Section 1 - Abraham begins his Journey
***************************************************************************
CHAPTER 1 - A CYCLE OF PAIN BEGINS
CHAPTER 2 - ABRAM ENTERS THE LAND
CHAPTER 3 - ABRAM AND LOT SOLVE SOME PROBLEMS
CHAPTER 4 - IMPATIENCE OVER THE PROMISED HEIR
CHAPTER 5 - HAGAR AND ISHMAEL AND ABRAHAM AND SARAH AND ISAAC
***************************************************************************
CHAPTER 1
A CYCLE OF PAIN BEGINS
“And Terah took Abram took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran… and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees ... unto Haran, and dwelt there”, Genesis 11:31.
FOCUS:
In this chapter we see Abram rewarded for his faithfulness, as he travels from Ur to Haran with his father Terah. The intent of the discussion here, is to highlight Abram’s growing friendship with God, Genesis 11:31-32.
1. ABRAM OBEYS GOD’S COMMAND, SO THERE ARE PROMISED REWARDS
Using the Companion Bible, “Chronological Chart, Appendix 50”, it was in 1946 BC, when Abram first heard the call from God, in Ur, when he was 50 years old, and Sarai was 40. Other notable scholars place the event earlier in the 1900s. It may be disconcerting to know that The Septuagint, the oldest translation of the Old Testament, from about the 2nd Century BC, (nobody is quite sure “when”), does not mention Ur, but it has been included in later texts and, of course, “Mesopotamia”, “The land of the Chaldeans” is mentioned in the New Testament, Acts 7:2 and 4, when Stephen describes Abram’s journey before “Charran”. The present day Kurds claim to be the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia, who unlike the Israelites, have never been given a home by the United Nations Commission. They are now a troubled and homeless race, asking for justice.
Abram, back then, took their library books, and all their documents, and went with his father and his nephew Lot, and all their cattle, and sheep, and donkeys, and goods, to Haran in the land of Canaan, 1,600 kilometres away, and dwelt there. This is the first of a number of journeys of the people of God. God chose a portable people who moved about thus spreading His message. The family firm that developed from Abraham’s good farming techniques, Shepherds, Sheep and Sheep Products, was ideal for this spread of the good news of the kingdom and glory of God, and the advantage of the travelling salesmen, is obvious.
Just previously there were turbulent Amorite incursions all over the Fertile Crescent, from the northern fringes into the weakening Mesopotamian cities, until nearly every important city was ruled by the Amorites. Disorder soon turned more orderly, and peaceful migrations then occurred, including, among many others, Abram and his family.
From then on Abram and Sarai were encouraged by God with regular communications throughout their lives that their lives were on course. The promise to Abram was sevenfold.
1. “I will make you a great nation”
2. “I will bless you”
3. “I will make your name great”
4. “You will be a blessing”
5. “I will bless those who bless you”
6. “Whoever curses you I will curse”
7. “All peoples on earth will be blessed through you”
These promises, or parts thereof, were repeated and repeated over the lives of the three patriarchs, inclusively five times, and through Joseph were initially fulfilled, and later were repeated to Moses in Exodus 3, 6-8, and 6:2-8. They are referred to 55 times in one sense or another in the rest of the Old Testament. They contain the blessings of holiness that show forth His name. They are a very important part, at least it should be said, the most important part, of the whole Bible. They contain the very essence of the mission mandate of Abram to be a blessing to all nations. The evidence of the success of Abram’s commission is seen in the large number of books of the Bible which are written either to, or about, or by Gentiles. The finale is contained in the genealogy of the one come to save, and through whom all these blessings would flow, for of the five women mentioned only his own mother is from the ethnic stock of Abram, Matthew 1.
2. ABRAM MOVES FROM UR TO HARAN
Abram’s family had been used to renting from the Sumerians, being semi nomadic, so they may have rented grazing land from the Mesopotamians for the price of an animal or two, as they travelled up the Euphrates River, to Haran. In Haran they saw the beehive shaped huts of the Amorites, not so civilised as Ur, and pitched their black goat skin tents outside the city. They had carried with them clothes and blankets, and food, and utensils and tradeable goods, as well as all their agricultural and livestock gear.
A Jewish children’s song, “A wandering Aramean was my father” endorses that known about Abram, who was not a Sumerian, Deuteronomy 26:5, NIV. It is suggested that their ancestors were either Aramean nomadic people, or a nomadic people who came to live in an Aramean environment in the Haran district from Ur, and therefore became associated with them. Terah and his family genealogically belonged to the Hebrew peoples who are the descendants of Eber in Genesis 10:21, 25, but they had close associations with Arameans before, or after coming to Aram-naharaim, or the “Aram of two rivers”, or Mesopotamia. Terah and his family settled there for a long time, so that Abram could have called the Haran region “my country”, Genesis 24:4, is the opinion of Yoshitaka Kobayashi, in “Terah”, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Both Ur and Haran were centres of celestial being, moon worship, which may be the reason that the journey halted at Haran, where Terah would feel an affinity of worship. Haran, was a great trading city, and was a frontier still, at the extremity of the much later Babylonian empire. It was a prosperous Amorite town and serviced trade caravans. Haran and Mari, which city was on the Euphrates River, were their capital cities. Babylon was further south east along the river, and then Ur. All three important cities were spaced along the river North West to South East and accessible by water from the Persian Gulf.
(See end chapter note for Digression)
Later, on leaving Haran, Abram and his family were left to more fully pursue the hitherto awakened interest in YHWH. The emotional ties that bound them into Haran were broken and Abram took his courage and his substance and moved west, before turning south.
Consider:
* Why did Abram halt with his father’s family at Haran, when the command had been more specific?
* Or was there an unrecorded direction from God to stay there, for a time, so that the family could consolidate to be the wife resource for the future generations, (that is, to strengthen the God blessed, family line)?
This family line was not of great importance to God, for He has often broken that expectation. Still it was important to Abram.
* How much were Abram’s beliefs and worship compromised in Haran?
* Does Joshua 24:2 still apply at this time in Haran?
* We know of Rachel’s gods at this same Haran, later in this story, so was worship here an eclectic affair?
When Abraham did leave Haran, he took Lot with him
* Should Lot have been part of the father’s house left behind?
* Did fatherless Lot fulfil a role for this childless couple since Ur, and in Haran, and that is their compunction for taking him into Canaan?
* Or did they take Lot because he just happened to be there, and was a relative?
********************
The question of Lot accompanying Abram is more fully addressed further in the text, when Lot’s life and influence deteriorate.
3. ABRAM MOVES FROM HARAN INTO CANAAN
It was from Haran, twenty five years later, after Terah’s death, that eventually Abram did remove from his father’s house to go to a land that He would show him, for Genesis 12 begins with what the Lord God had told Abram, (and from Stephen in Acts 7, we know that God had asked him to move when he was in Ur). There is the promise in Genesis 12;7, that Abram will become a great nation, and from now on, we see the emergence of that nation Israel, with the family saga of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph. Meantime we leave Abram in Haran, with his father Terah.
CONCLUSION:
Abram has come a long way from Ur to Haran, but at Terah’s death he and his wife, Sarai, leave the family compound, with his nephew Lot. Abram then begins a great journey of faith into Canaan, with God as his guide.
Digression:
It may be interesting to relate a fabrication of the Jews about Abram. H. L. Ellison, in “Fathers of the Covenant”, page 44, draws our attention to a “lovingly embroidered story” from the Talmud. One day, in Ur, when the young Abram was left minding his father’s idol shop in the city, (for Terah not only worshipped idols, he sold them as well), Abram who had, for some time, been dissatisfied with the worship of the night lights that faded during the day, took a hammer and smashed pieces off the idols. When his horrified father discovered the damage, Abram retorted that the idols had argued so much that the largest (in whose arms Abram had placed the hammer) had used the tool to quell the arguments. When his father angrily told him, “But there is no life or power in them to do such a thing”, Abram then retorted, “Why then do you serve them? Can they hear your prayers, when you call on them?”
We can readily see the Jews using such attractive, but fabled, non authentic arguments, to confound their polytheistic and pagan neighbours.
CHAPTER 2
ABRAM ENTERS THE LAND
“Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from they father’s house, unto a land that I will show you”, Genesis 12:1.
FOCUS:
Abram and Sarai and Lot, under God’s guidance, move right through the land of Canaan and south west into Egypt, for they are unsafe and insecure. Sarai is put at a disadvantage by Abram, but God is there later, when Abram calls on Him, and Abram learns to trust again, Genesis 12:1 to 13:4.
