as contrition, for God renewed his covenant with him, about a multitude of family, and changed his name to Abraham, from “exalted father” to “father of many”, Genesis 17:1-8.
In the ancient Near East, a person’s name was inextricably intertwined with the essence and personality. In the Bible, name giving has great importance, and a change of name is an event of major significance, symbolising a new character and destiny. Often they were not changed names, but additional names, for example, Jacob/Israel and Saul/Paul, but here Abram and Sarai become Abraham and Sarah, verses 5 and 15. The name changes are prophetical and reassuring to both of them, and Sarah is included specifically in the far reaching promises. Women were not included in the covenant rituals, but by their consanguinity to men, women were regarded as being sponsored for by men, and so they were able to benefit from the advantages.
2. OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT RELATIONSHIPS TO GOD - CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM
Acts 15:1 refers to “circumcision” as the custom taught by Moses, an illusion to Genesis 17, where Moses records the command of God to Abraham about circumcision, about 1900 years before the Lord Jesus Christ, and having been recorded by Moses about 1450 BC. Moses knew of it well, for God was about to kill his son, when his wife, Zipporah, quickly took a flint knife and circumcised the boy, calling Moses, “a bridegroom of blood”, Exodus 4:24-26. Later it is included in the law, as a requirement for those aliens who wished to celebrate the Passover, Exodus 12:48. At Gilgal, after the 40 years wanderings, God commanded Joshua to circumcise all those who had neglected the custom, that is, all those that were born in the desert, Joshua 5:1-8.
Circumcision was practised amongst the Egyptians, perhaps as early as 2400 BC, and among other nations, as a tribal rite of puberty, where Abraham must have known about it. If this is so, God adapts and transforms an existing custom by giving it a radically new religious meaning, and commanding it of Abraham. For God’s people at the time of Abraham, and the present Jews, circumcision is a divinely ordained sign of the covenant, performed on a boy child on the eighth day after birth, a physical act of identification and dedication as a member of the covenanted community. Ishmaelites and Arabians, that is to say Muslims, (and even present day tribes, like the Maasai), circumcise in the 13th year, because Ishmael was 13 years old, when Abraham circumcised him. Sarah did have a specific blessing from God, the same blessings as her husband, that is, as the “mother of nations”, and so through her, many women were blessed, and not excluded, even though they could not make the physical outward sign. Indeed one, Mary, was so blessed that God worked a wondrous blessing for her, in that, virginal, she conceived the Son of God. Female circumcision, still practised in many countries, is a perversion of this rite.
Here, in Genesis 17:9-14, God commands Abraham to circumcise himself, and all male children from this day forward. Later as God’s covenants were broken, God made a new covenant through the Lord Jesus Christ, and this old one was abandoned. Sarah would have taken the circumcision of the male, and the promises that accompanied this outward sign, to herself. This is how God intended it to be, but because of the hardness of men’s hearts, women were restricted by men, often excluded, in so many ways in the following centuries, and God heard their cry. When the Son of God was crucified, was resurrected, and then rose to heaven, women flocked as well as men to make the new outward sign of relationship to the death and burial and resurrection of that Son. From that day forward, women could make a relationship with God through the outward sign of the physical act of baptism, also an act of identity and dedication.
3. GOD SPEAKS ABOUT SARAH AND ISHMAEL AND ISAAC
God speaks some more to Abraham, saying that Sarah, under her name change, is promised a son, and from that blessing a very large family will ensue. Abraham finds this ludicrous because he is now 100 years old and Sarah is 90. It is understandable that his (and her) faith slips again, for they knew about biological clocks. Maybe we can call it temporary disbelief.
It is now abundantly clear, that it is imperative, for God’s purpose, that Sarah and Abraham must be the parents of this promised child. The Terah stock is to have the clear lineage in these earlier generations.
Abraham’s concern for Ishmael is made the subject of a plea to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing”, Abraham might have felt that his son, Ishmael, might die, because of the renewed promise about a son for Sarah.
So God continues, reinforcing His promise to Hagar, about Ishmael, making sure that Abraham knows about it. But He returns to emphasis and reassure him that the soon to be born son, Isaac, (within a year), is the heir of the Godly promises, verses 15-22. Abraham fulfils his promise to God, and circumcises himself, and all the males, including, of course, the 13 year old Ishmael, verse 23-27.
4. ABRAHAM HAS THREE VISITORS
In Genesis 18:1-15, the message of a promised son, is dramatically delivered, once more, to Abraham and Sarah by three men, (angels), who come to their tent, near the great Mamre tree, at Hebron. Jewish commentators say that an angel can bring no more than one commission, and explain the number by saying -
1. That one came to heal Abraham
2. And one to give Sarah the message
3. And one to destroy Sodom.
Abraham washed their feet and the three men ate a meal hastily prepared by Abraham, before the visitors pronounced their message from God. There is discussion about whether spiritual beings can eat a meal. But our Lord ate a meal after his resurrection. However the consumption of it precludes the idea that it was all a vision. When the message is delivered, Sarah laughs at the suggestion of a son, now, and wishes, no doubt, that she had not, when “Is the thing too hard for the Lord?” is the reprimand.
It is a true encouragement for Rebekah, and Rachel, and Manoah’s wife (Samson’s mother), Hannah, and the Shunemite woman (Elisha’s friend), and Elizabeth, and any others who need the help of the Lord. Nothing is impossible for the Lord. But following Sarah’s rebuke immediately comes encouragement, as the angel says, “at the time appointed, I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son”. Sarah was afraid and denied that she laughed, but the men of God knew that she had laughed.
Consider:
* Was Isaac’s name, and the using it, a constant reminder to his parents of their faithlessness?
* Or were they able to think of it as, not incredulity, but joy?
* How can we turn our temporary disbeliefs into positive reinforcements?
********************
5. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DEATH (TO PRODUCE LIFE) – AND RESURRECTION
Now we realise that not only had Sarah been sterile, but she was in her menopausal years, and Abraham, after his virile years, considered himself impotent, Romans 4:19. He laughed also, that he would have a child, Genesis 17:17. Maybe God had waited for this stage in their lives to remind them of His ability to perform miracles, and to impress upon them the enormous significance of the child.
In other words they were both dead to reproduction, but God can make a live thing from a dead thing. It is in a sense a resurrection again. And Abraham and Sarah recognised that once more.
From now on faith compounds and hardens, and their delight in the welcome signs of Sarah’s conception, when it happened, must have been cause for great thankfulness, recognising the failing faith sin in themselves, and a seeking and receiving of understanding and forgiveness from God. God has the “last laugh”, because He commands them to call their son “Isaac”, which means “he laughs”.
CONCLUSION:
Now there is a special sign that men can use to signify their relationship with God, and there is a powerful lesson in the power of God over death and life. That sign is the forerunner to the sign of baptism, which sign both men and women can make to signify their relationship with God.
CHAPTER 2
TROUBLESOME SODOM AND ABRAHAM’S NEPHEW, LOT
“And the men rose up from thence, and looked towards Sodom”, Genesis 18:16.
FOCUS:
Now in Genesis 18:16 to 19:38, comes a diversion from the family saga, and we are reintroduced to Lot and his city, Sodom.
Abraham has, until now, been concerned with his personal and family concerns, but now he is forced to broaden his perspective, and he becomes involved in the problems of a city of wickedness, with pagan influences and sinful practices. He is learning and feeling his way forward in faith and humility, to learn more about God’s rule and mercy and judgement. Abraham has learned about God in the small picture, but not about Him in the big picture. Abraham is at first concerned about Lot’s status and his comfort in the city of Sodom, and his possessions, the small picture really, but he soon begins to see the big picture.
1. ABRAHAM BARGAINS WITH GOD
The second half of this Genesis 18, tells the awful story of Abraham bargaining with God to save Lot’s city, the wicked city of Sodom, from destruction. When Abraham’s visitors rose up to leave, they walked together with Abraham, a little way and looked towards Sodom.
In Genesis 18:17, the angels ask one another a question. “Will we tell Abraham what is about to happen to Sodom and Gomorrah?” Then the angels, (God), proceed to tell him what He has planned.
As God had hoped, this arouses in Abraham another desire to witness to save people in peril. Here is another evidence that Abraham knew that missioning was part of his brief from God. He understands that it is not just God’s blessings to enjoy, but with the blessings come responsibility to minister to others about God and His saving power. Noah felt that responsibility. Here it is spiritual deliverance for another ethnic group, who are surrounding Abraham’s nephew and his family. “All people will be blessed through you” is in his mind. In this case God did not respond to Abraham’s pleading, but He was pleased that he did so.
The NIV Study Bible describes Abraham as a “chosen”, verse 19, “friend of God”, James 2:23, and “prophet”, Genesis 20:7, the first man to bear this title, Psalm 105:15, and because of this relationship, God convened a heavenly council at the door of his tent. He had already announced to him His purpose for Abraham, Genesis 18:10. Now He tells Abraham His purpose for the wicked in the plain, verses 20-21, for redemption and judgement, and gives Abraham opportunity to speak in His court and intercede for the righteous.
Consider:
* Why did Abraham try this persuasion on God?
* Was it because of his newfound status with God?
* Was God giving Abraham the opportunity to understand God’s mind and nature through prayer?
* Was Abraham answering God’s call to mission to all peoples about Him, like Noah did, a generalised commission to mission?
* Or was Abraham’s prayer for Lot rather than for Sodom?
* What of his concern for Lot and his family, whom he had not seen for some time?
* Did he know that Lot was living on a knife edge?
* Was the plea really for the repentance and salvation of Lot?
********************
This indicated that Abraham believed that God could have His mind, or course changed, or conversely that He adapts to man’s particular needs, when man acts with free will. It means that God “accommodates” Himself to man. It also indicated that Abraham would try using convincing arguments of justice and mercy, which he knew, now, personally, were part of God’s character anyway, towards men who were redeemed sinners, made righteous. This interchange with God indicated Abraham’s and God’s mutual accessibility, and an amazing “friendship” with God, Isaiah 41:8.
Abraham’s accessibility to God has been built on the maturing respect between the two, as Abraham developed his friendship with God. This providential interaction is too difficult to define, and to try to discuss the mechanics of it is distracting. Suffice it to say it does happen and we would be unwise if we neglected to tap into the phenomena. God’s provision for us, is aligned alongside His foresight of our needs, so we always are provided with what is best for us. That provision includes God’s personal involvement with us, and with that proximity there is a contrast with some of His other traits of omnipotence, and majesty, which imply a more distant and different, but, as well, essential relationship.
God spoke to Abraham directly, through angels, in visions, in dreams, and through other ethnic peoples like Melchizedek and Abimelech. He did miracles, increasing Abraham’s virility and his wife’s fertility, and consequently Abraham believed that God was near to him, and with his every decision. When he did wrong, we know that he was quick to renew his relationship with God again, for providential care was important to him. Abraham made a lifestyle choice, when he left Ur, and was bound to God for guidance as to where his future path lay. Again when he was puzzled about the sacrifice of his only son, he said “God will provide”. There is a mighty lesson for believers, when we view Abraham’s faith in God, and the benefits that accrued from the deposits that Abraham had made with God. When God spoke to him outside his tent, in Genesis 15, God knew of the mounting faith that Abraham had, and counted it for righteousness. Abraham could not count the stars, but God promised that his seed would be as prolific.
Abraham’s ever increasing faith became the pivot for God to require even more from him, and so His providential care also increased.
Here is a lesson in the benefits if we submit to God’s requirements of us.
David Levin, expands the foregoing idea in The Christadelphian Tidings Magazine for October, 1998, and he talks of three fazes,
1. Abraham’s faith,
2. God’s revelation, and
3. His providential care
entwining together like a threefold cord which cannot be breached. The great lesson we learn about Providence in the life of Abraham teaches us to look at God not only as the One who gives the great promises, but also as the One who abides with us in all aspects of our lives until those promises become fulfilled, at the coming of His son. “God is with us”, or “His spirit guides us”, is an essential belief for those who live Godly lives.
This instance of Abraham bargaining with God is remarkable. Would that we can also claim that we are “the friend of God”, as Abraham obviously is. He does argue directly about destroying the righteous and the wicked together. It is the same argument used today about evil coming upon “innocent children”. Some people forget the argument of consequences, which often overrides the argument of justice. We cannot escape consequences, even after forgiveness, for example, David.
