This document discusses the biblical figure Lot, emphasizing his hospitality and righteousness amidst the corrupt society of Sodom. It argues against interpretations that portray Lot as a backslider or a negative character, instead highlighting biblical references that label him as a 'righteous man' tormented by the lawlessness around him. The author critiques various negative assessments of Lot from preachers, asserting that such views are speculative and unsupported by scripture.

1. THE MOST HOORED MA I HISTORY VOL. 2
Written and edited by Glenn Pease
This second volume contains commentary on Genesis 19 through 25.
Genesis 19
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the
gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down
with his face to the ground.
1. It was a typical evening in Sodom as Lot sat in the gateway of the city ready to
invite any stranger to come to his place to stay for the night. It was a tradition of
hospitality in that part of the ancient world that has lasted to this day. Some feel
that this location where he was sitting is an indication that he was a civic leader in
the community. If that is not the case it is still obvious that he has taken up
residence in this sinful place, and is playing some role there. There is a lot of
speculation as to what his role was. Some say he was a judge and others the mayor
of the city, but all of this is just speculation and has no Biblical basis. Many jump to
the conclusion that he must have been a part of the local government because he was
sitting at the gate, and then they blast his character because he was a part of this
most corrupt people. This is nonsense, for there were many reasons for people to be
sitting at the gate of the city. It was the perfect place to meet people, for they had to
come into the city that way. In Ruth 4:1 we read, Meanwhile Boaz went up to the
town gate and sat there. When the kinsman-redeemer he had mentioned came along,
Boaz said, Come over here, my friend, and sit down. So he went over and sat
down. If you study the gate of the city in the Bible you will see many reasons why
people sat at the gate, and making them all officials of the government just because
it was the key place for government to do business is foolishness. Many were there
just to observe the business and judgments of the government, and to get the latest
news. There is no reason whatever to assume Lot was a part of the government. Gill
in his commentary wisely rejects any idea of Lot being an official, and he writes,
..he sat there to observe strangers that might pass by, and invite them into his
house, and that they might not fall into the hands of the wicked Sodomites, who
might abuse them; this being a time when not only travelers would be glad to put up
and take refreshment, but his wicked neighbors lay in wait for them to satisfy their
lusts on them: he had learnt this hospitality from Abraham.
There is also much speculation on the character of Lot for living in such a godless
city of corruption, and many judge him as being materialistic and being there for
the money and possessions. Many give him a black name with no basis for such a
judgment. It is wise to stick with the facts the Bible reveals and not make wild
accusations just because it is popular by preachers to use Lot as an example of the
backslider who is like the carnal Christian who is caught up in the world. The

2. evidence for this is circumstantial and very subjective. If we go to the highest
authority we get a totally different picture of this Old Testament hero. That
authority would be the ew Testament where the following paragraph is given to us
by Peter.
II Pet. 2:4-10 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to
hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not
spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but
protected oah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an
example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a
righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that
righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous
soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows
how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of
judgment, while continuing their punishment.10This is especially true of those who
follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
2. God's Word calls Lot a righteous man three times in the above paragraph, and
testifies that instead of participating in any way with the sinfulness of Sodom, that
he hated the filthy lives of these people and was tormented by all the evil and
lawlessness around him. That does not sound like a backslider to me, but an
unbelievably godly man in the midst of a godless society. To add to the honor of this
man Jesus put Lot in the same category with oah in Luke 17:26-29, Just as it was
in the days of oah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27People were
eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day oah entered
the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. 28It was the same in the days
of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and
destroyed them all. In other words, they were two of a kind as the exceptionally
righteous men in an exceptionally unrighteous society. He was a hero to Jesus, and
is portrayed in the most positive light by Peter, and so you can make your own
choice between the hundreds of sermons who give him a negative image, or accept
him as a hero along with God and Jesus.
3. I won't use names so as to embarrass anyone, but here are a few examples of how
preachers reject the testimony of the ew Testament and drag Lot through the mud
of their own making. One eloquent author wrote, By faith Abram sojourned in the
land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles. We have no such
statement, in reference to Lot.* It could not be said, By faith Lot sat in the gate of
Sodom. Alas! no; he gets no place among the noble army of confessors — the great
cloud of witnesses to the power of faith. The world was his snare, present things his
bane. He did not endure as seeing him who is invisible. He looked at the things
which are seen, and temporal: whereas Abram looked at the things which are
unseen and eternal. There was a most material difference between those two men,
who, though they started together on their course, reached a very different goal, so
far as their public testimony was concerned. o doubt Lot was saved, yet it was