Abram, who is at the beginning of a long journey, went further south from Haran, with his family, to the land of Canaan, then further south into Egypt, before returning again to Canaan, Genesis 12-16. Since, from childhood, Abram had been taught that the Canaanites were their enemies, (because Noah had cursed Canaan, Genesis 9:25), travel in their land may have been an anxious time for him at first. These settled tribes, as did the Egyptians later on, welcomed the nomadic herds to graze on the short lived herbage, for they ate the stubble after the harvest and so provided the manure to enrich the bare fields ready for the next harvest. There were certain regulations and strictures, but in all it was an acceptable and mutually beneficial practice.
1. ABRAM ARRIVES IN SHECHEM, THE PLACE OF DECISION
Abram probably went to Damascus on his way into Canaan, where he may have purchased Eliezer, his trusted servant. Eliezer became insurance for the progeny promise, (as Lot may have been), as Sarai remained childless, and Abram actually offered him to God as his heir. God refused, as He did a later offer by Abram, of his son Ishmael, by a bondwoman.
Damascus is an amply watered location that made it the main caravan outfitter’s city on the trail from Haran to Canaan. In The Reader’s Digest, “Great People of the Bible”, page 37, we read about the later Assyrians who called Damascus “the city of asses”, with the flowering fields there, and the refreshing and rushing streams, and the productive farms that they cultivated. It was an exciting centre of trade and commerce, news and novelty. Dozens of different tribes and nations jostled one another every day, bartering goods and services. The large Damascan donkeys were everywhere. Heavy shouldered and coloured dark brown, these intelligent beasts were hired out, and were the essential component of every caravan.
Abram probably left Damascus in a large donkey caravan which regularly left the city and travelled on the trade routes. One caravan might include up to 3,000 donkeys, but 300 to 500 were more common, with large numbers of people and goods for trade.
Abram and his family and animals would have made up a large proportion of the caravan. The women would have travelled in cylinder type tents on the camels. These saddle tents collapsed sideways, from which the veiled and shawled ladies found it easy to dismount. There was no river here, except for the Jordan Valley, but jealously guarded springs and wells, the use of which had to be delicately negotiated. Abram would have learned from the caravan leaders the art of watering so many people and cattle, as we know he later sustained his and Lot’s family and all their herds. He also became proficient in digging wells, the purchase of wells and the general negotiation for water rights.
It was easily possible to travel 24 kilometres per day, in caravan fashion and the settled Amorites kept themselves aware of the movements of all the migrating peoples by sending fire signal messages at night, though they tolerated these wandering cousins, Abram and his family, for they caused no trouble. “Hebrew” over the centuries came to mean “wanderer”, “serf” or “people with less than full citizenship”, or “the man from the other side”.
Several days after Damascus, they arrived at the frontier of the land of Canaan, “the land of the purple, the Promised Land”, and Abram then realised that this was the land to which he had been directed.
Then this family of God, led by the “friend” of God (Isaiah 41:8) came to Shechem. Shechem figures prominently in our story, and proved to be a place of decision for Israel at crucial times of their development over the centuries. It was a place of shame and destruction and figured largely in the dysfunction that dogged this family over the next three centuries. It is mentioned, because the Semites, who followed the Sumerians, (as we know from Egyptian records), had been recently banished from the land by the Canaanites. It was a Baal worshipping Canaanitish place, and lays in the pass between two mountains, at the crossroads of central Palestine, Genesis 12:6. Dothan and Bethel were other favourite cities, under whose walls Abram and his family sheltered.
“Great People of the Bible”, page 29, gives us a good potted history of the time, and tells of a contemporary Egyptian story, of a youth who fled to Canaan at that time. He said, that it was a good land, and figs were grown in it, and grapes. He said that it had more wine than water, with plentiful honey and abundant olives. Every kind of fruit grew on its trees and everyone enjoyed the pickings. There was no limit to any kind of cattle, and bread was made for him as daily fare. Wine also was a daily provision, with cooked meat and roasted fowl.
God “appeared” and spoke to Abram again, in the plain (or oak) of Moreh, near Shechem, and restated the promises, and so Abram built an altar there to God, and called on His name. This is the first public worship of God by Abram, according to how it was revealed to him. Now we can say an on going mission to the world of the message of life that God offered, has now been established again, after Noah’s “vain” mission, when he earnestly preached salvation from sin. And this is the first time an appearance is spoken of.
We need to consider this appearance to Abram, whether it was an angel, and whether this was Abram’s own special angel, that had guided him, and would continue to guide him throughout his life. It may be that this begins the education of men for an earthly appearance of God’s representative, that is, His son, much later in history. It certainly does imply that Abram is now worthy of God’s manifestation to him, as the later prophets were.
2. ABRAM GOES TO BETHEL - THE PLACE OF GOD’S BLESSINGS
Next, Abram and his family moved further south, a day’s journey, and pitched their tents on a mountain near Bethel. Being nomadic, and running short of food and water, the large family moved further south again, but as the prevailing famine began to affect them, they eventually moved into Egypt.
Abram must have been very fearful of going into Egypt, for he would have been a match for the thinly scattered and long hated Canaanites, especially now, for his confidence in Canaan was rewarded with an easy and prosperous nomadic life, but he thought he would not be a match for the mighty and powerful Egyptians. Still necessity made him proceed, Genesis 12:14.
3. ABRAM GOES TO EGYPT FOR RELIEF FROM THE DROUGHT
It is here that Abram’s faith wavers, and he asks his “beautiful” wife, Sarai to masquerade as his sister to save his life, because the Egyptians are sure “to kill me, but they will save thee alive”, Genesis 12:12.
It seems that Abram might have arranged this ploy with Sarai at the time of leaving Haran, Genesis 20:13. Perhaps it was a widely used custom amongst this family. When the response is the same for the same problem, at later incidents, we would call the devaluation of women endemic. We may be tempted to give the patriarchs excuses for this sinful practice, but this hardly seems a wise response to a problem. It did not cause the patriarchs themselves lasting hurts or consequences, but it doubled the fear for their wives, and it almost caused them to commit adultery, for they could not resist such powerful men, in such circumstances, when they were given strictly for the purpose of concubinage. As well, it was the cause of slander upon God’s people. It was promised that slander would be a consequence of David’s sin, and so it was for Abram/Abraham and Isaac. It was a distinct retraction from the “they shall be one flesh” ideal.
It is a distinct lie, not even worthy of an equivocation about her being a relative. In a position of danger, or just to make a questioner happy, some will lie readily. Truthfulness is an heroic virtue, and from the martyrs, who died in the name of God, and his son the Lord Jesus Christ, and for those who believed that we should have a printing of His Word, we have learned a greater lesson. The lie is not the only sin, for Abram would have known of the “one flesh” ideal of the creation of Adam and Eve. Even though multiplication of wives was an acceptable custom, multiplication of husbands was not. Passing on wives as concubines was unacceptable. If Sarai was as fearful in Egypt as Abram clearly was, this solution would double her fear.
The Egyptian Pharaoh took the advice of his princes, who were always on the lookout for beautiful concubines for their king, and bought Sarai from Abram, for a good price. Sheep, oxen, he asses, she asses, camels, menservants and maidservants. Sarai was considered a valuable acquisition, and Pharaoh believed that he was acting lawfully. She was of a different race, and even though she was middle aged, she would have been beautiful and unique to the Egyptians. But it was God who saved the situation and sent a plague into the palace, which led Pharaoh to question the integrity of the purchased goods.
There was most likely a time of purification for concubines in this period of Egyptian history, and so we assume that God probably used this time to keep Sarai safe from Pharaoh.
Amazingly, Pharaoh did not punish Abram for his deceit, (and God does not comment on it in the record), but the king commanded his men to give Sarai back to Abram, and help the family remove north again. We can only assume that God’s hand in the solving of this problem was known to Pharaoh as well.
So the lying sin, caused
- Double fear for Sarah
- The expectation of adultery, with continuing concubinage
- And a multiplying of husbands, which she knew was sinful.
Also there was now
- The fear that she could be sold on to someone else.
The cause for slander on God’s people was enormous with this incident, and we think of Ishmael’s later taunt of Isaac, “mocking” probably about the identity of his father, Genesis 21:9.
Consider:
* What sort of a plague settled into the palace?
* Who told Pharaoh the solution to the plague problem, his priests, (for it would be reasonably easy for soothsayers to work out)?
* Or did Sarai confess under interrogation?
* Or did he act graciously, without knowing why he did so?
* What happened to the purchase price?
* Did Pharaoh’s purchase price for Sarai, help to make Abram rich?
* If so, did Abram, later, use the lesson from this unwise situation, not allowing a king “to make him rich”, Genesis 14:23?
Besides the virtuous Egyptians, (on this matter), there are two large family groups who knew about this folly. There is the family of Abram and Sarai, and the family of Lot, each family now influenced by the evil, or at least, the appearance of evil, depending on how much information was available.
* What could the supervising Eliezer do in his teaching to mitigate the circumstances?
* What attitudes were taken by Abram and Sarai within the migrating caravan to ensure this dysfunction would not be normalised?
* What steps would be taken to uphold the dignity of the elders?