2. ABRAHAM GIVES UP ON SODOM
But here Abraham’s argument crumbles, as God stops bargaining at ten righteous men in Sodom. Perhaps Abraham had been counting all his relatives in Sodom, and now gives up on his plea. Abraham returns to his tents, and God says that He will come down and see the sin of Sodom, - that is, a figure of speech, implying His righteous judgment, and that He does not act on the complaints of others.
Consider:
* Abraham is appalled that the righteous will die with the wicked. Is that the age old argument of innocent victims?
* Moses tells us that Sodom is to be destroyed, whatever, so why does Abraham so argue?
* Does God need telling there are ways to save the righteous for being destroyed with the wicked?
* Does Abraham think that God should be a fairer judge?
* Is God forcing Abraham to ponder the consequences of the definite destruction of Sodom on his concrete family circumstances, that is, the possible destruction of part of the blessed family?
* Is this the reason for Abraham’s anxiety?
* Or does God allow the discussion so that Abraham may be tested, to see his leadership skills, and his role as a teacher of righteousness and justice to his children, and as well, to the nations round about, in his mission role?
********************
Abraham does not mention Lot in the whole discussion that he has with God, but God knows Abraham’s gracious motive for the discussion, and his recognition of his need to preach salvation. The whole story is reminiscent of the flood stories, where Noah, too, recognised his responsibility for preaching salvation, where wickedness is targeted, and only one family was saved. Noah’s family was more united in purpose and the outcome for him was a more happy one, than it was for Lot. The wickedness here is sexual debauchery, human hubris and violation of the law of hospitality.
3. WORSHIP - AS A GIFT FOR GOD
Scripture abundantly tells us that God is pleased with righteous worship. If people really lived out well behaviour and righteous worship, and brought it to Him as a personal gift, then that would be a witness to His name, and more would be moved to worship Him and show His glory to others so that they in turn might receive blessings from Him.
Certainly resounding declarations of the gospel are important, and to dismiss other false gods is imperative, but there is more to evangelism than that. There is praise that comes to God because of His holiness, because of His creation, and His beauty and order, and His worthiness and strength. If people come near to Him - not empty handed, according to His expectations, then that is glorifying God as well, and His grace will then envelop us.
With Abraham it was his first act of public worship, in Genesis 14:18-20, a restarting again of what Noah had done when he nobly but vainly preached salvation from sin. Abram was a blessing to God and to the nations when he helped the King of Sodom to regain his goods, including his nephew Lot. He was called blessed by Melchizedek, Genesis 12:7-8. Abram did not keep anything but gave a tithe of all his goods to this priest of God, a study in meaningful worship, and with that beginning of righteous worship, he continues in our present story. His missioning is no silent witness.
4. LOT ENTERTAINS TWO ANGELS
Now in Genesis 19, we have a chance to glimpse life in the city of Sodom. Lot meets two angels at the gate of the city of Sodom, where he was accustomed to sit, being an important city official. The Companion Bible on this section lists six downward steps that Lot takes, as he left Abraham -
“Strife”
“Beheld”
“Chose”
“Pitched toward”
“Dwelt in”
And this sitting - “At the gate”
is the final step down into strife once more.
It was an important open space, as in all cities, given over to legal judicial and administrative services. Genesis 13:13 amply describes the place, at the time of Lot’s choice.
Some regard Lot’s gate position, as a place of warning to those who entered in, like, “turn away, this is no city for you”, but there is no evidence for this. It needs to be remembered that he was alone in the city, with no resources to overcome the iniquity spreading amongst his family. We wonder then again, why he stayed, under such circumstances.
There were three angels present with Abraham, now there are only two. Perhaps the third angel stayed with Abraham, continuing the discussion and reassuring Abraham, Genesis:18:20.
Lot insists that the two visitors come to his home, which we realise, from subsequent events, is not a tent, but a substantial dwelling. Lot’s hospitality measures up to that of his uncle, and we see that he goes to great pains to protect his visitors. In the end though, it is not Lot that saves his visitors, but the visitors who save Lot. He knows the wickedness of the city, and the danger of the men sleeping in the town square. At home Lot prepares a hasty meal for them, and as he sits with his visitors the men of the town come to demand homosexual experiences with the men. Lot protects the men as best he can, even offering his two unmarried
daughters for the men’s gratification, but this does not appease the men.
When Lot failed to ameliorate the men, the “visitors”, acted like the angels they were, and pulled Lot back in the house. They shut the door, and struck the men outside with blindness, (a dazzling light), so they could not see the door, and so they dispersed.
5. RIGHTEOUS LOT
The “just Lot” comment, proclaiming Lot “righteous”, by Peter, 2 Peter 2:7, 8, is a difficulty, even allowing for the fact that women were not highly valued. Lot was under an obligation to care for his visitors, but not at the expense of his daughters.
Perhaps Lot was only “righteous” relatively. He certainly was not righteous in the protection of daughters example he left us. From the teachings of Abraham, about Genesis 2:24, he would know of the true desire of fathers for their virgin daughters, to keep them chaste for their complementary partner in a Godly union. Jacob later learned a valuable lesson in keeping a daughter chaste.
Consider:
* Is it viable to apply the term “righteous” to the time of his sojourn with Abraham, when he was influenced by the example of his uncle, for since then, his recorded experiences seems negative?
* Or in understanding the description “righteous Lot”, in 2 Peter 2:7, are we meant to see God’s over riding of the unwise self determination situations, with negative outcomes?
* Is the matter of offering his daughters a substitution of a greater sin, (the rape of his visitors), for a smaller sin on Lot’s behalf?
If so, there would be an excuse for men practising every form of wickedness, for sins would be viewed as only relative, surely an unhealthy standpoint.
* This intent (for his daughters) on Lot’s part is a matter of sad debate, and asks us to question, how much influence does cultural relativity have on such a suggestion?
* Or does Lot know that the men will refuse his daughters?
This though is hardly an excuse for the making of the offer.
* How would we react if we were part of such a frightening siege? Any better than Lot?
* Do we consider, and plan, for trials and temptations, like we do plan for fire evacuations in our homes?
* Why are disaster plans and crisis management plans more uppermost in our minds, than plans to resist temptation?
* Was Lot’s house really a house of God?
* We would not take this incident as an example of how to solve problems, yet the record does not condemn it. Why?
* Was Lot only "daily vexed" to such an extent that he was willing to put up with life in Sodom?
* How do we regard our life in our city of wickedness?
* If God sent a message to us to leave our place of wickedness would we linger on?
********************
Lot is no example to believers in these situations, however the incidents are “not remembered” by God, that is, “accounted by Him”, for he is noted in the New Testament as “perfect”. We have the example of Asa, wholly forgiven by God, for he was “perfect with God all his days”, though in the end he turned from the advice of God and died, “diseased in his feet”, 2 Chronicles 15:17, and 16:12. This may mean diabetes, gout, gangrene, or even a euphemism, - an oblique reference - to a sexually transmitted disease. Whatever, there is an implied rebuke that he took the matter to the physicians rather than God, and therefore was not “perfect”. Sadly the fact is that “all (except the Lord Jesus Christ) have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. but they may be forgiven and counted righteous. That does not mean that we have to equivocate for them, or white wash the imperfections, which the Scripture is careful to record.
So the New Testament statement “righteous Lot” is an eloquent and powerful reference, and one like the elegant description of Rebekah, in Romans 9:10-13, where her self determination and negative outcomes are not remembered. “Not by works of righteousness” which Lot did, “but according to His mercy He saved” Lot, Titus 3:5, and blessed him.
Lot knew that the city was not a safe place to be out in the open in the evening, yet he was not “vexed” enough to move back to Abraham’s circle of influence, and had been apart from Abraham for a long time. He traded his religious privileges for the worldly advantages of Sodom, and degradation surely followed. He was only able to save part of his family.
And Lot intending to do rightly, only manages to do so timidly and imperfectly. He only belatedly recognised that he was entertaining angels.
In the end Lot was compelled to move from Sodom, under the compulsion of God, and then became an object of lust, which brought his twice saved daughters into disrepute.
6. THE ANGELS OFFER A REPRIEVE TO LOT
The angels offered safety, after delivering God’s judgement, and Lot gathered as many of his family as he could. But not his sons in law, (perhaps only engaged to his daughters), who thought he was joking. It is no wonder that in the light of Lot’s compromising, that his “sons” thought he was “mocking”, verse 14.
In the morning, the angels urged Lot to take his wife and those two precious daughters, leaving the rest of his family, and flee, for God would destroy this city. In fact, in the end, “for the mercy of the Lord”, the angels took their hands, (for they “lingered” Genesis 19:16) and led them to safety. They were in the presence of God, and they “lingered” against His command. Astonishing that they would behave so.
In the end the saved people of Sodom were four, not ten.
God kept His word and rained down fire and brimstone on the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The natural ingredients of destruction were present in this region with bitumen, petroleum, sulphur and salt. While geology gives no evidence of volcanic activity, it does show an immense system of rift valleys, running north and south. So an earthquake that shaped this valley could have been responsible. The lightening would have ignited the gases, and there may have been raining down molten sulphur and salt, producing the smoke which Abraham saw, Genesis 19:28. However it was done, it was not a random disaster, but a judgement of God on a specific target, at a prescribed time, and with that moral perspective for those at that time, we can take the moral lesson for us in this time. We are now concerned about the increasing number of earthquakes and climatic changes that happen today on this globe, some of which will eventually destroy much of God’s beautiful creation. We have thought that we could take out, and put in, to the earth and air, whatever we wanted, and wonder why our earth, as we knew it, is collapsing. We are learning to care for it better, than we have until now, almost too late. That will not stop God’s judgement, if He wants to use such methods, but it will show Him that we do care about His blessings.
Lot and his family were told not to look at the destruction, but Lot’s wife could not resist, (she lingered too long) and was turned into a pillar of salt, for her disobedience. She is proverbial, not for her beauty or character, or deeds, but for her disobedience. The ruins of this catastrophe have been discovered, and the many natural pillars of salt formations that we see there today are regarded as shapes like Lot’s wife, and called by that name. Lot went on to live in the caves of Zoar, with his two daughters. So God answered Abraham’s prayer. However Lot lost all of his wealth , his married family, and his wife, for they were all consumed by the iniquity of their reluctance to abandon the high life of Sodom.
The reasons for Lot’s rescue may be more Abraham’s pleading than a reward for his hospitality to the angels. He may have been rescued no matter what he did -
For his ineptitude, and
His lingering, and
His failure to follow the instructions God gave him, and
The fate of his wife
all worked against his rescue.
Abraham arose early the next morning for he had some distance to walk before he could see what happened to Sodom, and his brother’s child. We are not told whether he knew of Lot’s salvation, but that did not affect Abraham’s faith in God. Perhaps he never found out. He did ask God to save some inhabitants of Sodom, in fact, he opportuned for a time, as we know, and then left it up to God.
The salvation of Lot and his two daughters can be directly traced to Abraham, but perhaps Lot never knew about that. We do not hear of any more contact between Abraham and his nephew Lot, though we know that their descendants regarded one another with animosity.
7. THE CURSE AND BLESSING ON LOT’S DAUGHTERS
Lot’s two daughters, spurred by their cultural insignificance of having no children, and perhaps thinking that they were alone in the face of the destruction, encouraged their father Lot to become drunk and then lay with him sexually, and produced heirs for their future security, the future Moabites and Ammonites. These two tribes, together with the Edomites, where Ishmael went, became bitter opponents of Abraham’s family, in later years. Still, they had inherited a land that was not part of the family inheritance, so that Lot was rewarded with a just inheritance for his “righteousness”, though it is a sadness that he would not have known of God’s blessing. It was the wickedness of these peoples that later destroyed them, there was no punishment there of father’s sins on children, it was their own sins. In later times the great line of the Messiah was enhanced with the Moabitess, Ruth, another blessing, unknown of Lot.
Some comment that the daughters drugged the wine, giving this as an excuse for Lot’s behaviour, but there is no indication of that. Lot’s passivity to the daughter’s situation, or his inability to solve it, makes him culturally responsible for his actions and their actions, like Judah, over Tamar’s childlessness, later in our story. They made him drunk, but he did have a choice to be more responsible. He also must bear the responsibility for the incest, though family intermarriage was a known fact, and preferred, in the Ur descendants of Terah, to the righteous in Salem, of Melchizedek.