3. So as by fire, for, truly, his work was burned up. On the other hand, Abraham
had an abundant entrance ministered unto him into the everlasting kingdom of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
It gets downright funny when one author assumes that sitting at the gate of the city
means he is a leader in this wicked society, and, therefore, he is part of its evil. He
then writes, Hence, the angels' word to Lot contains a most unqualified
condemnation of his position in Sodom. They would rather abide in the street all
night, than enter under the roof of one in a wrong position. Indeed, their only object
in coming to Sodom seems to have been to deliver Lot, and that, too, because of
Abraham; as we read: And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the
plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the
overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt. This is strongly
marked. It was simply for Abraham's sake that Lot was suffered to escape: the Lord
has no sympathy with a worldly mind; and such a mind it was that had led Lot to
settle down amid the defilement of that guilty city. Faith never put him there; a
spiritual mind never put him there; his righteous soul never put him there. It was
simple love for this present evil world that led him, first, to choose, then to pitch
his tent toward, and, finally, to sit in the gate of Sodom. And, oh! What a
portion he chose. Truly it was a broken cistern which could hold no water; a broken
reed which pierced his hand. This author gets the angels on his side in condemning
Lot, but neglects to point out that the Lord of the angels does not have a word of
condemnation, but only words of praise.
Another author writes, So, Lot has gone from being merely around them to being
one of them! So now Lot is no better than the Sodomites. This same author accuses
Lot of being selfish for choosing the best part of the land when he and Abraham had
to split up because of conflict with their servants. This is absurd, for Abraham gave
him the choice. How can it be selfish to do what Abraham gave him the freedom to
do? There is no rhyme or reason to the negative things preacher says about Lot. It is
nothing but slander against the man that Abraham risked his life to save when he
was captured by enemy forces. This author calls Abraham the friend of God, and
Lot the friend of the World, and again it is pure slander without foundation.
Portrait of a Backslider, is how another preacher titles his message on Lot. otice
how another preacher waters down the distress and torment of his soul that Peter
tells us about: What a perfect picture Lot exhibits of a modern day carnal
Christian. He thinks he has the best of both worlds. The eternal benefit of knowing
the Lord as Savior, but also the temporal benefits that result from worldly influence
and possessions together with the acceptance by and fellowship with the people of
the world. Their gross sinfulness may vex his soul a little bit and he may not wish to
enter into quite all of their activity, but in general he gets along with all of them
quite well and is quite pleased with himself that he does. There is no end to this
type of negative talk about Lot, and the reason I stress all this slander is because it is
based on human speculation that defies the clear Word of God that is only positive.
He was not perfect and had his sinful nature like all the heroes of the Bible, but
there is no basis to pick him out as an example of the bad guy.

4. 4. This chapter starts right off telling us he was a man of great hospitality who
treated strangers like the best of friends. He had no intention of harming these men,
but of providing for their comfort and safety. He was ready to make any sacrifice to
assure that they had a pleasant time in this dangerous city of corruption. He is the
good guy in this whole story, even though we question some of his choices.
2 My lords, he said, please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash
your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning. o,
they answered, we will spend the night in the square.
1. Lot is eager to invite these strangers to his home, and the first thing he offers is
that they can wash their feet. That is not what we usually do when inviting someone
to stay in our home, but we do not live in desert conditions. These angels had just
washed their feet earlier at the tent of Abraham, and now they need to do it again
for they had walked some miles. Dirty feet were one of the things that angels had to
experience in the human body. It was a constant issue, for there were no sidewalks
and dusty roads were all they had. So feet washing was a daily chore, and sometimes
twice or more daily. I can just imagine the angels complaining about this, for they
come from an environment with totally dirt free conditions, and everything stayed
white and clean all the time. It is humorous to think of angels having to wash their
dirty feet so often.
2. These angels were too independent to take charity, and so they refused the
invitation and said they would just rough it by spending the night outside in the
town square. They were angels and so they did not need to depend on man for any
of their needs, and they had no fear of anything men could do to them. They were
also well aware of Eastern customs that demanded modesty in responding to gifts.
You do not grab them in greedy selfishness, but let the giver insist that you take
them. These angels obviously had some training before they were sent on this
assignment, and so they knew how to act so as to conform to the culture.
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He
prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
1. Lot would not take no for an answer, and he insisted with such passion that they
could not refuse him. He loved to be hospitable and have people to his home where
he could learn from strangers who traveled places he had never been. It was
equivalent to having a television in our day. He could have an evening of
entertainment and it would be educational as well. He was not going to let these two
get away and deprive himself of a great evening of conversation. It would be
embarrassing for the strangers to keep rejecting such an urgent request and so they
gave in and came to his home. There he treated them like family and made a meal
for them. It does not sound like angel food that he prepared, for you would think
that would be something more fluffy and light. Instead he made bread without yeast