********************
4. ABRAM RETURNS TO BETHEL AGAIN
The families returned to Bethel, Genesis 13:2, and Abram, still with Lot and his family, “was very rich in cattle and silver and gold”.
There, in Bethel, Abram was pleased to call on the name of the Lord God again, for it was now a sacred place. We are not told any details of this act of worship. Perhaps it was the beginning of the acknowledgment of sin and the seeking of forgiveness.
CONCLUSION:
God led Abram and Sarai and Lot a long distance in their quest for a place of safety and security, and during that journey there had been some dysfunctional behaviour, disadvantageous for Sarai. Our chapter concludes with Abram calling upon the Lord God in Bethel. The lesson for us is that God will forgive dysfunction if we are seen to try to repair it, and if we affirm that we will work towards well function.
CHAPTER 3
ABRAM AND LOT SOLVE SOME PROBLEMS
“And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwelt together”, Genesis 13:6.
FOCUS:
Abram and Lot have so much substance between them that a solution needs to be found to manage the great herds, but Abram finds that there are other blessings, Genesis 13:5 to 15:21.
1. ABRAM AND LOT HAVE FAMILY PROBLEMS TO SOLVE
Lot’s flocks and herds and tents became too much to manage in the one big Abram entourage, and with so many people, and so much cattle, the land could not sustain them all. Remember there had been a drought and dearth, providing an environmental problem for Abram to solve. This caused strife among the herdsmen, and so the family leader and patriarch, Abram, advised the separation between the two families, Lot did not. Probably the situation had been untenable and ready to explode for some considerable time. As the two families began to be irritated by it, Abram generously acted, Genesis 13:7.
2. LOT SEPARATES TO SODOM
When Lot had the first choice of which way to go, he chose the plain of Jordan, the well watered riverside, truly a Garden of Eden, and good for his herds. But of course strife, in the form of temptation, was there as well, in the city of Sodom. Once more a choice was made, perhaps unknowingly - sin or righteousness. It is so often in the most attractive of circumstances that sin lurks, hidden in the shrubbery. And it was so for Lot. There is more about Sodom later in this story, in Genesis 19, when the demise of Lot’s family is recorded.
Abram gave Lot first choice, not so much on the basis of pious generosity which has the negative effect of emphasising Lot’s greed, but because of his strong belief in the promise of the land. Rather, Abram was thinking of Lot’s proleptic inheritance of the land, an assumption that he would inherit the land at his uncle’s death, with Abram still misunderstanding God’s plan for the land inheritance by a son.
Perhaps Lot was too inexperienced to understand the risk in going to live near the evils of Sodom. Until now they had lived together under mutual protection. Perhaps there was some resentment on Lot’s behalf and Abram’s advice had not been sought. The whole situation could have been fraught with misunderstandings unless they were entirely honest with one another, and we have no indication of that.
3. ABRAM MOVES HIS TENTS TO HEBRON, ON THE PLAIN OF MAMRE
When Lot departed, Abram was left with the less promising, but, as it proved, safer inheritance of the hill country of Judea. God spoke to him again and the land promise, was once more reinforced, and God gave the command to walk in the length and breadth of it, and it was so.
Consider:
* Was this walk advised by God, as an inspection of the land?
* Or to exercise authority over the land?
* Or to demonstrate to others his ownership of the land?
* Or reinforcing to Abram alone, and his family, the promised ownership?
********************
Abram, the Hebrew, descendant of Eber, Genesis 14:13, then removed his tents to the plain (or the oaks) of Mamre at Hebron. We hear of the person, Mamre, later on, but here the confederate began, with the Amorites, and a treaty was established. Moses personified the name, but the original tradition behind this record was that “Abram was dwelling at the Amorite sanctuary of Alliance”. It was later Mamre’s plain, or oaks, so perhaps the plain was named after him.
This oak grove, outside of Hebron, (which is still, today, a busy trading centre), became a special and permanent station for Abram. Here he was comforted, in the separation from his kinsman, Lot. Maybe he was disturbed that Lot could have been motivated by self interest in his decision, and was disinterested in the special consideration that God had for his uncle. Abram had entertained plans for Lot, but Lot seems unimpressed. The plans God had for Lot, were not the plans that Abram envisaged for Lot.
The narrative in this section of Scripture, Genesis 14, has a wealth of geographical detail, as seen by the headings in our study. It traces the invasion route of the Eastern kings along the north south road. Here for the first time Biblical events and external history blend into one story. We know so much about these towns and their surrounds now, that we know what Abram and Sarai must have seen and felt, about their surroundings.
4. ABRAM HELPS LOT WITH A SKIRMISH
Lot was bothered by a skirmish around Sodom, a political and military situation, and was taken captive, along with his wives and family and goods, Genesis 14: 12, 13. The commentary of Matthew Henry on this section of Scripture, makes the point that Lot was not recognised by the invaders as being different from his compatriots, and so was not excused from the fray. It often happens to us, that if we are in the wrong place at the wrong time, we are part of evil, and suffer accordingly. Abram, who was living in tents away from any cities, and therefore not a target, was told of this tragedy, by the Amorite, Mamre, from a family of three brothers, or three allies, or three allied nations, verse 13, confederates of Abram. We discover the name of the informant as the third “brother”, from verse 24.
Comment:
This is probably the clue that the novelist, Florence Bauer, used to make Eber, the Amorite, a Canaanite, a slave, and YHWH worshipper, the teacher of young Abram, way back in Ur.
********************
Abram pursued the retreating confederate over towards the sea, with 318 armed men “born in his household”. It seems that they all worshipped with him as they had this intimate connection to him. So Abram had a sort of ecclesiastical gathering, in the sense of a gathering of a group of people. He turned it to a spiritual group with his worship, and taught them the narrow way, with the worshipful service expected of the Israelites. He included the mission mandate, that is, the charge that accompanied their covenant, according to Genesis 26:5.
It is amazing that Abram had grown such in number. He pursued the kings unto Dan, a very long way. We are surprised to see Dan. It is an editorial comment by Moses, the author of the account. If we readily accept these editorial comments the sense is always perfectly clear. See also, Deuteronomy 34:1
W. F. Albright in “The Biblical period from Abraham to Ezra”, in his section on “Genesis”, argues convincingly that Abram, the Hebrew, or Habiru, Genesis 14:13, came from a family of caravaneers, and that would explain why he could suddenly draw on so many men. Caravanning may have been the family trade, after they left Ur, which Abram may have continued. As the family became more settled in the later Abram/Abraham and Isaac and Jacob years, the family business expanded to include sheep flocks and sheep products, as well.
Abram would have called his men to the headquarters at Hebron, and suspended his business during the expedition. There was a slaughter of Chedorlaomer, but Abram recovered Lot and his family and goods. This is the first indication to Abram that God really will fulfil His promise, of greatness and blessing. It is a pity that Lot put himself outside the immediate blessings for Abraham towards the end of his life. Certainly he was secured in another covenant from God, as the descendant of Terah through Shem, but not now in Abram’s covenant.
This secular operation suddenly assumes a religious significance, with Abram’s intervention. Abram is beginning to realise that to receive the gifts of God he must show God’s glory and he must show forth His name. The responsibilities of the covenant and his blessings point him in the direction of being a saviour to Lot, and Abram takes on that role. He becomes a witness to God’s purpose. He is hopeful that there will be some righteous found in Sodom. The King of Sodom was grateful to Abram and wanted to repay him, but Abram, apart from a meal for his 318 trained men, would not touch anything of the King of Sodom, lest the king said, “I made Abram rich”, Genesis 14:23. Abram, by now, knew of the wickedness of Sodom and so anything belonging to the king would be loathsome to him. He had previously taken riches from Pharaoh in Egypt. Wise man indeed, now. Wisdom and faith building together.
Frank Anthony Spina in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, argues the case for the presence of Lot in “Abram’s Migration” and some of those arguments are here presented in this section. (The question is more powerfully argued again at the demise of Lot). Certainly there are some questions to consider in the arguments put forward here.
Comment:
It seems that Lot’s role was important and strategic to Abram, when he left Haran, for Sarai was childless and possibly barren, and his dead brother’s son was a needy “child”. The inclusion of Lot enriches the textural story, but there may have been much more in Abram’s mind. He may have even particularly planned to take Lot, for Lot provides a safeguard for Abram, who was anxious for the progeny promise to be fulfilled which he expected to occur forthwith. Yet he was confronted with the childlessness of Sarai. Some even regard it as Abram having a sense of responsibility to take Lot, but others regard it as a lack of faith on Abram’s part, perhaps being the first faithless incident recorded, but not the last, where faith/faithlessness is not infrequently a characteristic of the actions and life of both Abram/Abraham and his wife. It is maintained that Lot was firstly, a sort of security deposit towards God’s recent promise of nationhood, and secondly, as a potential heir, for the recent land promise, Lot being a righteous man.