The renowned Australian poet of this century, A. D. Hope has penned, in 1950, a long poem about this incident, “Lot and His Daughters” not absolving Lot from guilt, but in his drunken state, exulting God, remembering the Abrahamic covenant, and his wish to be part of that as well. Lot remembers that God was with Abraham, and that He will be with him as well, to “breed his ewes in the wilderness”, for did not the angels take his hand? His tribe shall be numbered with the sand, and with the stars as well, and “my seed shall thrive”, he says, as his daughters stand smiling back, inscrutable, patent and content, for they have the solution.
Consider:
Cultural relativity is in place, and again these “men” behave within the framework.
So, rightly regarding this incest as a sinful act
* How much is this sin accounted to them?
* Even in their belief that they alone were “left on earth”, verse 31, is their act justified?
* Did these daughters “twice saved”, know that God would have blessed them if they had asked?
* Is it a matter of Lot’s education of them, that these girls, in the face of their two times salvation, saw no other way out of this new dilemma?
* Was the influence of Sodom too much upon them?
* How can the recipients of so much grace, as these girls were, misunderstand God’s gifts?
* Was the saving of Lot and his daughters, a token of Abraham’s faith, and not Lot’s faith?
* Was the faith of the saved daughters stronger than Lot’s faith, and stronger than Lot himself, who had decided to live out his days dwelling in a secluded mountain cave, apart from and frightened by those, who thought he carried a curse?
* Did the girls realise that any potential husbands around them were as bad as their husbands had been, so they would have none of them to father their children?
********************
8. THE SAD END OF LOT
Lot’s feeble faith is then crowned with dreadful wickedness and he is heard of no more in the Divine narrative. He is saved from Sodom, but is now an outcast, widowed, homeless, hopeless, with nothing to call his own, and no doubt despised by his daughters.
Lot received not the promise, though he had taken it on, in travelling with Abraham, and “wandered the earth in caves, but had received a good report from God”, Hebrews 11:37-39. He did not receive the promise, we might argue, but God also wanders “the whole earth”, His eyes searching for those who’s “heart is perfect towards Him”, 2 Chronicles 16:9, and found Lot, and recorded the “perfect” judgement for us.
Comment:
# Lot’s choice of the plain, led him to temptation and danger, yet he was saved in comparative safety from destruction.
# His feeble faith seems to be linked with the fact that he would rather live in a city, than trust God to care for him in the family nomadic lifestyle.
# He lingered, as the destruction came, yet still God was merciful to him.
# He doubted that God would decide on a safe place for him and was afraid, yet God persevered.
********************
Sodom and Gomorrah were plague spots and had to be obliterated because of the danger of infection. The story of Lot gives us opportunity to speak to our young people about homosexuality, as does the later story of Ishmael and little Isaac, if we take the newly advanced theory. We need to take these opportunities, whenever we can. There are plenty of denunciations of the practice, but sometimes real Biblical life incidents help as well.
Lot could never have guessed how the English word “Sodom”, coined in 1055 AD, would come to mean “wickedness of the grossest kind”, and to us the word for the sin, is easily recognised. Metonymy.
However, we need not feel so self righteous for how we live. The culture of Sodom recorded in Ezekiel 16;49, and Luke 17:28, is not that of sodomy, (though we note that sodomy was present in Sodom and that it affected even the angels of God), but the sins that may in the end lead to that. Perhaps we can more easily condemn the “sin of sodomy” that does not affect us, and highlight it, and so more easily cover over the other sins of Sodom, that might beset us. The sins were of pride, of a surfeit of food and drink, and of an abundance of idleness, and of ignoring the hardship of the poor and needy, where “the hungry are advised”, by society’s intransigent attitude to them, “to eat the homeless”. We ourselves are not unfamiliar with that attitude. What an easy solution to the poor and needy problem.
9. THE END OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ABRAHAM AND LOT
Frank Anthony Spina floats more arguments for the sparing of Lot in Sodom, in “Lot”, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
It seems that Lot is spared from destruction and death, because of his close relationship to Abraham, and because of Abraham’s pleading his nephew’s case. However Lot is removed from the city and the city is NOT saved, because of the possible presence of a number of righteous men, (which had been Abraham’s answer to the problem). So God did not accept Abraham’s advice.
However God would have been pleased to see the development of Abraham into a just and righteous man seeking compassion for others, so that he could become a teacher of justice and righteousness to his children.
The ironic twist that followed, in the conclusion of Lot’s recorded life, brings us again to consider the consequence for Abraham of bringing him to Canaan in the first place. No doubt this would have weighed heavily on Abraham for the rest of his life. If he had known the trouble that these tribes, the Moabites and the Ammonites, would cause the Israelites, his great grandchildren, when they were coming into Canaan, directed by God, fulfilling the Land Promise, that he treasured so greatly, he would have been even more sorrowful. They became persistent enemies and an eternal reminder of the fact that Abraham invited Lot to join him in his quest for the Promised Land. Still, Lot had free choice, he was not predestined by God to make the choice of the plain, and Sodom.
The covenant of circumcision, from God for Abraham, (symbolising his relationship with God) came after the separation from Lot, so that we do not know whether the descendants of Lot followed this ritual. Were it not for this journey from Haran, had they stayed with the others, the family of Lot would not have had such a deleterious effect on Israel, and would have been more passive relations like those that they left behind, and who proved a resource for Isaac’s wife and the wives of Jacob. Still, “if only s” are indulgent thoughts, and not helpful, and can never be conclusive, so we need to avoid them.
The Ishmael (Ishmaelites in the Wilderness of Paran) tribes, and Keturah (Midianites) tribes and later the Esau (Edomites) tribes, rightly claiming Abraham as their father, together with the Lot (Moabites and Ammonites) tribes, were all rejected from the main God promised blessings, and suffered for their wickedness. They make up “half” of the formidable near opposition to the Israelis today, east side River Jordan, Jordan, Syria, and others, and they are descendants of Terah. However the future of all of these families, in the Canaanite experiences of Abraham, were all secured by other covenants given to them by God, so He did care for them and wished them to have an inheritance.
Genesis 10 describes the two sons of Eber, (from Shem), Peleg and Joktan.
The descendants of Peleg (meaning “division”) are described in chapter 11, down to Terah, and went north and north west, created channels from the water courses, and founded cities, and eventually divided off, from the main stem, in the two Lot tribes, the Ishmael, Keturah and Esau tribes.
The other “half” of the opposition, is this second blood line, Joktan, in chapter 10. It was the first separation from the main stem, the Joktanites, when the primogeniture passed to the Hebrews, through Eber. It is the claimed line of the now wealthy oil Arabs, who are currently heard saying, disdainfully, “we are not from the same line as the other Arabs, we are Joktanites”, - fishermen on the Persian Gulf. Joktan went much further south than Peleg, into the Arabian Desert, expelling the Hamites, who were then pushed further south, towards their “brothers” in Egypt. The Joktans became pastoral people, not founding cities. They are further away from Palestine/Israel, along the Persian Gulf, in the south of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and surrounds, and along the Red Sea.
Again it would be foolish to try and determine the tribes today, but it is interesting to note that, to this day, a division is claimed between the Peleg and Joktan Arabs, by the Joktanites.
CONCLUSION:
If we are convinced that Lot sinned then we need to define that sin, and make our own resolutions that we may face the same situations in a more determined manner. We also need to remember that through the whole episode, God remained with Lot and remembered him. He did not absolve Lot from the consequences of staying in Sodom, but gave him opportunity to escape the fireball, and led him to safety.
CHAPTER 3
ABRAHAM AND ABIMELECH
“And Abraham said of Sarah, his wife, she is my sister”, Genesis 20:2.
FOCUS:
The account of the sojourn of Abraham in Gerar is remarkable for the demonstration of honour and responsibility, intrigue and reaction, and complaint and negotiation, Genesis 20 and 21. In this long account, however, we find that dysfunction rears its head once more and this family suffers again.
1. ABRAHAM MOVES AWAY TO GERAR
In Genesis 20, we return to the affairs of Abraham. Abraham moves his household from this place, Hebron, once more south to Gerar, near Kadesh, where Hagar had retreated, before Ishmael’s birth. The King of Gerar admired Sarah. Abraham and Sarah denied that they were married, and told Abimelech that Sarah was Abraham’s sister, Genesis 20:2, and so the king took her for his wife.
2. "SARAH, SAY YOU ARE MY SISTER” - AGAIN
From seeing the best in Abraham at Sodom, we see here his near worst as he pursues a deceitful course to save his own skin, and once more asks of his wife more than he should. We are motivated to ask ourselves about this say you are my sister plan, and why it was ever conceived, perhaps in Ur. It seems remarkable that it was never cancelled after the humiliation in Egypt. It seems that Abraham is not skilled in understanding potentially dangerous situations, for this king was friendly and the kingdom peoples here understanding of his needs. It was not a place like Sodom, and deserved a better assessment.
Sarah knew that she could not belong to another man, as well as Abraham (women could not multiply husbands), so she must have been thoroughly confused when Abraham, once more, asked her to say she was his sister to show him her love for him - denying her wifely role. They expected that she would multiply a husband within this deceit. Multiplying husbands was never a custom. So, added to the lying sin, was the unacceptable husband multiplication, when God’s ideal of “one flesh” was flouted. As well Sarah knew that concubinage was no stable occupation and that she could be sold on at will, thus multiplying her sin state. She must have been exceedingly fearful.
It first happened to Sarah in Egypt, Genesis 12:10-20. She was long suffering in negating her role, but, culturally, women were expected to obey their husband’s wishes. Queen Vashti, in the Persian court, was banished for refusing her husband’s orders to display herself to a drunken audience. She was banished for her disobedience, but also because that disobedience may have caused other women to rebel, Esther 1. The incident is a disgraceful devaluation of women in the Persian court.
Abimelech is the innocent party in all of this, and probably had a divinely sent illness, so that he could not approach Sarah, Genesis 20:4. God has a conversation with Abimelech explaining the situation, and shows His confidence in the king to remedy the situation.
In this second say you are my sister incident, the women of the house of Abimelech have their wombs shut up, so no woman conceives at this time. This is a Godly protection of the seed line of Abraham. If Sarah’s womb was also shut up, that was a second precaution.
Abimelech had accepted God’s pronouncement of death of his malady, if he persisted in pursuing an adulterous relationship with Sarah, verse 3, that is, death for adultery. He had expected God to slay the whole nation of Gerar, verse 4 and 7. So he pleads that his nation is a righteous nation. It may be that Abimelech had heard of the wickedness of Sodom, and knew of God’s judgement there. He may have been a friend of God also, but more likely a tool in the drama, when Abraham is moved to place more trust in God. Abraham’s faith needs growing points and this incident provides another of those landmarks. However that does not preclude the tool from also being shaped by the Potter, and Abimelech’s respect seems to grow for the God of Abraham. The fact that Abimelech expected death for adultery, emphasises the depth of the sin that Abraham had committed, almost causing this king and Abraham’s fearful wife to commit adultery. Abimelech had no wish to invite the inevitable slander. No wonder the king was offended
3. ABIMELECH GROWS IN GRACE AND FAVOUR
We then have to accept that Abimelech pleaded his righteousness with God, when God exposed his unknowing sin over Sarah, and God accepted his integrity.
When speaking to Abimelech, God calls Abraham “a prophet”, not to aggravate Abimelech. In using the word, God intends far more than an advantage in the present situation. He means to encourage Abimelech for He sees great potential in him. God now tells Abimelech that Abraham will intercess for him - not only now, but for all time.
A prophet to intercess for him. Wow, Abimelech is amazingly blessed.
Comment:
# This assumes that Abimelech will need a spokesman to declare to him the will of God, to teach him about the way of the Lord, to help him maintain his religion and holiness (as he has not a near relation to do so).
# Abraham could speak for God, as prophets were the mediators, forerunners, and even representatives of the Lord Jesus Christ, in their role of forth telling for God, until he (the Lord Jesus Christ) came.
# Abimelech may or may not have recognised that he needed a fuller instruction, that he ought to try for a higher level of holiness, and that Abraham could therefore become his prophet, in the true sense of the word.
# Whatever, God recognised this in Abimelech.
If we can assume this, it is an amazing invitation to Abimelech from God.
(There are more ideas about the later establishment of the “Schools of the Prophets” in the commentary by Ellicott.)
********************
4. ABRAHAM IS QUESTIONED BY ABIMELECH
When Abimelech asked Abraham what he saw, he meant,
1. To ask what Abraham saw in Abimelech that encouraged him to think that the king would dishonour him (that is, in the question that Abimelech pointedly asked Abraham), and
2. To ask what caused Abraham to view him in such a poor light that he would think that the king would take men’s wives and murder their husbands.