5. and that does not have those characteristics. He did not know they were angels, and
angels probably eat anything anyway. They have good appetites, for they just ate
with Abraham earlier, and so we have two of the best fed angels on record here.
They were, no doubt, enjoying this unique experience of living in human bodies for
a day and enjoying human pleasures. It would add some variety to their eternal lives
of living in paradise. Variety is the spice of life, and hopefully that applies to angels
as well as humans. On the other hand it is possible they were saying. We can't wait
to get through with this assignment and get back to heaven where the environment,
company and angel food is a million times better.” Whatever the case, it was nice of
Lot to be so friendly.
2. Lot was being very compassionate toward these two strangers for he knew just
how evil the people were, and he knew they would molest these two if they slept out
in the open. Strangers would have no idea of just how wicked the people were in
Sodom, and so in their innocence they would assume they were safe when in fact
they were in great danger. Lot was there to protect people from their ignorance, and
spare them from a tragic experience.
3. At this point I want to quote another anti-Lot author just to illustrate again how
prejudice they are toward him, and how they do not pay any attention to verses like
these last two. The quote says, Lot did not help any of his family toward heaven.
ot one person in his household believed God. He brought no honor to Christ, his
God and Savior, in his generation. I cannot find one large-hearted, noble-minded, or
self-sacrificing thing he ever did in his entire life. When he died, Lot left nothing
behind that would indicate that he ever knew God at all. If we did not have Peter's
record, if all we read was the account Moses gives of his life, we would be forced to
conclude that Lot was a lost man. We should not be surprised that Lot's life turned
out like it did. Worldly, lingering souls, are never useful instruments for good to
others. They have no influence for good among men. They bring no honor to Christ
while they live. These are mighty harsh words for a man that God so loved he
saved him twice from certain death, and then used his seed to be a chain in the line
to the Messiah, and one that he calls a righteous man in the ew Testament. I keep
pointing out the nasty things people say of Lot because God's Word does not
support them, and it is slander against a godly brother.
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--
both young and old--surrounded the house.
1. Here we have over-kill for sure. There are two strangers and all the men of the
city come expecting to use them as sex objects. This is ludicrous and hideous
behavior, and it reveals just why they had to be eliminated as a people. People who
fall this low are not going to be persuaded to change, and so the only alternative is
elimination. There is no generation gap in this city. They are all one in their iniquity
and all ages are equally corrupt. It is a perfect place for judgment, for there is no
hint that a future generation might change things for the better. The young are just
as far gone as the old timers.

6. 5 They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them
out to us so that we can have sex with them.
1. This is so pathetic that it is laughable. How in the world can people fall so low as
to treat strangers like this? They had no respect for people, and no respect for their
rights and dignity. They were there to rape two innocent men who had done them
no wrong. There are no words to describe just how ungodly and barbaric these
people were. The fact that the city is still here at this time is a testimony to the
amazing patience of God who can hold back judgment when it is long overdue. We
talk about the Hollywood cesspool because of all the sex in film and reality there,
but in the light of this passage Hollywood sounds like a nunnery in comparison. This
is the lowest of the low points even in the cultures of the godless of the O. T. God
tolerates terrible wickedness for a long time in hopes that there will come a day
when the wicked will repent and forsake their folly. These people were blest with
the most fertile land, and Gen. 13:10 says it was so well watered it was like the
garden of God. They had the best of a beautiful environment, and God is always
hopeful that beauty will lead people to see how ugly their sin is in contrast to that
beauty and repent. God also used Abraham to deliver these people in Gen. 14 when
they were defeated by enemy soldiers. God is hopeful that when wicked people are
delivered from death and destruction that they will repent in gratitude to God and
his providence in their lives. Unfortunately, man is so often depraved beyond being
able to respond positively to the blessings of God. Hitler and his generals were able
to sit and listen to the music of the great classical composers, and gaze at the worlds
great works of art, and then still plan how to brutally kill masses of innocent men,
women and children. Beauty and blessings do bring many to be grateful to God, but
you cannot count on it, for as Paul says in Rom. 2:4, Or do you show contempt for
the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness
leads you toward repentance? These Sodomites had every reason to be grateful for
the grace and mercy of God, but they chose to pervert all that he had blest them
with, including the sex drive.
2. This is the ultimate in sexual perversion when you have a whole town coming
together for a gang rape of two stranger who wandered into their midst. We do not
have any pictures of these two angels in the form of young men, but we can assume
that angels do not take on the form of sub-normal men. More than likely they were
unusually handsome specimens of the species, and when they came through the city
gates it was not just Lot who saw them, but the elders or other citizens who spread
the word that two very handsome men had entered their domain. Lust was the name
of their game and so the whole town was soon aroused to come and get in on the
action. ow you can see why there were not ten righteous men in the city that could
have saved it from destruction. They were all caught up in a homosexual lifestyle.
They did not pretend to want to get to know them like a welcome committee would
do, but without shame they declare that they want to have sex with them. They were
so obsessed with homosexuality that they refused to have sex with the two young
women that Lot offered them, and likely that is why Lot was willing to offer them,