Sadly, after entering Canaan, every episode relating to Lot, has, if not a negative effect on the patriarchal ambition of Abram/Abraham, at least an ambiguous impact on the future that God has in mind for all of the patriarchs. From the incident of quarrelling kinsmen that must have gone on for some time, and then escalated to something unbearable, and then the resulting separation, the story rolls on until Abraham has to muster a military force from among his men, and travel a great distance to rescue his nephew, Lot, and while there are no disastrous results from this humiliating incident, if it had turned out differently, it may have jeopardised Abraham’s tenuous tenure in the land and certainly his reputation.
********************
The history of this war is thought by some to be accurate with authentic records of people and places. If it was a document and available, then it could have been incorporated by Moses in his great work. Remarkable details of these kingdoms, appear in the Speaker’s and Ellicott’s Commentaries, for these two commentators of the last century felt sure that these kingdoms and their positions could be pinpointed with reasonable accuracy.
5. ABRAM’S BLESSING FROM MELCHIZEDEK
A wondrous meeting between Abram and Melchizedek, the King of Salem, (next called Urusalim, a small town in Jebus, so it is probably where Jerusalem was later situated), is slotted into the text here, Genesis 14:18-20.
We cannot be dogmatic that Salem is Jerusalem, but the link is drawn by the writer to the Hebrews, Chapter 7:17, about our Lord Jesus Christ offering himself (in Jerusalem) as a priest, “after the order of Melchizedek”. Abram and Melchizedek met in the Vale of Shaveh, or the king’s dale. The only other reference to the king’s dale is 2 Samuel 18:18, which as Absalom’s pillar or place, which is definitely near Jerusalem.
We tend to think that Abram and his family have exclusive rights to the blessings of God at this time. This story precludes again that view of exclusivity. Abram and his family were elected to best do God’s work, they were not ever an elite society. Obviously Melchizedek had come to know the Lord God and was a worshipper of YHWH, a high priest, of the LORD. He, like Hagar did later, may have also had “discussions” with God, for he is spoken of, later, as a prefiguration of the Lord Jesus Christ, our great high priest, Hebrews 7:11. He brings a meal to Abram, bread and wine, and blesses him, but there is no sacrifice here. In this blessing we can see that Melchizedek recognised the developing righteousness of Abram, that righteousness is accounted unto him, Genesis 15:6, because of his belief in God, Romans 7:3, for he is yet uncircumcised, verse 10.
Consider:
* Why does Abram give Melchizedek a tenth of everything, a tithe of his spoils for God, to a king?
* Was he then a superior of Abram, a superior priesthood to the priesthood of Levi, which was still in the loins of Abram, compare Hebrews 7:9-11?
* Was this man really Shem, as the ancient Jewish scholars believed, who did live until the time of Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah?
* Or was he then a converted Canaanite, or a privileged Semite?
********************
Abram was anxious to resolutely name God as his beneficiary. He knew that he was blessed so that he could bless others, that is, so that he could be a blessing to the nations. He did not consume or keep any of the booty from the skirmish for himself, but he offered a tenth of all his wealth to God, (when he gave it to Melchizedek, who was a priest of God).
Abram had not been a great missionary up until this time, although his public worship was a witness. His missionary career had been fraught with difficulties and he had actually been dismissed from Egypt, a far cry from witnessing to the glory of God.
We need to remember that -
God reveals His glory to all peoples so that He may receive glory from all peoples.
This double dimension of glory can help make sense out of the ancient stories that God has given us, especially as we see Abram move into the missionary mode. As he understands the covenant God made with him, we watch his concern for his family grow to his concern for the nations.
Abram’s tithe was a very significant gift of worship to God and went hand in hand with his blessing of God, in return for the blessings that he had received. It was then a worshipful event, part of the memorial offering.
God had been anxious to know how Abram would react to His blessings. God wanted to know if he would render the received blessings back to Him as tithes. God wanted Abram to have an obedient and priestly passion about Him, and was looking for an indication of how Abram felt. God had placed great faith in this man who He had developed from the line of Shem to be His witness.
Cornelius in Acts 10:4 was praised by the angel for his alms as part of his “memorial” and worshipful service to God. Perhaps Cornelius had heard an echo of the lessons that Abram had learned, and in his own way had so witnessed to God’s glory among the poor.
God had tested Abram to see what sort of servant He had.
Now God noted Abram’s generosity and was pleased with him.
Comment:
If God had a whole worshipping worldwide people with their entire being jealous for, and committed to, God, then God’s intent to bless would not ultimately be dissipated in self service - is the opinion of Steven Hawthorne in “Perspectives on the World Christian Movement”, page A 37. This book is a reader for the course in the Centre for World Mission and is a useful and valuable text in leading us to mission awareness in our lives, and that God wants us all as missionaries to use all our talents and gifts and possessions in His service. It is a personal challenge by our Lord Jesus Christ recorded by Luke, in Luke 24:47, and repeated by him in Acts 1:8. It is “The Great Commission”. It is a joy to hear the little children, even as young as two, sing along with the CD about it, and because of that, they know it well. They can quote verbatim, “The Great Commission” in Matthew 28, verses 19 and 20 ..., so that even they, and certainly us, know of our responsibilities, to tell people about God. Preachers and teachers are supported by those who stand behind, all acting therefore on the mandate to preach to all of God’s people.
The World Mission Centre emphasises the tithes of Abram as a part of our worship service. Then with regular commitments in that area, one of the ways that we can support those who are able to go missioning, is not only to support them in prayer for their spiritual welfare, but to help supply their practical welfare needs in an organised fashion, so that they are secure, and their work is blessed. We can be a “goer”, an “active sender” or an “equipper”. Then we would have missioners of all ages and potential, and God would be blessed, and the whole world would hear about God. God would note our generosity, and our commitment to serve Him would be blessed.
********************
Melchizedek lived in Canaan. He was not obviously of the Levitical order, which came later, but a universal sort of kingly, God blessed priest, who has no beginning or ending in our story, for he is not a known name. It is significant to note that there were then pockets of God loving righteous men living in Canaan, and therefore possible suitable women to wife, but not of the family line, as in Haran. It is difficult to ascertain what special consideration made the family of Terah chosen as family marriage partners, when the Melchizedek family would have the faithful qualifications. We understand the patriarchs being wary of their children marrying amongst the nations round about, but when this Godly group of people have been discovered by Abram, we wonder at the untapped wife resource.
So, as Moses found Jethro, so Abram found Melchizedek, with whom he could share worship. Similarities in the Canaanitish worship had not tempted Abram, and he had remained apart from them. It was the same for this man.
So Melchizedek, the man of God, was a wondrous blessing for Abram.
Melchizedek taught Abram, and incidentally he teaches us, that gifts, or alms, or tithes, or pledges were/are all part of our worship of God. He later taught Jacob about promising blessings back to God, where the matter is discussed again, in “Kith and Kin”, Book 3.
Consider:
* How do we view our gifts to the Lord, that is, our gifts in our collections?
* Could we make them more part of our worshipful service with prayer and praising music, and regard them truly as “offerings to the Lord?”
* How do we cater for the needs of our own group when we are absent from the Lord’s Table there, and not able to partake in the offering worship at our regular place?
* Could we ease the planning for the community if we made regular banking transfers to that fund, as well as partaking in worshipful offerings, via ordinary collections, for other causes?
* Could we help all those in the congregation to feel that they are important in this worshipful part of the service, and so feel the necessity to contribute, rather than to pass the collection on?
********************
Comment:
This may be a particular problem to older women in worship, for in the past, they may have been made to feel excluded from some services, or never had money of their own to contribute.
Any large, enthusiastic congregation in this day, will be supported by pledging members, both men and women. We need to see how other organisations encourage and nurture their members, to see whether we can improve.
********************
6. THE GREAT RENUNCIATION
The three Amorite “brothers”, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, took rewards, or portions, (of food) from the King of Sodom, but that does not preclude them from being eclectic worshippers of YHWH, as well as other gods, sympathetic and therefore helpful to Abram, verse 24. It could be that they were also confederates of Melchizedek.
Abram’s Melchizedek experience, with the blessings of bread and wine, may have fortified him to reject the offer of the Sodomite king. For Abram had a confederate alliance with Melchizedek that was worth much more to him than that of the King of Sodom. Besides, Abram had seen and heard information about Sodom that he did not care for.
It is called “Abram’s Great Renunciation” in the Companion Bible, where the incident is signalled as one of with great significance.
The Amorites were an old established peoples living west side Jordan, north of Salem/Jerusalem, Canaanites, worshippers of Baal, and early promoters of child sacrifice. They had been present north of Ur and were making incursions there when Abram was a young man. These three Amorite men may set themselves apart from their fellows, because of their views about YHWH.