We may find this a remarkable suggestion, for we do know another divinely appointed, and God loved king, who did do just that. David knew these Pentateuch records, and surely must have assessed the noble Abimelech, yet he did that in the matter of Uriah, the Hittite, when he took his wife.
In any case, giving and taking wives is sinful, a wife exchange is a thing of abomination to God, and Abimelech was offended that Abraham would think such a thing of him.
Abraham tries to explain his way out of the difficulty when confronted by Abimelech, saying that she was his sister. Indeed she was a relation, though we do not have her genealogy. She must have been the daughter of Terah by another wife, or a favoured concubine, for any other could hardly have called her daughter a “princess”. Such liaisons were not allowed, by law, in later constitutions, but were in heathen nations. Or, perhaps she was the daughter of Terah’s Ur son, Haran. However Sarah’s wifely role should have taken precedence. It could be said that Abraham’s excuse was after all true. It was true then, also, in the Egyptian incident, but the Pharaoh was not impressed then, either. Sometimes there are other excuses, “only a gentile”, Pharaoh and Abimelech, gentiles. When that excuse is made, “that it is O.K. to defraud a gentile”, it is unworthy of those who believe that God loves all his creatures, and promotes the erroneous idea that good behaviour is only conditional.
Some think that Sarah was rejuvenated since the promise of conception, and therefore was attractive, others think that Abimelech would have desired Sarah only as a political alliance. Neither matters, for Abimelech desired Sarah.
The penalty/consequence for the king was undone, when Sarah was released, and Abraham pleaded with God for all the palace women to be healed. She brought back with her many gifts, sheep, oxen, menservants, and women servants and 1,000 shekels of silver to atone for his offence, that is, Abimelech’s offence.
We may wonder whether this is the total value of the gifts, or as well as the gifts. What ever, Abimelech gave Abraham servants as well, and it is interesting to note that the term “women servants”, verse 14, is different in verse 17, where the word for concubines is used.
5. ABRAHAM ASKS GOD TO HEAL THE WRONG HE HAS DONE
Abraham showed that he feared the king and the people, prejudging them, acting deviously, deceitfully, and testing Sarah’s love for him beyond what he should have asked, or expected. He doubled Sarah’s fear to allay his own, as he had done in Egypt. This slip of faith again, is afterwards regretted by Abraham, who prays to God to heal the women from the condition that God had placed upon them, to save Sarah from conception there. We are not told the prayer, but contrition and repentance and forgiveness, must have been stated and requested by Abraham, and accepted by Sarah and God.
It is consoling that Abraham asked God to be relieved of the consequences of his action, and God granted that, which gives us hope that sometimes, just sometimes, we can be forgiven, and allowed off the consequences. It is a notable and rare incident of undone consequences, a notable privilege and gift from God to Abraham.
The advice of Abimelech to Abraham, Genesis 20:16, is obscure, and may mean that Sarah,
- Should be veiled, because of her shame at the wrong done to her, or,
- Should be veiled, to indicate that she had been treated with honour, despite that wrong doing, or
- Should be veiled, and so shielded from further prying eyes, or,
- Should have a more “protective veil” in Abraham.
A more protective husband would
- Not have frightened her so much,
- Not have caused her to (almost) commit adultery,
- Not have caused her to join a concubine’s house, where her existence there could have easily been jeopardised, with her sold off in anger to someone else, thus multiplying more husbands.
- Nor have caused her to be the object of slander.
Comment:
The process of sin healing has been spoken of so much in our secular lives, at the moment, for past national wrongs. The principles and process spoken of are right and we are grateful for that. We are told that there should be acknowledgment of the sin, and then apology is the next step, reconciliation comes next, and then restitution can take place. These are Godly requirements, but required today by professionals also, who feel that for any healing to take place, (in this case for a nation to heal itself) from past inequities, certain processes need to take place.
********************
Earlier Pharaoh was gracious, but Abimelech has an outstandingly positive reaction to the hurt done to him. He is a gracious person and we would do well to emulate it. In the end he still called Abraham Sarah’s “brother”, verse 16, and he allowed Abraham to decide where he would live within his (Abimelech’s) kingdom. With this gesture, Abraham’s stature is fully restored, verses 14-18. “Behold my land is before thee, dwell where it pleaseth thee”. And Abraham’s family and all the gifted servants and sheep and oxen returned to his compound.
Consider:
We are told that when Abimelech told his servants of the message “from the Lord”, and what had happened in the palace, they were “sore afraid”.
* How much did the king, and then the servants know?
* How did God “shut up the wombs”?
* Why were all the wombs shut, and not just Sarah’s womb?
* Did this preclude sexual activity, or only the production of a child?
* What was the effect in the women’s house of the circumstance of “shut up wombs”?
* If the condition was known by the women, how would they react to Sarah?
* Once again, how did Abraham’s household react to the situation?
* Once again, what damage control would have been put in place, for this repeat offence?
* If we think Abraham’s stature was restored with the king, what happened within Abraham’s own household?
********************
This second incident of the say you are my sister request, is more astounding still when we consider that Abraham knew that within the year Sarah would bear Isaac. When Abimelech called her to be his wife, it was God who saved her, but it, perhaps, gave rise to the later mocking of Ishmael. She was indeed in Abimelech’s house after the promise that she would bear a child, and within twelve months of Isaac’s birth.
If the later insult of Ishmael, hurled at Isaac, that he is illegitimate, comes from this story, then Ishmael did not know of the wombs shut up. Perhaps Abraham managed to keep the incident quiet to some degree, but this insult would then be a consequence still endured by Abraham. It seems that Judah may have been forgiven the incest with Tamar, because he publicly atoned for the incident, as did David. Still, we are left with many questions.
Sarah must have known of Abraham’s fear, and perhaps was fearful herself, and that because of that fear, her husband was ready to sacrifice her - twice - to other men’s households, palaces, no less. He would hardly be able to assail a palace, to gain her back, surely a more fearful thing for Sarah, for she knew of the consequences for her, if she was not returned to Abraham. Others, in the family, may have wondered about God’s providential care, and courage, in the face of danger, and Abraham’s lack of confidence. It all looked unworthy for God’s servant, and was indeed a sin against God’s law of Genesis 2:24.
When Sarah is returned to Abraham, she conceives and bears Isaac, and Abraham circumcises his son, Genesis 21. He is 100, and Sarah is 90 years old, still within the year of the promise at Hebron.
6. HAGAR AND ISHMAEL IN THE COMPOUND WITH ABRAHAM AND SARAH
The birth of Sarah’s son, Isaac, must have renewed her youth, for she was able to breast feed him, Genesis 21:7. Remarkable in our eyes.
However, the taunting of Hagar and Ishmael spoiled the joy of Sarah, more particularly at the weaning ceremony of Isaac, who may have been as old as five years. (Middle Eastern women still breast feed their babies for more years than western women, for many regard it as a form of contraception).
Abraham intervened in the dispute between the two women, Sarah and Hagar, and sent Hagar away, with her son, and a water bottle. The dispute could easily be the taunting of Ishmael over the paternity of Isaac, considering that Sarah had so recently been amongst the concubines in the palace of Abimelech.
Hagar and Ishmael would not know of God’s revelation to Abimelech, or if they did, they may have scorned the information as a prefabricated lie. They would have good cause to think that the child could be Abimelech’s offspring. We advise our children “do not do anything that will cause the adversaries of God to scorn”.
Imagine Sarah’s indignation, if this was one of Ishmael’s remarks about Isaac. It was, of course, said about the Lord Jesus Christ, implying illegitimacy over the circumstances of his birth, John 8:41.
If this is a true assessment, then this taunting is an extra consequence for Abraham to bear, because of the second say you are my sister incident. Perhaps the first incident did not bear too much dire consequence for Abraham, and that encouraged him to use the Egyptian ploy again when he thought he was in danger in Gerar, and that he and his substance needed protection. For Abraham to put Sarah in such danger defies our understanding, when she was, we thought, so precious to him. It is the devaluation for women and their own role in the purpose of God that upsets us. It is, probably therefore, the resultant taunting, at the birth of Isaac that made life in the compound unbearable.
This second say you are my sister incident, as with the first, would hardly have been kept secret within the compound, and it would easily fit into a tease situation. It is most remarkable that, when the incident is accompanied by so much humiliation and teasing, that Isaac commits the same folly in asking Rebekah to say she was his sister, when they came to the palace of another Abimelech, at Gerar, in the next generation. So this becomes a cross, or Trans generational incident.
A more serious offence is suggested, in addition, when we recognise that four words are missing from the AV translation, based on the Massoretic text, which ends with Ishmael “mocking”, and makes no mention of the words “with her son Isaac”. In the earlier texts, Septuagint and Vulgate, the Genesis 21:9, words “mocking”, “taunting”, “teasing” are better rendered “playing with” or “fondling”, (together with the four missing words). The same word is used in Genesis 26:8, where Abimelech, watching from the palace window, realises that Rebekah is Isaac’s wife. These same words have a sexual context, and when the king sees the incident, it gives him the clue of a relationship much more than social, or sibling, as Isaac had led him to believe was the case.
Certainly there is a sexual overtone with the word used, so perhaps the Septuagint and the Vulgate are right about this point. Jonathan Kirsh, in Insight, where he discusses the point, in the October 1998 and February 1999 Bible Review Magazine, asks us to compare Genesis 39:17 for the use of the same word, implying “uncovering of nakedness”, in the Joseph and Potiphar’s wife incident.
Consider:
* Is this teasing in addition to the taunting?
* Was the incident innocent, that is, just Ishmael having a fun game with, or teasing Isaac, enough to make Sarah angry?
* Or did the teasing, move to mocking, and sarcasm, and that was enough to make Sarah angry?
* Or was it much more, remembering Sarah’s murderous intent for Hagar and Ishmael after the incident?
* If it is more, were the reluctant translators anxious to play down the disturbing sexuality of the incident?
* Did they lose an opportunity to record the incident faithfully and so deprive us of reasoning out, and dealing with the evil of incest or sexual abuse, or homosexuality?
Many disturbing incidents have been recorded, without reluctance, in this family saga, but there are just a few not mentioned, and we know not what they are with any certainty.
Still, the question remains.
* What did Sarah see at the weaning ceremony, when Ishmael was between 15 to 20 years old, and Isaac was anything up to five years old, (Genesis 16:16, 17:17 and 21 and 25, 21:5)?
* What outraged Sarah so much that she was filled with such murderous intent, that she asked that Hagar and the boy be thrown out of the compound, to suffer exposure and certain death?
* Would Abraham have felt so “very grievous” for Ishmael, if it was abominable behaviour?
* How then did this spiteful “son of the flesh” persecute the “son of the Spirit”, Galatians 4:29?
* We can ask the question again, was Sarah justified in her indignation?
* Was the incident wholly innocent, - or sexual abuse, or incest, or an attempted homosexual act?
* Was the outrageous incident just one of many, and so all the suggested insults could have taken place?
********************
7. HAGAR IS FREED BY ABRAHAM
Sarah may have feared that in offering Hagar, Ishmael would claim the inheritance rights. Abraham did recognise him as his son. The best way to solve the problem, for Sarah, was to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Thus Hagar would return to the desert a second time, over fifteen years later. Her freedom would limit her claim on the family estate. Abraham’s love and concern were dispelled by God’s guarantee that He would care for them. He had advised the solving of the problem, Genesis 21:12, 13, and reassured Abraham that He would care for Hagar and her child, as Abraham’s offspring.
The Nuzi tablets, “Ancient Texts Relating to the Old Testament”, see NIV Study Bible, from the 15th Century BC, prohibit the expulsion of a servant girl’s son, whose legal status was already weak, so love for his son, and perceived legal custom of the time, played a part in Abraham’s anguish and dilemma. Abraham had received from God a confirmation of care and promise, verse 11, with a Divine release from the custom of the time, so perhaps that made Abraham more confident of Hagar’s and Ishmael’s safety.
Abraham seems distraught at this first separation from his son Ishmael. Perhaps he recognises the evil consequences of more than one sexual partner, and the abandoned blessing of “one flesh” with his treasured wife, Sarah. No doubt Abraham does genuinely love Ishmael, so the whole episode pains him.
Hagar, encounters great hardship, once more, with her son in the wilderness, where he is the first to suffer from exposure. She abandons him, not able to view his death, and lifts her eyes to God for help. God hears her cry and so they are both nourished by God, with water from a nearby, hitherto unseen, probably covered, well. According to His word, God blesses her in the wilderness and her child grows to manhood there, the Wilderness of Paran. Hagar takes for him a wife from nearby Egypt, and that wife is the mother of his twelve sons and one daughter. We know little more about him, except for his return to bury Abraham, with his step brother, Isaac. He died at the age of 137 years old. It was natural for Hagar to seek an Egyptian wife for her son, especially if her own roots were there, but it would strengthen the heathen element in Ishmael. His seed also is numerous and he becomes a great nation. His name means “God listened to (namely the parents’ - that is, Abraham’s and Hagar’s) their prayer”.
So, the say you are my sister incidents have repercussions that bring great anguish, not only immediate, but far reaching anguish for Sarah. They were not incidents that existed just between Abraham and Sarah, everybody knew about them. Lot’s family were with them down in Egypt, for the first incident. Even loyal servants who had been with them through the Egyptian incident, would hardly be able to resist a snigger, as apparently Ishmael could not. The faithful Eliezer would have charge of behaviour in the compounds of Abraham, and it would have been a difficult job to restrain the servants in such a circumstance. We try not to give our enemies cause to blaspheme but this is a shameful incident inviting ridicule. We mostly do not escape the consequences of our anti Christ behaviour, even if we are forgiven.
These are the first of many incidents when God had to intervene, using amazing situations to preserve the precious seed line.
8. ABRAHAM’S FAITH TESTS
Abraham’s faith was tested twice in the matter of his public relationship with his wife when he was in a tight spot and his reaction was not ideal. These incidents illustrate that faith is a developing thing with pitfalls along the way. Abraham was humanly flawed, as was Isaac, as was Jacob, as is any man or woman, and we expect that. That does not take away our respect for Abraham as God’s “patriarch” and “prophet”. Genesis 20:7. Psalm 105:15 refreshes the minds of his children, when He reminds them how he protected “the prophet” at this time. These are the prophets of Luke 16:29 that the Jews had always had to lead them to the Lord Jesus Christ, yet, as their voices came down through the ages, the Jews ignored them. “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” is a term used throughout The Old Testament, and we revere that.
9. ABRAHAM’S SIN AND FORGIVENESS
There is no record of Abraham’s acknowledgment of the sin, or asking forgiveness of God (or of Sarah), though we know he knew it to be an unrighteous act, for he prayed to God to heal the effects of his sin on the Abimelech house. It is difficult to justify from the Scripture, except by inference. We may say that Abraham’s sin and righteousness became states of being, rather than a ledger account of good and bad deeds. If Abraham reckons himself ungodly, Romans 4, he must have recognised his sin, not a doer of ungodly acts, but an ungodly person, thinking of himself as having no standing before God.
Life is not a matter of a series of separate incidents some pleasing to God, some not, by which we are judged. It is a growing process, for no one can stand still. We either diminish, or grow. Abraham was a wanderer, whose life was changing geographically in the land that God had promised him. But he was changing spiritually as well, from the time he left Haran. As he moved about the land he also took the spiritual path that God had laid out for him. He grew in faith as his character developed. Yet, as he developed, he still had room to grow.
Sin is not a catalogue of wrongful deeds and broken commandments, but an inability to reach potential.
Likewise -
Righteousness is not the result of a series of good deeds, (good works) in accordance with His commandments, but from learning built up through the tests of faith that are placed before us.
Abraham believed the promises of God, but he also believed that his unworthiness was his stumbling block, and so he acknowledged it. Like his forebear, Cain, he had his “winter of discontent”, when he depended on God for forgiveness and redemption. But for Abraham the frost of winter melted into spring again, with God. He knew that a sacrifice, or act of his own would not purchase that forgiveness, for he could not justify himself. He only trusted that God would justify the ungodly in him. We may think of ourselves as ungodly, unworthy subjects, unable to attain even Abraham’s level of faith, but we can achieve what Abraham achieved, through the indwelling of the Lord Jesus Christ in our lives.
Comment:
The general opinion seems to be that Cain’s wickedness on the murder of his brother, brought wrath and hatred upon him. However he was allowed to live, and no one was allowed to kill him, for the mark of God was upon his forehead. He failed the test God put upon him, for his anger was his stumbling block, and caused his sin. He said to the LORD, “Is my iniquity too great to be forgiven?”, Genesis 4:13, Companion Bible. It may be viewed that God is, in this verse, in the process of forgiving Cain, as here, in the beginning of Genesis, Cain recognises the enormity of his sin, and his worthlessness and his alienation. So God begins to speak with him. It is the mark of God’s mercy and grace that in the face of Cain’s acknowledged unworthiness, God condescends to speak with him again, (but ultimately sends him away from His presence).
The Day of Atonement was later introduced for people to reflect and consider their ways, to atone for their sins, and to make renewal contracts with God. It made, and continues to make people think of their capacity for wrongdoing, of inflicting hurt and of being cruel. When the need for atonement for our wrongdoing and hurtfulness and cruelty has been understood, one can then begin taking responsibility for one’s actions, exploring the motivation to commit the evil, and learn to overcome that motivation. Reasons to behave are not acceptable excuses. Reasons for sin are not a motivation to sin. “I can’t help my sin because ...”. If we fail to understand our motivation, then the repetitive cycle of offences and transgression, and the seeking of repentance, is not broken.
If we continue in sin, the disregard we have for others is not registering. Perhaps we need to acknowledge a need in ourselves that causes us to neglect or abuse. It takes a great effort to acknowledge such a thing and cease to neglect or abuse others. People can hardly do that alone, and sympathetic and caring and professional friends need to help, together with an earnest and prayerful intention to change.
We need help to overcome the feelings of helplessness, associated with our renunciation of the sin, a negativity and fear that we cannot manage. We grieve about our sins, but to recognise our sins, and to ask God to help us, is the beginning of reconciliation with oneself, and the reconciliation with God that we so desperately need. God will help us expand our impoverished resources, so by grace, that victory is assured.
Our spirituality can be measured rather like the four stages of prayer. Han Suyin, the contemporary “Chinese Philosopher and Novelist” has ideas somewhat along these lines.
Prayer is -
1. A weary effort with little gain and small return.
or
2. Something tentative and internal, that puts forth leaves and buds, that can grow, or be shrunken and withered, depending on the nourishment.
or
3. A connection with God that enables us to converse with Him face to face, and know Him, like a tree blossoming in the sun.
or
4. A stage, or state of spirituality, where there is no more toil, there is no more change, no loss, and no seasons, where flowers always blossom, and the soul enjoys undoubting faith, and given certitude, where the heart loves, and knows not that it loves.
Oh, for that connection with our Lord Jesus Christ that he might lead us to our Heavenly Father, with such unfailing certainty. The stories of these patriarchs and their journeys, may lead us in that path to glory, if only we will have faith as they did.
********************
10. THE WELLS INCIDENT, AND ABIMELECH AGAIN
There is another incident tucked away in Genesis 21:22-34, which indicates Abimelech’s continuing good relationship with Abraham, and his regard for his God. There is a dispute over a well that Abraham had dug for his sheep. Abimelech and his commander Phicol, question Abraham carefully, for Abimelech regards Abraham as an honourable man, but Abimelech’s servants say the well is theirs, and have seized it. Abraham swears that the well is his, and makes a treaty with Abimelech.
There is a remarkable echo of this story when the same thing happens to Isaac in Genesis 26. There is another say you are my sister incident, and there is also a story of Abraham’s wells stopped up by the Philistines, wells re dug by Isaac, and quarrelling over wells, with Abimelech and Phicol featuring in the two stories. We conclude that the two names are titles and therefore repeated in the next Trans generational story, and the trouble with the wells, is a continuing squabble between herdsmen, and probably quite frequently occurring, and caused by roaming Bedouin families.
The treaty, at this time, is sealed by Abraham and Abimelech with the gift of the seven ewe lambs to Abimelech by Abraham “as a witness that I did dig these wells”. So that place was called Beersheba, because the two men had sworn an oath there. So Abimelech achieves his end of a continuing good relationship with Abraham.
And Abraham planted a tamarisk tree, an evergreen, a hardy plant, with wonderful shade, and called on “the name of the Lord”. To plant a tree is recognition of permanency, an intention to stay, and Abraham often planted a grove of trees, reinforcing his right to the land, as a promise from God. There is such a shady tree in the courtyard of a Children’s Home in Moinabad, India. That tree is a blessing there also, and provides loving care for all of those who sit under its shade in the heat of an Indian midday sun.
Abraham lived there in Beersheba in peace for many years, by reason of the treaty which existed between him and this king of the Philistines, Genesis 21:34. It was place of abundant water and is so today. Because of this, it was a place never to be violated, a sanctuary for those who needed water. Flocks have gathered here every day for five thousand years. The wells were indispensable to Abraham, as they were to General Allemby of the Allied Forces, this century, in World War 1, when twenty four hours after capturing Beersheba, he was pumping and supplying four hundred thousand gallons of water a day to his famished troops.
CONCLUSION:
These two chapters in Genesis provide us with details of Abraham’s life in Gerar and his precious friendship with the king, Abimelech. The story serves to emphasise the dysfunction that is becoming endemic in this patriarchal family. We wish it was not so, but the lessons for us are obvious. Relationships in families need faithfulness and Godly support, and only then will we obtain grace, and be at peace with the treasures He has given us.
CHAPTER 4
THE GREAT TRIAL OF ABRAHAM
“Take now thy son, thine only son, Isaac ... and get thee into the land of Moriah: and offer him there for a burnt offering”, Genesis 22:2.
FOCUS:
There remained one greater test of Abraham’s faith in God, and then his closing history, and that of his wife Sarah, Genesis 22 and 23.
The intent of this chapter is that we might understand the overwhelming faith that Abraham has for God, and understand as well the great sadness within his family.
1. FATHER AND SON, ABRAHAM AND ISAAC
God’s trial of faith of Abraham, for him to sacrifice his son, Genesis 22:2, was a confusing request from God, for two reasons.
Firstly, that it did not follow the path to which Abraham aspired, and what he thought God required.
Secondly, that it followed the pattern of child sacrifice that was being practised in the heathen nations round about.
Because of the Godly family’s belief in YHWH, any resemblance to the heathen, would have been an anathema. The near sacrifice, then, must have had a profound effect on Isaac, and Sarah, as well as Abraham.
2. THE TERRIBLE PRACTICE OF CHILD SACRIFICE
Many religions have practised child sacrifice, a sickening practice to contemplate. The Canaanites practised this at this time, but in later years, became quite addicted to it. It also happened in the lands surrounding the Canaanites. The Israelites fell into the wicked practice themselves, Psalm 106:37, 38, where the people are reminded how they provoked God, when they polluted the land “with the blood of their children”. Only now, in the icy mountains of Peru, are archaeological finds being made of 500 year old Astec remains of 8 year old girl and boy sacrifices. The children died with their parents blessing, and the parents glorified in being chosen to sacrifice their children. There are many such remains now being brought to light and they are found to have endured terrible poisonings with fearful consequences for each tiny person. These were not passed through the fire, but left on the icy summit.
Before the “foundation of the world”, Ephesians 1:4, 5, (not creation, but the when God first thought of, and planned this world), God decided to give man on this earth free will. Then with His foreknowledge, He prepared for the provision of a Lamb, and so He determined to sacrifice His only son for the sins of the world. This was so that self willed, sinful people could recognise their sins, recognise the supremacy of God, and return to Him, and be prepared for His Kingdom.
Eventually after man inhabited this earth, God made a Code of Conduct for His people, and gave it to them at Sinai. In that code there was no requirement for men to make child sacrifice.
Under the Law, the requirement for a willing sin, was death.
However God ordained animal sacrifices to atone for the sins of ignorance. In the beginning, the sacrifice of a perfect, precious, valuable and hopefully first born animal, was the requirement of God for His people, to atone for their sins.
The perverse heathen practice of child sacrifice, at different times in history, went further than animal sacrifice. To appease their gods they took on the extra form of sacrificing their children. It also acted as a population control, a form of family limitation, safer than abortion, and a way out for families to rid themselves of the unwanted girl babies. It also served to dispose of the babies born to the temple maidens. These were children conceived during the wicked temple fertility practices. Archaeologists have no trouble in defining the temple houses of prostitution, because of the mountains of children’s bones in the graves that accompany them, mostly lying underneath the buildings, in order to save people’s sensitivities towards the murders that needed to occur.