The muscles of faith grow strong, through training and testing and that is sometimes painful. For Abram it was so. Abram was a lover of family, he stayed with Terah until he died, he had travelled with Lot since Ur, over 30 years ago, and now he is on his own. God talks to him again at this time, in Genesis 15, and God assures him of His loving care. God’s address to Abram, in verse 1, is one of “kingship” - that is “shield” stands for “king”. Abram has now extended his worship of God to include his wealth.
Abram is wealthy, but God is his greatest treasure.
7. “WHO IS MY HEIR?”
“HOW WILL I KNOW THAT I WILL INHERIT THE LAND?”
“The word of the Lord came unto Abram”, Genesis 15:1, this is the first time of many that this is so expressed. Questions about offspring, verses 1-6, and possession of land, verses 18-21, are in Abram’s mind.
Abram is puzzled by the two questions, now that Lot is not a consideration.
Firstly, Abram asks about his heir, seeing that Sarai is still childless.
What a terrible trial and worry this childlessness was to Abram and Sarai, but especially to sterile Sarai. Fecundity is still an honour, and considered a Godly blessing in the east. However, in God’s wondrous provision, a special child would be born to them, far from Ur and Haran, and therefore free from the post Babel peoples and their wicked practices, all in God’s plan. Still Abram and Sarai in their grief are not considering the big picture. It is a fault of all of us, for the big picture is out of our focus. It takes a faithful servant to realise that all things work for good, and our little scenario is a tiny puzzle piece and can easily be foregone. We need to opportune for the big picture.
Abram offers God a trusted house steward, for God to recognise as his heir, Eliezer of Damascus, probably acquired on the journey south from Haran, and not “born in his house”, a mistranslation. Perhaps Eliezer had already been made custodian of Abram’s estate, now that Lot had separated, in the event of Abram’s death. This was an approved custom of the time, for a childless man. But God declines the offer, for His heir of the promise, which would renew Abram’s faith in God at this point, and spells out the fact that Abram shall have his own son. The promised progeny will be as the stars of the night sky, and Abram is led out into the night, to see for himself.
1. It is recorded for the first time, that Abram “believed in the Lord”, and his faith is credited to him “for righteousness”, Genesis 15:6. This is the oldest and most profound definition of faith. The verse is so full of the unspoken message of faith, and forgiveness and repentance, and reward and glory, that it is awe inspiring.
2. Then, God talks to Abram about the land again, and Abram questions how he will know that the land will be his. God is understanding of this doubt, and a great incident in Abram’s life now is played out, where God gives a mighty prophecy about his family.
This is a covenant ritual where the two parties to an agreement pass between themselves two halves of a dead animal to invoke a similar fate on themselves if they should break from their pledge. So Abram sat on one side, and having made his commitment, waited for God to take the initiative, to emphasise the fact that He alone made the covenant. The wording here in this segment of Scripture exactly follows the contemporary legal form for a treaty between two people.
First comes the identification, and then the historical introduction, in verse 7, then next comes a statement of future relationship and obligation, verses 18 and 19. But unlike the usual human treaty, this one is a vertical treaty, unilateral and unconditional, as God Himself
assumes an obligation without “imposing reciprocal responsibilities” on Abram, (Charles and Anne Hummel, “Genesis”, Lifeguard Bible Study, page 101). The stipulation, verse 9, was that the animals to be sacrificed, were to be three year old animals, which was the prime age for most sacrificial animals.
Abram waited all the next day, for God to speak. After the preparation, he had flicked the flies, and shooed the birds off his sacrifices, (if indeed they were sacrificed), for it is in the evening that Abram fell into a deep sleep, and God informed him of the future history of his family, of their treks and troubles, how they will go into a land that will afflict them for four hundred years. This family story is the theme of this book. But God promises that there will be a rescue and return to this Promised Land to which they will bring great substance from their servitude. It is a full and accurate prophecy, for the veracity of a great trek out of Egypt has now been established. (This prophecy and its fulfilment becomes a powerful tool for the authenticity of the inspired record, if the post Exodus recording of it is allowed as authentic.)
Abram is promised peace, and many years in the land with his family, where he will be buried, before the great trek into Egypt. However the ownership of the land is not promised within Abram’s lifetime, although now God says, “have given”, not “will give”. There now has to be faith in faith, Abram needs to know that God has promised so firmly that He can say “I have given you …”. Accompanying this promise is, therefore, also spelled out the notion of resurrection, for that is how Abram will inherit all of this when he dies before it is accomplished.
In 1 Chronicles 16:13-22, David delivers a psalm, thanking God for his mercies, and included in that song is the story of the wandering “Abraham”, and Abram’s experiences in the land that is not his. God speaks of protecting him, His anointed and His prophet, verse 22, but the land is not inherited, still.
Comment:
* And so Abram now begins to understand the great truths of God, and believes.
* If Abram believes, it is imperative that he believes he will be resurrected.
Abram is then surprised as God awakens him “to newness of life”.
* It is as though God makes the covenant, and Abram, who has been sleeping, has no part in it.
* This awakening is meant to reinforce the great truth of resurrection, and the lesson that all can have a part therein, if God is glorified.
********************
The Chinese proverb, “Be not afraid of going slowly, be only afraid of standing still”, if it is applied to our lives, gives us an important sense of growing, in God’s knowledge and grace, as Abraham did.
Consider:
* Why do we feel fear?
* Is “standing still” a choice, or a neglect?
* Do we realise that standing still, is impossible, and to diminish is the only other possible direction?
* Is that the fear?
********************
CONCLUSION:
The problem between the flocks of Abram and Lot has been solved, but Lot has now ventured out on his own and has his own counsel. Meanwhile Abram has found a new friend, and has spent some time with God, and is truly blessed.
CHAPTER 4
IMPATIENCE OVER THE PROMISED HEIR
“They two shall be one flesh”, Genesis 2:24.
FOCUS:
Dysfunction begins to fester as Sarai and Hagar are culturally affected in this patriarchal family, Genesis 16.
1. WHAT DUSTURBS THE PEACE?
Throughout this family saga, the harm and destabilisation caused by polygamy is constantly evident, and gives rise to enormous troubles that bring down this prized and God loved family, from the heights to which they ascribe. We can observe the breaking of the special and complementary roles in marriage as unwise, if not sinful, for it is a breaking of what God said in the beginning that “they two shall be one flesh”, Genesis 2:24. It is one of the much recidivism in this story. The revisiting of “sins” perpetuates the dysfunction.
What we know of today as a blended family with all its dissension, resulted from Abram’s union with Hagar and the resultant child Ishmael, for Abram and Sarai had been impatient to produce the promised heir. Indeed God did reject Abram’s offer of a surrogate heir, of Lot and Ishmael, and had been content that a child would be born from his wife’s own body, Genesis 15:4, but their impatience returned, and they began looking for their own solutions again.
Sarai may have become fearful at this time of more Godly promises that, as her name was not mentioned, (in the Genesis 15 promises) that Abram would take another wife to provide the promised heir. We would need to have more information about Keturah, to attempt an assessment of Sarai’s attitude.
We are not sure when Abraham took Keturah to wife, because it is evident that Genesis 25:1-10 is out of sequential historical order. We know Abraham did not die until the Isaac’s twins were 15 years old. Yet later in this same chapter, after Abraham’s recorded death, comes the record of their birth. It is a family record chapter, inserted by Moses, rather than a continuation of the family history, or toldoth. So Abraham’s wife, Keturah’s history within this family is obscure. We can only assume that Keturah became Abraham’s wife after Isaac’s birth, and, hopefully, not while Sarah was alive.
Sarai, in her disappointment, after three years of childlessness, offered Hagar, her Egyptian acquired handmaiden. This must have been a very hard decision for her to make. To this day the Arabs and the Jews carry on the family feud (between Sarai and Hagar) with each laying claim to the land of Israel because Abram/Abraham is their father. One child was the first born - Ishmael (and the approved line for all Muslims), the other the favoured son - Isaac. Even today we are unable to sort out lawfully and compassionately the rights of surrogate and natural mothers and Abram found it difficult, as well. This is altruistic surrogacy, done for a high motive. There may have been a preconception contractual agreement, or it may have only been a dialogue document. However, any document was ill conceived in this case, for the unexpected happened. The birth mother and the baby were both rejected.
Any mother (or father), ethically or spiritually minded, makes a promise at the time of conception, about the child that is to be born. Godly parents make a commitment to bring the child to the Lord, like Hannah, then to take the treasure God has graciously given, and in years to come to give back to the Lord a spiritually mature being for His Glory. With the lesson of Abraham and his family, constantly played out before our eyes in the world news, we can see that surrogacy does not easily follow, as is expected, in some people’s eyes. Either there is a terrible struggle, when it does not work out according to the plan (like Ishmael and Isaac), or another is responsible for the child, and the mother whose gift it was, has no control. Gestational or social motherhood are issues involved in surrogacy, and should be treated with the greatest caution. Present day thinking Israelites probably regret Sarai’s decision to surrogate Hagar for her much desired child.
2. ANIMOSITY KINDLED WITHIN ABRAHAM’S FAMILY
We know that the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were special in God’s eyes and His plan, for He gave them special promises. They had a unique relationship with God. Their descendants reached all the way to the Lord Jesus Christ, and one would not criticise those so God loved.
However, their cultural life had great bearing on their personal relationships, and because those cultural differences are so diverse from ours, we can only guess at the dynamics that might have been present within these families. We do know that animosity was kindled and rekindled at both Ishmael and Isaac’s birth. Eventually Sarai, being enraged by Hagar’s superiority, pleaded, “Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be heir with my son Isaac”, (Genesis 21.10), and this was Hagar’s second turning out.
Even when Abram consented to Sarai’s wishes there would be no family peace. We know that they were real people like us. Though they lived so long ago, the hint of family dysfunction in this incident is enough to allow us to think that there may have been other family dysfunctions.
3. FAMILY DYSFUNCTION BECAUSE OF POLYGAMY
The Biblical matriarchs, Sarah and Hagar and Rachel and Leah, seemed to follow a pattern whereby one wife is paired with a rival coexisting wife, a complementary pair, each contributing a characteristic which the other lacked. Each represented incomplete womanhood, like reflections of each other, and were destructive, until one could expel the other, in some way.
Barrenness represented
1. A lack of status in this labour intensive society, where the production of sons was imperative, but more importantly, in this family, barrenness, they thought, represented
2. An impediment to the fulfilment of God’s promise of posterity.
Gale A. Yee in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, “Sarah”, is of the opinion, that particularly in the case of Sarah, when she knew
1. Of God’s promises,
2. And Abraham’s expectation of fulfilment,
3. And his disappointment at the delay,
4. When progeny for the promise was sought “exogamously”,
5. That is, through Hagar,
The “endogamous” practice of the Hebrews was “in conflict”, and therefore “the promise”, and even “the covenant, was in jeopardy”.
It was a foolish path to take.
a. Sarah beautiful, but barren, is the older of the two women.
b. Hagar is young and fertile, but without status, and because of it, is exploited by the privileged woman.
c. Sarah is a victim of the patriarchal society which defines her in her capacity to produce sons, especially in light of the promises.
d. But Hagar is a double victim because of her class and her sex.
Both are “victims”, and both are “victimisers”, Yee comments.
So a terrible circle of oppression, contempt, disdain, jealousy, cruelty, emotional abuse, expulsion from the household and subsequent neglect, is born.
The message is -
# That women cannot bond as co wives, even if they have a common goal in one husband.
# Self interest, and competition and abuse soon rear their heads. But it is more than that.
# It is the unwillingness to share a beautiful relationship,
# For to share it, is to destroy it.
It is a rare woman who would prefer polygamy, and it could only be for a less than idealistic reason.
The whole concept of “more than one wife” contributing to family dysfunction cannot be better illustrated than in this story. Polygamy was not God’s choice, nor divorce, for it destroys the union of man and woman (Genesis 2), but for man’s sake He allowed it - and then allows man to take the consequences, which are not inconsiderable. Lamech was the first polygamist, Genesis 4:19. It is there specifically mentioned, probably for reprobation, and practised from then on, amongst the sons of Cain. It was considered noteworthy by Moses, because it was not the God ordained way.
Comment:
Polygamy continues to be an enormous problem in many cultures today and is a constant cause for worry and stress amongst those who suffer the practice.
The religion of the Mormons has undergone change in the matter of polygamy. It was tolerated in the United States for generations until the 1890’s when a constitutional change outlawed it. The state of Utah was then accepted into the Union. However it is still practised by some of them in the breach, but these members are shunned by the leaders of the church.
Divorce may have made the difficulties of polygamy more easily managed.
This may be illustrated, even today, when we see the first wife of a prominent person easily discarded, and there is no competition for his second wife, because a divorce has taken place. Yet a prominent official (of Papua New Guinea), practising the culturally acceptable polygamy, may plan which wife to take with him to important occasions. Some women in
Papua New Guinea are not against the culturally accepted polygamy, but against the fact that wives are not equal. Multiple wives can never, ever, be equal in status, for that is asking too much from human nature.
Polygamy is still allowable in many Asian and African countries. It is defended as necessary in a labour intensive society and still exists in some countries today, and so defended. The question of how the work can be done when there is only one wife, is rhetoric.
The excuse, that they are then able to share the family work load is an equivocation, and a misunderstanding of the whole function of the marriage union. It encourages the idea that women are the beasts of burden and their feelings unimportant. It is so in the tribal states of
India, where women must work to contribute to the family income, yet are expected to do all the home work. Their child bearing and rearing and limited sleeping hours, as well, contribute to breakdowns in their health and their short life spans. It is hard to understand why the men cannot break the customs as women are impotent to do so. Men could respond
that it is not a shame to help with the homework.
Polygamy is well documented in Muslim countries, where the Koran has regulations for the practice, that is, for four wives, if they can be supported. The first Muslim wife can put a clause in her marriage contract to preclude other wives, but then she runs the risk of not
being accepted as a wife. The binding of this contract is doubtful.
God, under the Mosaic Law, relented and allowed divorce for the hardness of man’s hearts, but in the beginning it was not so. The law of marriage is given in terms so stringent and binding, Genesis 2:24, that even our Lord could add nothing to it, Matthew 19:3-6. When the Pharisees continued to argue, he admitted Moses’ later ruling, that diluted God’s
ideal ruling on marriage, verse 7-9. He was not unaware of the difficulties that accompanied such situations. Current or consecutive wives all have problems with their rivals.
********************
4. SARAI’S CONFUSION IN FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Sarai would have been ashamed of her jealousy of Hagar, for she knew it was culturally acceptable for a man to have two or more wives. However, the rivalry of Peninnah, provoking Hannah “sore”, because of her barrenness, gives us an indication of the explosive situation, and how they were estranged, “adversary”, 1 Samuel 1:6.
But conversely in our story, Sarai had suggested the promised fulfilment could come another way than through her, as Abraham’s wife. She offered Hagar, Genesis 16.
Middle Eastern culture of the time sanctioned this way of obtaining children. Archaeologists have discovered Nuzi texts, “Ancient Texts Relating to the Old Testament”, see NIV Study Bible, from the 15th century BC, that include marriage contracts with this stipulation inserted, to guard against the possibility of being left without an heir. Male impotence was not a consideration.
After Hagar conceived, the relationship between the three changes. Hagar despises Sarai and shows false pride, Sarai, repenting of what she now sees as a mistake, unjustly blames Hagar, and Abram shows unwarranted neutrality in the face of his participating role. When Hagar gives birth to Ishmael, Abram names the child Ishmael, assuming responsibility once more.
However Abram, at this point, cannot judge between the two women, and tells Sarai to do what she will. Sarai behaves so badly. There is a reason for the bad behaviour of Sarai, but we need to establish whether it is excuse enough. Reason and excuse are different concepts, and should always be established where there is bad behaviour. God can discern the difference, and we should learn the difference also and behave accordingly. It is one of the hardest concepts to teach children in behavioural management.
Polygamy is such a vital factor in the dysfunction of the families of Abram/Abraham and Jacob that it has become an important aspect in preventing well function. It is often revisited in the text, and is prominent in the summing up of the whole Genesis story in the end commentary on the Jacob and Joseph account, “Kith and Kin”, Book 5. In no measure can we view it as an acceptable, Godly practice, but only as a cultural relativity to be considered.
5. ANGELS MEET HAGAR NEAR EGYPT, AT BEER LAHAI-ROI
Because of family tension Hagar flees, Genesis 16:7, to the wilderness of Shur, (probably modern day Suez) to a water hole, on the frontier of her native land, Egypt, where an angel meets her. The well is then called Beer Lahai-roi. “Whence camest thou? And wither wilt thou go?” He asks her, verse 8. He tells her to return and submit to Sarai, but He buoys her up with promises about her family, that it will be numerous, that the son who would be born to her, she would call Ishmael, “because the Lord had heard thy affliction”. The angel describes to her the hairy man Ishmael will become, a forefather of many. God promises her that her son Ishmael will bear twelve princes. Isaac bears twelve princes, as well, through Jacob and his twelve sons. No wonder some people make confusion and competition between the Koran “truths” and the Bible truths
So it is from this Biblical dramatic incident, Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, the stage has often been set down through history, for conflict, and retribution. One family’s dysfunction has now entered our world stage, and we experience the effect of that conflict, as we see the representatives on our neighbourhood streets, in our schools, at the shops, in our community, and everywhere that we may venture, “outside”. God gave us this witness as well, in the words He spoke to Hagar and Abraham.