To sacrifice a child, is to sacrifice something almost as precious as yourself, especially if it is a firstborn son. A wife is not within that state of preciousness. A wife can be replaced, a firstborn son cannot. Something of great value can therefore be given in death that is, killed, as a token of turning away the wrath of a god. It became a convenient solution for gross sin. To sin therefore was more gratifying and satisfying, than the instinct of saving alive one’s child from death.
The request from God to his faithful Abraham, cannot be considered in the category of child sacrifice. Because God was prepared to give His son for the sins of the world, He wanted Abraham to feel the same way. And Abraham did.
It was the supreme act of faith in Abraham’s life, for his faith had now matured. Now, in that matured faith, God asked Abraham to give back to Him, the gift He had given him.
1. Abraham had recognised his sins and was strengthened.
2. He had passed through the years of uncertainty about an heir, when he had none.
3. He had rejoiced in the birth of his son, Isaac, but he had sent his other son, Ishmael, away.
4. He was comforted by the news of Ishmael’s well being, so he had walked peacefully and profitably in the land of Promise, and was content.
Now God came to Abraham with a request that broke his heart. His childlessness had been a terrible burden to him, now this request from God was hardly endurable, that of the death of the God given treasure.
Matthew Henry in his commentary, establishes the argument that Abraham may have had with God, about
- The prohibition God had established about murder (remembering Cain and Abel),
- An evil report that would be generated about Abraham and his faith,
- The fatal consequences of such an example,
- The consequences for the ratified promises, which had been ratified again and again with Abraham. With the arguments answered by God, Abraham goes on in “holy wilfulness”
The request from God seemed to Abraham to be confusing, because Isaac was the fulfilment of all Abraham and God together had wanted and needed for the Divine promises to be fulfilled. Still God was the blesser of all gifts, none more than this son, Isaac, and Abraham recognised that to be a true son of God, one had to give back to God blessings in His name. He had learned well the blessings of giving tithes, or pledges, to God.
With faith and faithlessness overbalancing each other, once more, Abraham continues to argue with himself.
a. Now, it seemed, God wanted him to destroy the vehicle for the development of His promise, Hebrews 11:17-18.
b. He tried to set apart his overwhelming love for Isaac, but he could hardly set aside his faith in the future of the Promise.
c. He could not understand the thinking of God, when Isaac had a religious role to fulfil in the future, and worth as the appointed heir, and means of the blessing and salvation of the world. That could not happen if Isaac was to be extinguished.
So Abraham, with God’s help, overcame his misgivings about the sacrifice, and decided that he would give God the sign of his strong faith. He believed that God would find a way to fulfil His promises, so he began to prepare for the journey.
In the matter of telling Isaac, we might think that Abraham led him on to Moriah, desperately hoping for a more equitable way to show his faith to God. In the matter of telling Sarah, we may think that he never told her anything, and she was left to find out later, from Isaac, or the servants. Abraham had not hitherto acted wisely with Sarah, so we may be justified in thinking he did not confide in her.
Abraham would have known God would raise Isaac if the sacrifice was carried out, Hebrews 11:19. We know that he already believed in resurrection. We would hope that Isaac may have learned some of Abraham’s ideas about resurrection to help his thinking when the crisis arrived.
3. THE TRAUMA FOR ABRAHAM AND ISAAC BEGINS
This near sacrifice of Isaac, is called the “Aqedah”, by the Jews, or “the binding of Isaac”, that is, his legs, as with an animal.
The trauma must have had a lasting effect on Isaac, and certainly on his mother when she heard of it. Whether she knew of Abraham’s intention before the journey, or heard of it afterwards, it is hard to believe that, with all the other traumas in her life, she would not be affected by it. Trauma reshapes people’s lives; they become hypersensitive to seemingly innocent incidents. Isaac’s trauma, comparatively early in his life, considering he lived until he was 180 years, would have affected him for all his days, as Sarah undoubtedly was affected.
In this near sacrifice, Abraham’s heart, because he was the instrument, must have been breaking, but Isaac’s life was at stake. However, the available facts allow us to interpret that Isaac was a willing sacrifice. Certainly Abraham found a true heir in his son’s willingness to remain on the altar (for he was strong enough to overpower his father, and bolt from the situation), but he surrendered to his father and to his God, accepting the challenge. This true heir foreshadows the willing sacrifice of the later Son of God, wishing that the cup would pass, but still willing to be obedient.
Three days was the necessary journey from Beersheba, Genesis 22:3-8, to Mount Moriah (Jerusalem). Mount Moriah became the Mountain of the Lord, or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, during the Israelitish monarchy. It became the symbol of the sort of faith that God requires of his servants, and of the ultimate and most worthy sacrifice of His beloved Son. However, El Shaddai “through your love and through the ram, you saved the son of Abraham”, but we know, El Shaddai, that Your most awesome work was done for us, once and for all, through the frailty of Your Son.
Mount Moriah is now occupied by the El-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and is the third most holy place for Islam, after Mecca and Medina. According to tradition it was from here that Muhammad ascended into heaven. It is a forbidden place for the Jews, being the worshipping mosque for the Palestinians of Jerusalem. Christians and Jews are prevented from exploring the site, but a limited view of it may be had from the rail inside the Mosque. The west side of the platform includes the Wailing Wall where Jews have traditionally come to mourn the loss of their own temple, (and do so now), that previously stood on that site.
The actual location of Abraham’s Mount Moriah is in doubt, mainly because the Mount Moriah of temple fame was wooded, and they would not have had to take wood. Nobody is quite sure, but there may have been other reasons for taking wood.
Also, it is possible that God would not have allowed the actual spot to have been known for men would have made a monument on it, like Moses’ tomb and Elijah’s grave. It is suggested that God wanted the actual spot of the near sacrifice of Isaac to be kept clear so that later our Lord’s cross, that this near sacrifice so neatly represents, could be raised on the same spot. It is not inconceivable that God would use the same piece of ground.
If obscurity of the text, (where Moriah might have been), leads to misinterpretation, then that is a pity. However to link it with the Temple Mount, or with Golgotha, the experience allows us enormous interpretive points to consider. No harm is done, but God does not help us to identify the place, only the act.
Abraham did take the wood for the sacrifice, on the journey and probably gathered it from the tamarisk trees he had planted some twenty years earlier. Perhaps Abraham felt that the collection of wood at the journey’s end may have distracted him from his task, so he took the wood. When they were near the end of the journey Abraham told the servants to wait, and then went on alone, with Isaac, to the altar spot. Isaac carried the wood on his back, the last few kilometres. The resolute faith of one, and the trusting submission of the other, can be likened to God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. At Mount Moriah, Abraham repaired the altar. Jewish tradition has it as the same altar that Adam had used, and Abel and Noah as well. Whatever it was, or had been, it could be quickly built or demolished according to need.
Isaac probably only knew of his near fate as he was being bound for the sacrifice. He had earlier asked where the animal for the sacrifice was, and Abraham had answered, with a heavy heart, that God would provide it. Whatever and whenever Isaac knew, there are some hard questions to debate.
Consider:
* Did he hear Abraham say, “we will come again”, verse 5, and assume that Abraham would find a different way?
* How willing was Isaac?
* How much of the willingness was obedience to his father, rather than submission to God?
* How much had Abraham taught this son of his about God, about the conditions of faith, and about God’s blessings, about the responsibilities of accepting the blessings?
* Did the degree of willingness permanently affect Isaac’s relationship with God?
********************
Abraham’s faith was recognised by God and Abraham’s hand was stayed.
In this incident, that is, in the act of providing the sacrifice, he represented the Father.
Isaac lay down willingly, as a Lamb, on the wood that had been on his back.
In this incident, that is, in being a willing sacrifice, he became the representative of the Son.
There is no sin here, only a faithful Father and a precious Son.
In all his life, Isaac was less memorable than at this time, but with this ultimate deed of his, he needs nothing more. Isaac’s life then, like Abraham’s, was also sanctified.
We are in no danger of reading too much into the text, for that is a luxury that we are allowed. Others may wish to read more, others less, into the text.
Isaac’s earlier question of a lamb for the sacrifice, verse 7, was avoided by Abraham, who no doubt hoped his intent would be seen by God as the act of devotion to Him, and that the sacrifice of Isaac would be avoided - as indeed it was, though too late to prevent Isaac’s terrible anticipation.
From the outcome of the near sacrifice, we understand that the intention for the deed was enough for God, and there was no need for a true resurrection. The fact that the sacrifice did not happen, and that the heathens round about would not have known about God’s request of Abraham, and of Abraham’s intention to obey, reinforces the fact that there is no connection, between God’s request of Abraham, and the heathen’s dreadful practices.
Missioners note that the concept that God required the death of His son, for a sacrifice for our sins, is very difficult to teach to non Christians, who practise wife and child immolation. If the elements of bread and wine in a memorial service, are described as being the literal body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ consumed, as some do, then there is a greater difficulty, for those who practice the ungodly sacrifices, for now the body is cannibalised. Enormous understanding and wisdom are required to provide the Godly answer, but we can more readily understand the position from where they come.
The incident concludes with the sacrifice of a ram caught in a thicket. As the ram was slain, and the son, Isaac rose from the sacrifice, we may see all in one,
# The whole of the willing sacrifice for sin, and
# The resurrection from the dead of that Sinless One.
Then in Genesis 22:15-18,
Abraham’s victory of faith is rewarded with a personal blessing, and a solemn promise about his posterity.
Blessings abound, and are multiplied, and they concern blessings for his seed,
and indeed for all the nations of the earth.
They are not promises now.
There is now a contract between God and Abraham.
4. THE IMPACT ON ISAAC OF HIS NEAR SACRIFICE
It is interesting that Isaac was the son of the sacrifice, and Ishmael was the son sent into the wilderness to die. Each son was saved at the last possible moment by God’s intervention. It is a sign of remarkable parallelism with the later ritual of the priests casting lots over the fate of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Abraham is richly blessed for his faithfulness in carrying out the requests of God. Since then, the Jews, under the Law, asked for God’s forgiveness for their sins by ritually obeying His ordinance, and based their actions of the obedience of Abraham. Since the near sacrificing of both these sons has been too terrible to contemplate, there is little mention of the connection between the atonement sacrifices and the incidents of the near sacrificing of Abraham’s two sons. Perhaps we would also find it too much of a forward parallelism.
However there may be a point to be made in describing Isaac, as “Sarah bore Abraham a son in his old age”, the point being made three times, whereas the Bible describes Ishmael as “the son whom Hagar bore”, indicating a closer relationship between Abraham and Isaac, than between Abraham and Ishmael. There is a missing resonance in the two stories, for they do not parallel, or resonance against each other, they are different in emphasis, and rather contrasting, to make the point.
Isaac, from that day, must have accepted the near sacrifice, although it was traumatic for him and his father, that it would further the good of the family household towards the fulfilment of those blessings made by God upon his father Abraham. We wonder whether his understanding grew with his maturity, or whether he was an early maturer and always understood.
Comment:
Throughout history men and women often younger than Isaac have accepted the challenge of a life sacrifice, for example, in war or persecution, for the benefit of others. The Japanese midget submariners, or the Kamikaze pilots, or the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, to name a few, in our time.
********************
See end chapter note for Digression)
5. MUSLIM ISHMAEL, OR JEWISH/CHRISTIAN ISAAC - NEAR SACRIFICE?
It must be said that Muslims also have celebrated the near sacrifice story, for in their tradition it is the origin of the Feast of the Sheep, in which the victim is Abram’s son Ishmael, not Isaac, which takes away, of course, the reverence we wish to place on Isaac’s sacrifice. The story is told in THE KORAN, (L.) SURA XXXV11. - THE RANKS MECCA.- at 101, but the text itself does not identify which son Abraham is ready to sacrifice.
6. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ISAAC’S NATURE
Isaac, from now on, would have been wary of uncertain and fearful situations and would have a liking for all things secure and predictable. Isaac would have had a lack of trust in the heathen nations round about, and a great need for strong attachments, especially with his mother and father. Abraham’s noble explanation of the event would not cast out the effect. Imagine Abraham’s reaction to the deception that occurred at the end of his days with his family. Isaac, quiet, pensive, peaceful Isaac, knew about much of it, which would have been a great grief for him, considering he had been with God on the Mount, and appreciated Godly faith and wisdom and honour. His placid character is shown in the details of his life, in his obedience to Abraham, his long quiet mourning for his mother, his acceptance of his wedding preparations, his later following in the footsteps of his father, to Gerar, the say you are my sister wife denial to Abimelech, as his father did, his dealing with Abimelech and Phicol, again like Abraham, over the wells, and his renewing of oaths of obedience.