6. HAGAR BACK AT HEBRON ONCE MORE
Hagar was thankful for God’s care and blessing and returned to Sarai and Abram who were now 76 and 86 years old.
Consider:
* Did she return because she had nowhere else to go?
* Is her Godly blessing a factor in her return?
* Would she have made any power terms or conditions at her entrance back in the compound?
* Is this personal experience important in the developing faith of Hagar?
* Why does God offer her an opportunity for faith in Him?
*********************
There are others outside the family line, who are given opportunities to develop faith. This rules out exclusivity, and foreshadows what would happen when the house of Judah rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, and God commanded Paul, to preach Christ, and him crucified to the Gentiles. Paul later calls it “my gospel”, Romans 2:16, and by inference then, so may we.
CONCLUSION:
The pain and confusion of Sarai and Hagar emphasise the dysfunction now caused in this family by polygamy. As it becomes endemic, so does the suffering.
CHAPTER 5
HAGAR AND ISHMAEL AND ABRAHAM AND SARAH AND ISAAC
“And Hagar bare Abram a son, and Abram called him, Ishmael”, Genesis 16:15.
“And Sarah bare Abraham a son, and Abraham called him, Isaac”, Genesis 21:3.
FOCUS:
Now the stage is set for the great conflicts of history, and the beginning scenes are played out in Genesis 16, which we have just considered. It may of interest here to have a chapter here, which is a Digression, where we can examine our current Australian position within this conflict.
Digression:
(From the main Bible Theme)
THE CURRENT WORLD RELIGION OF ISLAM
The story of Abram’s response (later named Abraham), to God’s call, when he was beyond the Euphrates River in Ur, to leave there with his family, and later to travel on to Haran, and then into Canaan, has cast a long decisive shadow over the Jewish, Christian and Islamic cultures over the centuries.
1. THE THREAT OF ISLAM
When Sarai (later named Sarah), saw her barrenness as a stumbling block to the fulfilment of the promises that God made to her husband Abram, that through his son would the blessings come, Sarai offered her handmaid Hagar to Abram, so that he might have a son. In time a son, Ishmael, was born to Abram and Hagar.
From the offering of Hagar to Abram, to produce their God promised heir, Sarai unwittingly provided the world, since then, with the main adversary of the Jews and the Jewish faith and their promises, especially in these latter days.
Certainly the prophecies against Israel as a nation, for her disobedience of God’s commands, has brought punishment through many nations, but since the discovery of oil and the world’s reliance on the Arabs, together with their escalating wealth, we see today in the rise of Islam the greatest threat at this time to the land of Israel. When the Arabs stop quarrelling among themselves and become united against Israel, her troubles will really begin.
For our interest, a series “My Islamic Neighbour” in The Christadelphian Magazine of April-September 1982, is designed to help us understand, under the headings -
The Origin of Islam
About the Koran
What Muslims Believe
The Pillars of Islam.
We are advised that a Muslim is hard to win and there are some helpful points to be made if we are considering this. As well, we know that the Koran states that a strayed Muslim must be killed. If this is not carried out, at the very least, a Muslim is ostracised from family and friends so there is a great responsibility in converting a Muslim. For further study a Koran is easily and cheaply purchased at any bookshop.
There is an enormous struggle within Islam for the many converting countries (and this includes many former Communist countries) to be ruled by the extreme fanatics. A Jihad (or holy war) is justified violence (in the Koran).
2. ISLAM ON THE RISE
Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia now have strong Muslim governments, and are continually trying to influence others in their regions towards the Muslim faith. They, in turn, are harried by countries like Iran and Iraq, to become more strict. Present day Egypt’s decimated tourist trade is a strong example of what can happen when two extremes try to gain power, and the fanatics struggle for supremacy. The huge tourist industry was similarly destroyed in Lebanon, when Lebanon was destroyed, and Afghanistan endures terrible turmoil, where women are denied many privileges that men enjoy. Morocco and Algeria Muslims are blamed for the bombings in France, their former colonisers. The Russians claim that their Muslim states are bombing the Russian city buildings, (and so they are bombing them in return, 1999).
The fundamentalists (the Shiites sect from Iran) are struggling to make these countries fully Islamic states, but those opposing say they are happy at last to have their freedom to practise religion. They do not want a dictated religion, nor even, more stringently, a dictated sect from that religion.
Women in some countries must wear “the burqua” not just the hijab, but a helmet like veil that billows from a skull cap and has a mesh screen covering the eyes, a complete covering - making women non persona outside their homes, rather like a body bag. Other countries allow female hands and faces to be shown. Muslim countries, for example Egypt, with stringent laws on how women should dress and act outside their homes, cannot bring themselves to outlaw female circumcision (as Australia and other Western countries have done), though they say the custom is cultural, not religious and not required by the Koran.
Iranian law forbids women to drive cars - this is a cultural law in an Islam state, where there are many laws and restrictions to control the people. A law of shame may be invoked in Muslim states. It keeps Muslims in check, especially women, in all aspects of life where shame is brought on Islam. Twenty thousand women have been shot since the Ayatollah gained control when the Shah was deposed, (1992 statistic) and girls as young as 10 years can be shot, for boys the age is 15 years.
Even though the west put a trade embargo on Libya, they allowed compassionate leave for its subjects (suspects even, of the Lockerbie bombing) to travel, including a visit to Mecca mid year. The West recognises the compelling need for a Muslim man to travel to Mecca at least once in his lifetime.
It is interesting to note that Britain has a Muslim Parliament, set up by extremists in that country, trying to change many of the Westminster laws that do not suit their cultural pattern. Now there are more practising Muslims in England than church going Anglicans.
The fastest growing religion in America is Muslim. They now far outweigh the Jews, but the American Jews have enormous wealth and that brings with it great power.
In 1982 Muslims made up a sixth of the world’s population. 10 years later in 1992 a quarter of the world’s population of nearly 5,500,000,000, were Muslims. Three quarters, of the now over 6 billion, make up all the rest, Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists and others. There is a fulfilling of the promise God made to Hagar, that He would care for Ishmael, and from him would come twelve princes, and a great nation, Genesis 16:10, 17:20.
Australia has many of these war experienced, poor migrants from these countries, from either side of the spectrum, both Muslims and Christians. The estimated 300,000 Muslims in Australia, in 1995, are an insignificant statistic on their world Muslim population growth graph. However, they claim enormous growth patterns here. There are 20 Mosques in Sydney with more planned. They are financed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Libya - poor countries like Lebanon, where many Muslims come from, cannot help.
Nationalities do not divide Muslims but rather sects, for example, the Lakemba Mosque are Sunni, and are more represented on the Islamic Council of Australia. The Arncliffe Mosque Shiites are more fanatical. The fanatics represent only 10% of the world’s Muslims, yet hold great power and influence.
3. AUSTRALIAN MULTICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
Manning Clark, the Australian historian, was heard to say that Australians were mostly a godless people and that Australian history was in part, the story of a struggle over its two hundred years, to find meaning in a world of no faith and very little spirituality.
We were a secular nation, but it’s no contradiction to say that at the same time Catholics and Protestants played a major role in our daily life, our school time, the business world and the political struggles of our country for the first half of the twentieth century. A minority of Australians have taken their religion seriously, but these prominent Catholics and Protestants have had a disproportionate influence in the affairs of this country.
This conflict between the Christian faiths, Catholics versus Protestants, boosted by the refugees, Catholic and Protestant, from Europe up until the 1970’s, waned then, for at that time migrants began to arrive from the Central Eastern countries and Asia. They brought their culture and religions with them. Buddhists and Hindus made their presence felt, but by the 1980’s Islam had become a major Australian religion. All these religions flourished, but Islam had the greatest increase of any non Christian group. It has now outnumbered those of the Jewish faith, not only in America but Australia as well.
With the Australian multicultural perspective, cultural and religious diversity has been encouraged and protected with our non discrimination laws. We need to appreciate that these same laws can protect our combined worship, or, if we are careless, harm it. Within this protection Islam has flourished, and is often seen to be uncompromising. However their religious leaders have become less confrontational in their public statements over the last decade, when our government threatened expulsion, and so they have won more community support, and people are much more accepting of their diversity. The Lakemba Mosque Imam has revised his former critical statement about non Muslim Australian women, and now has generously said publicly “with great pride we state that we have had more freedom in Australia, than we have often had in some of the native countries from which we have come, we have a great bond to Australia”. Like many religions they have begun their own schools.
To follow the world’s largest (a Muslim claim) religion, Islam (especially as required by the fundamentalists) has a profound effect on the daily life of a Muslim. There are some liberals who do not follow the rules to the letter, but they are scorned by the fundamentalists. To go to school with, to teach with, to work with, to shop with, to have as a neighbour, to have as an worshipping neighbour, a practising Muslim has a profound effect on any with whom they come in contact. It is meant to be so, for they are proud of their heritage.
4. THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT
Polygamous marriage is forbidden in Australia but it is nevertheless recognised when family units migrate in that structure. They are not forced to change, and our law recognises that. For welfare payments that family structure is recognised as wife, and defacto, and treated as our multiple partner relationships are. However the difference is that Muslim women are expected to be friendly to one another, and coexist.
Polygamy can be argued for (by Muslims) on the grounds of -
1. Prevalence of women due to wars over the centuries
2. It provides for sensual men
3. A wife may be diseased, or childless
4. It prevents prostitution.
A Muslim may have up to 4 wives, according to the Koran, as long as he can provide equally for them. If wife 1 wishes to be a sole wife, she must make that condition in her marriage contract prior to marriage. This contract is a legal and religious one, not a sacrament. Love may come later but it is better to have a contract based on common spiritual values. Courting Muslims are never alone before marriage. Marriages are mostly arranged as a contract between families. No man may chose chastity. Spinsters are unknown, as arranged marriages and polygamy solves that.
There is a duty to marry, and Muslims have a problem, therefore, with the prophet Jesus who never took a wife. Muslim women may marry very young, 13 or 14 years, or as soon as they reach puberty. In India, for example, in Hyderabad, at the marriage market, girls may be married before puberty to older Muslim men, often Middle Eastern Arabs, and the bride will be required to wait at home until puberty. The poverty of the country is a big factor where dowries, are expected. Girl babies from poor families in, say India, are a liability and other than being sold, have little other value. Dowries, amongst Hindus or Muslims, in India are illegal but still very prevalent. It is said that dowries denote -
a. Serious intent about marriage
b. Ensure the ability to provide
c. Provide an obstacle to divorce
A Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim. A Muslim man may marry Christian or Jewish women, however, many women convert to marry Muslim men in Australia, at least.
All property becomes the man’s at divorce. A Muslim man may say “I divorce you” 3 times, on 3 separate occasions, within a 3 month period. An Imam from the mosque will try to reconcile the couple, but within fully Muslim States, a man may dispose of a wife with little effort.
5. WOMEN’S SUBSERVIENCE
Inheritance for women is half of that of men, but men are instructed to provide properly for women. Women therefore may keep their inheritance for themselves while men have to look after female family members. Women are said to be better off. There is only education for women if men are catered for first - after all they will be cared for by male family members so education is not necessary for women. Men are regarded as the protectors of women, and women feel secure within this male authority. There are no complementary roles in marriage, for men are regarded as superior to women.
Muslim women are happy to chose who will see their beauty and are content to wear the long flowing robes and the hijab, or the burqua, outside their homes. They tell us the breezes catch in their flowing gowns and even in Middle Eastern countries they are not hot. The black (Persian) chador clutched continually with the left hand to cover the body must make outings a great inconvenience in Iran. The Koran does not specifically state that women should wear veils and masks but the divine (to them) message of modesty is for men and women, and are pivotal values. “No Muslim may dress in a way that will attract the sexual attention of the opposite sex”. This teaching is taken as literal and applied in extreme to women in countries like Iran where the lady police will pick up offenders and invoke a law of shame. A woman, not so clothed, in say Australia, may feel unprotected against molestation and rape, and this is one reason why Muslim women are encouraged to dress “appropriately”, where they are “free from the prying eyes of men”. Iranian women have “elected to be more covered” in black, outdoors, since the Shah’s overthrow. They project a strict “economy of flesh” otherwise they can expect to be raped. “If a man sees a woman so exposed he is going to feel some sort of sexuality towards her. You would not so expose a precious jewel nor would you buy a banana without peel” says a sheikh from the Lakemba Mosque. In like manner, a Muslim man always wears long trousers, never shorts, but apart from that, does not have the restrictions, that are impinged on women, who take the responsibility for sexual misconduct, or not.
In Kerala, in India, women are required to sit at the back of the bus, because the drivers, tempted, were not attending safely to their task. It seems that still in many cultures, women must take responsibility for the behaviour of men. India is predominantly Hindu, but neither Hindus nor Muslims reject polygamy.
6. RELIGIOUS RITES
It is unclean for a Muslim man to touch a woman and he must wash often. That is difficult, in countries like Australia, for Muslim men teachers in crowded coeducation school corridors, or on busy streets, or in shops. A Muslim man praying 5 times a day must wash his body parts 3 times. Muslims believe circumcision is essential.
The fast of Ramadan (40 days early in the year) has far reaching effects on schools and workplaces in our community, for eating and drinking (not even water) are forbidden, except after sunset and before sunrise. It makes for tired children and workers and this must be accommodated for religious freedom. The ritual of daily prayers must similarly be accommodated - the washing, kneeling and prostrating 5 times a day.
The Muslims moral perspective may be attractive to some of us and many of their beliefs are close to the Christian faith, for they believe in one God. However, paradise is not to be equated with the Kingdom of God, and the fact that Jesus is no more a prophet than Moses, and is not the Son of God, would be a principal point of departure. They say that they believe in coexistence with Jews and Christians for they share a common ancestor in Adam and Abraham, and they recognise Moses and Jesus as prophets. The more numerous and powerful that Muslims have become, the more intolerant of other faiths they are, and it seems that they wish to be world leaders, and annihilate those who share their ancestry. It is a Koran imperative that those who do not convert should be killed.
Muslims believe that their prophet Muhammad is now dead, he is not sleeping, or waiting with God to return. Whoever worships Muhammad is dead, God is the only God to worship, and He is alive. They believe that Muhammad had the final revelation from God to man, the Koran, in the 7th century. The Koran does not portray Hagar as a bondwoman. Abraham and Hagar’s first born son Ishmael was a near sacrifice offered by Abraham, but God intervened and Abraham offered a ram instead. This incident is commemorated in the Mecca pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, once a year, by thousands of Muslims. The promises to Abraham come down through Ishmael and so the Muslims are the promised people, with God’s hands outstretched to them, and not the Jews. The Jews, says a note in the Koran, will appear, in paradise, disabled, with their right hand stuck to their neck, THE KORAN addendum, of (CXIV.) SURA V. - THE TABLE MEDINA. - 65, “ ‘The hand of God’, says the Jews, ‘is chained up’. Their own hands shall be chained up - and for that which they have said shall they be accursed. Nay! Outstretched are both His hands!”
7. A POWERFUL FORCE
We remain faithful to God’s Holy Writ, but the Koran is a powerful force in the world today, and believers claim it is God’s “Most Holy Writ”, for it has all the prophets of the Bible, plus more, and includes later messages from God. Revelation 9:1-12 tells of the rise of Islam through the incursion of the Saracens and then the four successive waves of Turkish migration from the east. That influence has never left us, but the dominance of Islam, in the latter part of the 20th century, especially since the demise of Communism in so many states, north of Israel, is a remarkable occurrence in our time from the 1970’s to the 1990’s. They were a sixth of the world’s population in the 1980’s, now they number more than a quarter of 6,000,000,000, in the 1990’s.
The sacred sites of Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia. Previously Jordan supplied the cash for the upkeep of the other sacred site in Jerusalem, (the Dome of the Rock). Now the king of Saudi Arabia has offered much more money for the upkeep of the Jerusalem site (which Muslims believe is wholly their property). Certainly Israel has spoils that the Arabs feel belong to them.
To be more acquainted with the Muslim faith, it is necessary to read the Koran, and discuss any difficulties with those who maintain that faith. Some traditions are not spelled out in the Koran text.
Consider:
* How long will the Hajji, making their pilgrimages, endure the humility of being beholden to the Israelis for their passage through to the Dome of the Rock sacred site?
* How long will the Jews refrain from taking that site to build the next temple?
* Whose rock is it?
* Is it the place of the near sacrifice of Isaac, or Ishmael?
It all depends on your point of view. There are many Muslim nations now, not just Arabs.
* What part will Muslims play in God’s plan?
* How many of us, like Sarah, would make an unwise decision and unknowingly commit an act that has such far reaching consequences for so many?
None of us would condemn her, for our unwitting acts are not infrequent.
* Is it time then to seriously float the idea that the Muslims will in the end prove to be a much greater threat to the Jews, than we have hitherto contemplated?
* Was it all in God’s plan from the beginning, once Sarah offered Hagar, and we have only noticed the rise of these world powers, because they have directly affected us?
* Has God all along, in world history used the sibling rivalry of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, to bring about His purpose and will?
********************
The struggle between these half brothers, Ishmael and Isaac, that is, the Muslims and the Jews, is not unlike the struggle of the twins Esau and Jacob, more of which is discussed later in the text.
********************
CONCLUSION:
The whole saga was God known, for it was in His foreknowledge. God’s plan spans the centuries to us this day - for this mighty story began with Sarah’s and Abraham’s impatience over their God promised heir
- And Sarah offered Hagar!
The considerable number of sources used in this chapter is listed appropriately under “Sources” at the end of “Kith and Kin”, Book One.