In that he was deceived, in his naivety, by his wife and son, we see his need for love and trust. He was content to be like his father Abraham, as he could within the confines of his own nature. Abraham was large in his view. It could benefit us if we could view our lives like Abraham’s large view.
We would not criticise Isaac (or his family, before or after him, either), for we know God blessed him and placed his name in the Hebrew roll call. We only wish to explore how they felt, as they reacted, or not, to the commands of God. Each of the patriarchs (and matriarchs) had a Godly heart, but was humanly flawed. If we can learn from them we may be blessed with a Godly heart as well, and be less humanly flawed.
Isaac became the wonderful type of our Lord in the sacramental episode that befell him, as Solomon became the type of our Lord in the kingly, majestic role he played. They are not like our Lord in every facet, or they would be him, but in important phases of their lives we can see a foretelling of the greater one.
Our children’s lessons are not explicit on the infamous deeds of these families - rightly so. Certainly we need maturity to assess the Godly lesson and understand the failings. The patriarchs and their families were influenced by their cultural heritage and, though not excused for transgressions, the transgressions are understood.
7. ABRAHAM AFTER SARAH’S DEATH
Whenever Genesis 22 and 23 are read aloud, the drama of it, and the pain and sadness of the events described there seem overwhelming. The stories in the two chapters about the near sacrifice of Isaac, and the death of Sarah in such juxtaposition, can leave the reader in a state of angst.
Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born, so if he was a lad at the time of the near sacrifice (Genesis 22) he was probably no more than 20 years, and Sarah was 110. She died (Genesis 23) at 127 years of age. We are fortunate to know her age, as she is the only woman in the Bible whose age is mentioned. The narrative tells us that Abraham had to journey to her place of death, and buy a plot of ground to bury her. If Isaac was 20, then there must be therefore about 17 years between the two chapters and we have no clue what happened in those years. Some think that Isaac was much older, say 33 years at the time of the near sacrifice, (linking it more readily with the death of our Lord), the Companion Bible, “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”. This would then also shorten the time between the two chapters, and the two incidents. It is a sadness that Abraham and Sarah were not together when she died. He had gone back to the family compound to Beersheba, after the faith testing incident, and we are told she died at Hebron, where there was probably another family compound. So she must have removed from the Beersheba tents at some stage, before her death, going 48 kilometres north, up in the topography, 500 meters. We wonder why Abraham and Sarah were not living together.
It may be that too much is being read into the situation, and that Abraham had been gone only a short time, on a journey of property supervision. However with the troubles and disappointments in Sarah’s life, it would be of no surprise that eventually she became tired of it all, and withdrew into a sort of depressed seclusion. Perhaps the frost of old age fell upon her, and the damp and the cold spread in her bones, and her knees would not work and her elbows pained, and her fingers swelled and she never laughed again. Perhaps then though, her dementia like seclusion prevented her from continuing to suffer from the angst, and the depression lifted and the selective memory process took over, and she remembered with great joy and happiness and contentment the little son who she bore with such love and affection and relief. (There is a comment about the culture of the ageing in “Kith and Kin”, Book 5, at the death of Jacob, which may be useful to use here as well.)
Comment:
Perhaps because people know that the future is so short, they like to fill the space with memories. With little to look forward to, we look back. There is then “a commemorating imagination” which seems to come alive, flickering at first and then breaking into light. It begins to have a life of its own, something that we are powerless to avoid. Perhaps we don’t even want to avoid it. Even in our everyday life, the heightened encounters with memoria grow, as if it happened yesterday. The regurgitated memories of people and places, and instances and circumstances, that jump into our mind’s eye, uninvited and unannounced, are the foundation of the character of the old. They come like flat pages, not necessarily connected. They are things that happened, without the dimension of the course of time, and are without pattern and meaning, until we deal with them in our minds. The images that flash into our minds which demand attention, and our efforts to deal with them, make us chew and swallow. At night when we cannot sleep properly, the flashes of errors and misfortunes and misdeeds, sprinkled with the salt of remorse, keep us endlessly awake, and together with the worries of tomorrow, force us into fitful sleep, which is little use to us. The sleep deprivation matters not too much though.
James Hillman’s recent research in “The Force of Character: A Study in the Meaning of Ageing”, leads us away from despair with what is happening, into something that is much more comforting. He thinks that a life unreviewed, or never chewed over and swallowed, is a life lost, and then there is no understanding of events of our life.
However, the patterns of life become more discernible as we age, and there is more understanding of our walk through, or review of, the failures and the successes of our lifetime experiences. When we are younger events happen, when we are older those events assume proportion and key onto the pattern that we set ourselves.
Hillman recommends that it is too difficult to extract from memories the lessons of life, before we are sixty years old. “Inflated subjectivity”, not character, has too much of a hold before then, we are too concerned with the “I”. For mature modesty, and reticence, and honesty, about the whole picture is what is necessary for character. We are “more eloquently and wisely equipped and empowered” to review our failures and successes and make conclusions, after we have reached the age of sixty. There is, then, a full litany of dates, and jobs, and trips, and illnesses, and family personages and things that made us cry, and things that made us smile. Up until then, we only enjoy a biography of empty life patterns, the timetables of life, filling up diaries and log books. That’s a reason, among others, why we call those senior years “prime time”.
“The pickling of the past”, as Hillman puts it, is what some people find so annoying and irritating in the old. Their rooms, (actual brick and mortar rooms, as well as their memory brain rooms) become “period museums”, and nothing, even endless persuasion and correcting can change them, and not even the determined moths can get at the long term memory, once it is set in concrete. It is as if comfort and warmth finds its way into the cold storage vaults of the mind.
In older age, the images become more pleasant. Arduous struggles, envious rivalries, even betrayals and the poisonous jealousy thorns that hurt us so much, come back within a new frame, and present with a new valence, and often a new context. They don’t hurt then so much. The musing about these memories may even make them amusing - and smiling and laughter after all is the best medicine. The long illness, the wrong marriage, the lost child, the soured friendship, the wrong career path, all those slings and arrows of outrage and anger and desperation and despair, lose their fire and forget their aim.
It seems that the dark and unhappy days of the past seem to lighten up and not matter so much, in our eventide recollections. Perhaps God is giving us a subtle hint that in letting go of the weights that we have been carrying, we can more easily let go, and let Him take our breath and character back to Himself, who first gave it. This is a premonition of death, as a place of rest until the call of the King to come to his Kingdom. It is as if there is a euphoric tone, something golden in these years, now coating many of our worst experiences, so that we feel that there is little left to forgive, and that, after all, we made too much of it all. At the end of the three score years and ten, in our seventies, those whom we have found most difficult to forgive, will not have their deed remembered, because in old age they do not need to be forgiven. Their deeds have simply been forgotten. May we be able to recognise that forgetting, that knack or skill of the old person’s mind, may actually be the truest form of forgiveness and a blessing for the aged.
In the chronicle of the long lived patriarchs we can assume that the ageing processes happened with the same pattern, so the relevance of the foregoing brings us an understanding of them, as well as ourselves.
********************
Perhaps in Sarah’s move to Hebron we can see that she passed through the bitterness that must have spiked her character, because of the family troubles that beset her, and she moved to a time of peace, and she did indeed remember again, the joy and happiness and contentment, as is the wont of the aged. She would remember the little son she bore with such love and affection and relief.
Abraham (sorrowing, no doubt, for the joys as well as the disappointments) grieved at Sarah’s death for the normal period, and then married Keturah, (or had already married Keturah), and acquired other concubines and produced an entirely different and large family, including at least six more sons. He later sent them away from Canaan with gifts, probably cattle, to set up their own flocks, and they became the Midianites. So Isaac was his only heir, in Canaan.
Comment:
# Ellicott states: “It is probable that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah’s death, but we can not be sure”. Abraham had a large family with Keturah, so whether that influences our opinion of “when”, we must decide.
# The NIV Study Bible comments that “took” can be “has taken”.
# Keturah was an ancestor of Moses’ father in law, Jethro.
# The Jews feel
- Hagar and Keturah (both Egyptian) are one and the same,
- That Genesis 22 and 23 follow on immediately, and
- That Sarah died over the trauma of the near sacrifice.
********************
Consider:
* Why did Abraham marry Keturah “outside”, when he was anxious that Isaac marry “inside” the faith?
* Or was Keturah one of the righteous of Melchizedek’s Salem?
(A clue might be her relationship to the later Midianite, but priestly Jethro, Exodus 3:1).
* Did Abraham’s marriage to Keturah cause Isaac more angst, that after all, his mother was not so cherished?
********************
Later Rebekah recognised the same difficulties, when she preferred Jacob to go to Haran to the family for a wife, rather than marrying “out” amongst the unbelievers as Esau had done.
8. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ABRAHAM AND SARAH AND ISAAC
Because of the near sacrifice incident and Isaac’s need for security, Sarah and Isaac must have had a special relationship. He was her miracle baby, promised by God. Sarah eschewed her cultural identity by producing Isaac, albeit at the age of 90 years, almost too late, and he was her one and only chance at motherhood. She needed him, and he also felt that bond. He needed her, as well as he needed his father’s reassurance.
We are told that Isaac, 37 years old when his mother died, three years later, at 40 years old, married Rebekah, but was still grieving, (Genesis 24:67).
Consider:
* Did this strong mother and son relationship have an effect on Isaac’s marriage and cause the emotional turmoil in his later life?
* Were her life traumas too much for Sarah to bear?
* Did she separate from Abraham in those long years?
* Is this the reason they were not together when she died?
* Were there so many family compounds, because of Abraham’s wealth that he was, of necessity, often away from home?
* Or - did Abraham place Sarah carefully in the most comfortable place so that her dimensional end would occur with peace?
Certainly depression, fear, self guilt, lack of faith, confusion over the promises, despair, dishonouring and degrading herself, and negating her wifely position, had all had a part in her pre Isaac days. Her post Isaac record portrays her as a woman of certitude and power.
* Is this a reasonable assumption about Sarah and her character?
* How much was she able to change?
* Did Abraham support her in her anxious state, or did he find it all too much?
* And what of Isaac’s trauma, was Abraham supportive of that, explaining his and God’s position?
A discussion cannot bring any conclusions, and we are each able to make up our own minds, with a conclusion or not. To think about it enhances our understanding of this wondrous family, and helps us understand our own families as well.
********************
(A tiny snippet of history of Abraham’s brother, Nahor, is slotted in here, after the repeated multitude descendants promise is repeated, Genesis 22:20-24. It introduces us again to the family back in Haran, - ready for the soon to be told story of a wife for Isaac.)
9. ABRAHAM ACQUIRES SOME LAND FOR SARAH’S BURIAL
It follows, in the narrative, then, in, Genesis 23, an account of Sarah’s death and the coming of Abraham to bury her. He bought a field, on which is a cave, in Hebron. It is thought that this field could have been the field of Mamre, Genesis 13:18, and 14:13. It is a Jewish legend that Abraham was divinely guided to this burial place field, as Adam and Eve were buried there.
It was a field owned by the Amorite, Mamre and his brothers. Now it belongs to the Hittites, who are happy, and gracious enough, to sell it to Abraham. The field, with the cave, then became a patriarchal burial site, and because of this, over its long history, a place of pilgrimage and investigation, and a place of reverence for Jews, Christians and Muslims. It began as a sacred site for Jews and then had variously churches or mosques erected over it, as Muslims and Crusaders, laid claim to it. It has a mosque there now. The Jews and Arabs used to live side by side in Hebron, apparently in harmony, but that seems no longer possible. There is reported to be a monument to Adam in it. There was a recent exploration of it in 1967, by the lowering of a twelve year old child through the twelve inch cavity, with a torch and measuring and recording devices, which yielded no further information, other than that which had been gathered over the previous millennia.
The necessary purchase, by Abraham, of a plot of ground for the burial of Sarah, from the Hittites, was a generous gesture, on their part. Abraham would have probably paid with silver trinkets and jewellery, that is bracelets, and rings, measured and weighed out on a pair of scales. Gold was of less value then. There is a section later in the text of Jacob and his sons, at Hebron, where trading and currency is extensively dealt with.
The cave was really a rock sepulchre, as the land there is, and has served the family from then until this day. It may, or may not, have needed some hollowing out then, but certainly, as more coffins came to be buried there, digging out must have taken place.
The Hittites offered their own sepulchres as gifts, but for obvious reasons Abraham wanted his own. Other nations burned their dead. To have been able to keep the sepulchre for so long indicates,
1. How the Hittites viewed the integrity and importance of Abraham,
2. The binding nature of the purchase document, known now as a “dialogue document”,
3. The Providential care of God for this special family, even in their death.
The importance of that site, even today, is noted, for the Arabs recognise Abraham as a great prophet. In commemoration of Abraham’s hospitality, as recorded in Genesis 18, it became a place where pilgrims were treated hospitably.
If Ephron, the Hittite, had allowed Abraham to buy only the cave, according to the prevailing law, Ephron would still have been responsible for the rest of the field, and this may have caused some conflict. So Ephron opted for selling the whole field, with the cave, and Abraham is happy to oblige. This cave of Machpelah became a valuable focus for God’s wandering people. They had no other settled development. They owned two pieces of ground, the Shechem plot and the cave plot, but Abraham had not inherited any of the Promised Land.
In this cave, Machpelah, Abraham buries Sarah, and Isaac mourns his mother, and sets out to build his flocks and herds. But he is alone and from that position cannot extend the family blessings. It is three years before Abraham acts to remedy this situation, and in that time we only know that Isaac built up his herds.
Three things distinguish Abraham.
a. Obedience to God. “He went out not knowing where he was going”, Hebrews 11:8.
b. Trust in God. He lived in tents outside the cities depending entirely on God for his safety.
c. Willingness to believe in God’s future purpose. He was laid to rest in Machpelah with his eyes still looking for the fulfilment.
His faith hesitated on several occasions and each time he was in danger of swimming in the normal stream of life. But he raised himself to greater heights, and God forgave him.
The families of Abraham and Isaac demonstrate many inappropriate relationships, and terrible crises and dysfunctions, that creep like cancer through families and infect the personnel involved. However, God continued to use them. He did not abandon them on that account. The dysfunction happened around, and in spite of, the high points of God’s specific interventions in their lives. We can take great heart in that - that is, in the mercy of God.
CONCLUSION:
The cycle of pain that some families experience does not discredit them from God’s love. Rather, if the families work through the pain, without denying it, acknowledging it, accepting it, talking about it, solving the difficulties, the pain will be less, and the solution can be arrived at, and the future looks less dim. We can step out, outside the pain, understand the pain, and instead of repeating the same mistakes that we so desperately wish to avoid, we can choose a different journey and learn to live the present differently. For by God’s grace, great things are accomplished, if only we will ask.
Digression:
MODERN ALLUSIONS TO THE NEAR SACRIFICE OF ISAAC
“Then Abraham bound the youth with belts and straps
And builded parapets and trenches there
And stretched forth his knife to slay his son
When lo! An angel called him out of heaven
Saying, lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in the thicket by its horns;
Offer the ram of Pride instead of him.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son
And half the seed of Europe, one by one”.
Wilfred Owen’s allegorical retelling and redirecting the Bible story of Abraham and Isaac in “The Parable of the Old Man and the Young” describes the human reaction to pride, with the destruction of countless young men in the 1914-1918 World War - “the war to end all wars”.
The soldiers are likened to Isaac, and those responsible for the war (and its mismanagement) were likened to an Abraham who would not listen to God’s instruction and restraining hand, a disobedient Abraham.
Owen’s poem reaches a dramatic and poignantly different conclusion to our Bible story. It illustrates the pride of man, (not a faithful Abraham), willing to sacrifice a whole generation of young men to ill founded and ill advised, careless and destructive decisions. Owen himself, died on the Somme battle field the week before the war ended. He said, “My subject is War, and the pity of War”, declaring that “the Poetry is in the pity”, meaning that a poet can warn in his poetry.
A. D. Hope later penned similar objections to the pride of man, not faithful men, with the words “Go tell those old men safe in their beds”, that we “took their orders and are dead”.
It is interesting to see the use of God’s stories used to denigrate human folly by sliding from one picture to another, and the stories separated by millenniums. The opposite conclusion makes the terrible point of the uselessness of sacrifice required of others, that is, by foolish men, who live without a Godly context. Abraham’s command from God makes the difference. Other men, all believers in God, ordering war, hide behind a Crusader, Christian, Jewish or Muslim context, and decide themselves when it is time to make war, or peace. It is interesting to note that 2% of men can kill other men at close range without concern, but 98% of men have to be actually taught to do such a thing, and one of the great worries that commandeers in war have, is how long this learned skill can be maintained.
In 1963, Bob Dylan, using direct Biblical references, composed a long and angry song about those same prideful men of war, who “fasten the triggers for the others to fire” and “then you sit back and watch” (with pride) as the “death count” gets higher and higher.
And so the poets have reduced the glories of war to folly, and conscientious objectors bask for now, in the general tenor of peace, not war.
SOURCES - BOOK ONE
Introduction
1. Speaker’s - “Commentary”, Bishops and Clergy of the Anglican Church, John Murray, London, 1887.
2. Ellicott, Charles John - “Commentary”, Cassell and Company, London, 1884.
3. Breasted - “Ancient History”, Scribner’s son, Chicago, USA, 1906-7.
4. Rollin, M - “Ancient History”, translated from the French, Thomas Nelson, Edinburgh, 1817.
5. Wycliffe Mission Magazine, information from “Wycliffe Mission for the New Millennium”, Australia, 1998.
6. Bennett, Mary and Wallis, Ethel - “Two Thousand Tongues to Go”, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1960, copyright.
Background
1. Time-Life History of the World 3000-1500 BC - “The Age of the God Kings”, Time-Life Books, Amsterdam, 1987, ISBN 070540970 8, referred to as “Time-Life History”.
2. “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, Sumer, 3rd Millennium BC, Penguin, London, UK, translated by N. K. Sanders, 1960, copyright.
3. Bible Archaeology Review Magazine - “Insight”, Red Oak, IA, USA, November/December 1998, ISSN 0098 9444.
4. The Australian Christadelphian Shield Magazine, A. P. - “New Chapter in Writing History”, Adelaide, February 1999, (summarising research of Doctor Gunter Dreyer).
5. Ellicott, John Charles - “Commentary”, op cit.
6. Speaker’s - “Commentary”, op cit.
7. Oddie, Catherine - “Enkop Ai, My life with the Maasai”, Simon and Schuster, Sydney, 1994, ISBN 0 7318 0420 1.
8. Arthur, Denis, compiler - “Contemporary Age Reference Chart of Early Biblical Characters”, Brisbane, Australia, 1989, used with permission.
9. NIV Study Bible, Scripture taken form the Holy Bible, New International Version, Copyright, 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zonderman Bible Publishers, Michigan, 49506, USA - Nuzi and Mari Tablets - “Ancient Texts Relating to the Old Testament”.
10. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Millard, A. R. - “Abraham”, Editor in Chief - David Noel Freedman, Double Day, New York, 1992, Volume 1, ISBN 0 385 19351 3.
11. Thomas, John - “Chronikon Hebraikon - Chronology of the Scriptures”, together with “Distribution of the World’s Races”, “Repeopling of the Earth and the four Universal Empires”, Birmingham, UK, compiled 1865.
12. Bauer, Florence - “Abraham, Son of Terah”, Dymock’s, London, 1948, copyright.
Section 1 : Abram - Chosen By God
Chapter 1
1. Companion Bible - “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”, Lamp Press, London, n. d.
2. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Kobayashi, Yoshitaka - “Terah”, op cit.
3. Ellison, H. L. - “Fathers of the Covenant”, Paternoster Press, Exeter UK, 1978, ISBN 0 85364 220 6.
Chapter 2
1. Reader’s Digest, principal editor, Wright, G. Ernest - “Great People of the Bible and How They Lived”, John Sands, Australia, 1974, Copyright, Library of Congress Card Number 73-86027.
Chapter 3
1. Henry, Matthew - “Commentary”, William Collins, London, n. d.
2. Bauer, Florence - “Abraham, Son of Terah”, op cit.
3. Albright, W. F. - “The Biblical Period, from Abraham to Ezra”, Harper and Row, London, 1949.
4. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Spinna, Frank Antony - “Abraham’s Migration”, op cit.
5. Speaker’s - “Commentary”, op cit.
6. Ellicott, Charles John - “Commentary”, op cit.
7. Hawthorne, Steven - “Perspectives on the World Christian Movement”, “The Story of His Glory”, Paternoster Press, Carlisle, UK, 1992, ISBN 0 85364 539 6.
8. Companion Bible - “Verse Comment”, op cit.
9. Hummel, Charles and Anne - “Genesis”, Lifeguard Series, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, USA, 1973, ISBN 0 8308 1022 6.
Chapter 4
1. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Yee, Gale A. - “Sarah”, op cit.
2. NIV Study Bible - “Ancient Texts Relating to the Old Testament”, op cit.
3. Koran, translated in 1734, from the original by G. Sale, Everyman’s Library, G. M. Dent and Company, London, 1909.
Chapter 5
1. Christadelphian Magazine - “My Islamic Neighbour”, Birmingham, UK, April to September 1982.
2. Koran, translated in 1734, from the original by Sale, G., Everyman’s Library, G. M. Dent and Company, London, UK, 1909.
The following sources in this section, are unmentioned references only -
3. The Bulletin - “Islam Tries to Shake the Past”, November 1983.
4. Ita Magazine - "Islam”, Sydney, December 1989.
5. Time Magazine - “All Ye Faithful”, Rockefeller Centre, New York, USA, November 1991.
6. Sydney Morning Herald, Newspaper, Editor/Ethnic Affairs, Peter White - “Behind the Veil” 1992.
7. Sydney Morning Herald, Newspaper, Peter Hillmore - “India’s Child Brides for Sale”, 1992.
8. Radio Interview - “Imam - Lakemba Mosque”, NSW, 1989.
9. T.V. program ABC - “A visit to Mecca”.
10. T.V. program ABC - “Conversion of Cat Stevens”.
11. Author’s Personal Interview with Chafic, Wafa - “Muslim Women’s Issues”, Australian Islamic Council, 1987.
12. Author’s Personal Interview with Cosha, Ishil - Muslim Women’s Association - Lakemba Mosque, NSW, 1987.
13. Clark, Manning, Australian Historian and Commentator, 1987.
14. Interview with spokesperson, Australian Islamic Council, 1987.
15. Walker, Alice - “Sharing the Pain”, selected essay, unpublished, 1991.
16. Saadawi, Nawal el - “Arabian Rights”, included in a reader of Selected Essays, Zed Books London, UK. 1997, ISBN 1 85649 513 2.
17. Keneally, Thomas, “Towards Asmara”, Global Books in Print, London, UK, 989, ISBN 0 340 41517 7.
18. Mahmoudy, Betty - “Not Without My Daughter” 1987, ISBN 0 552 13356 6.
19. Author’s own experiences and discussions, teaching for 16 years until 1991, in a N.S.W. departmental school, with a large Arabic/Muslim population.
Section 2 : Abraham - Friend of God
Chapter 2
1. NIV Study Bible, “Verse Comment”, op cit.
2. Christadelphian Tidings Magazine, Levin, David - “Abraham”, Canton, M. USA, October 1998.
3. Companion Bible, “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”, op cit.
4. Hope A. D. - “Lot and His Daughters 1 and 2”, 1950.
5. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Spina, Frank Anthony - “Lot”, op cit.
Chapter 3
1. Ellicott, Charles John - “Commentary”, op cit.
2. Bible Review Magazine, “Insight”, John Kirsh, October 1998, February 1999, Red Oak, IA, USA, ISSN 877555 6316.
3. NIV Study Bible, “Ancient Texts Relating to the Old Testament”, op cit.
4. Companion Bible, “Verse Comment”, op cit.
5. Suyin, Han - “The Mountain is Young” Jonathan Cape, London, 1958, Copyright.
Chapter 4
1. Henry, Matthew - “Commentary”, op cit.
2. Koran, op cit.
3. Companion Bible - “Verse Comment”, op cit.
4. Hillman, James - “The Force of Character, A Study on the Meaning of Ageism”, Random House, Sydney, 1999, as yet unpublished,
5. Ellicott, Charles, John - “Commentary”, op cit.
6. Owen, Wilfred, - “The Parable of the Old Man and the Young”, 1918.
7. Hope, A. D. - Australian twentieth century poet, born 1907.
8. Dylan, Bob - “Masters Of War”, 1963, Copyright, Special Rider Music.
9. Ellicott, Charles John - “Commentary”, op cit.
10. NIV Study Bible, “Verse Comment”, op cit.