7. for he knew they would refuse.
3. The thing that is most amazing is that as bad as these Sodomites were, they had
not reached the bottom of human depravity. This is brought out by Ezekiel in Ezek.
16:46-58 where God's own people are blasted for falling to a depth lower than
Sodom. They were so bad that in comparison they made Sodom look like the good
guys. It is unbelievable, but here is God's own words through the prophet: 46
Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters;
and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was
Sodom. 47 You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices,
but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. 48 As surely as I
live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did
what you and your daughters have done. 49 'ow this was the sin of your sister
Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did
not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before
me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit
half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have
made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 52 Bear your
disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your
sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be
ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.
53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of
Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may
bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. 55
And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will
return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what
you were before. 56 You would not even mention your sister Sodom in the day of
your pride, 57 before your wickedness was uncovered. Even so, you are now scorned
by the daughters of Edom [h] and all her neighbors and the daughters of the
Philistines—all those around you who despise you. 58 You will bear the
consequences of your lewdness and your detestable practices, declares the LORD.
It is of interest that verses 49 and 50 point out a number of things besides
homosexuality that made the Sodomites worthy of God's judgment. We see the same
judgment comes on Jerusalem for being just like Sodom in Isaiah 3:8-9 Jerusalem
staggers, Judah is falling; their words and deeds are against the LORD, defying his
glorious presence. 9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their
sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon
themselves. There is something about being open and bold about sin that makes it
even more detestable to God. It is terrible when it is hidden, but when it is done
openly and proudly it is worthy of greater judgment. This is scary when you see how
immorality, adultery and homosexuality are openly promoted on television as a
lifestyle. It makes you wonder how long before judgment will come on our country.
The only hope is that there are enough righteous people in America to hold back the
wrath of God.
Jeremiah adds his testimony to just how bad things got in Jerusalem even among
the prophets. In other words, those who should have been the best of people had

8. become the worst. Jer. 23:14 says, 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have
seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the
hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like
Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
If you go to Lev. 18 you can read the list of the sexual sins of the land that God gave
to Israel, and it is these sins that made them worthy of being driven out of the land.
They were warned not to follow these people in this sin, but they did and suffered
the same judgment. Lev.18:24-28says Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways,
because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became
defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land
vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The
native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable
things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before
you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out
as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
4. When we come to the ew Testament we see Jesus adding his testimony to the
record that the Sodomites were not the worst sinners. The more light people have
the greater is their sin when they do not give heed to that light. So Jesus says in
Matt. 10:11-16, Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy
person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it
your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let
your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words,
shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the
truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgment
than for that town. 16I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be
as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. In Matt. 11:20-24 he gets more
specific and says, Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his
miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21Woe to you, Korazin!
Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been
performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and
ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the Day of
Judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?
o, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had
been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that
it will be more bearable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than for you. Jesus is
saying that as bad as those people were, they would have watched the miracles of
Jesus and recognized him as the Messiah, and they would have become believers,
and their city would have been spared. Because God knows what people would have
done had they had the evidence like those did in the days of Jesus, they will be
judged with greater mercy than those who had it all and still did not repent. The
bottom line is, the Sodomites are not the worst people that ever lived, and they will
not be in the lowest level of hell. ot much consolation, but it is a Biblical fact.
5. The good news is that people who have fallen as low as these Sodomites can
become children of God with the promise of eternal life. Paul writes in I Cor. 6:9-11,

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: either the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards
nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what
some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. By God's grace the
worst can become the best if they claim the shed blood of Christ for forgiveness, and
trust in Jesus as their Savior.
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
1. Lot faced this mob alone, and he shut the door so that those inside would not be
exposed to the lust of this mob. He was brave to do so, and you have to give him
credit for being a hero of hospitality, which, by the way, is a great honor for a host
in the Middle East. It always has been and still is today. If you study hospitality in
that part of the world you will realize that they are famous for it, and it is because
the desert environment is dangerous, and survival often depended on receiving food
and water from someone who was a stranger to you. This became a sacred duty to
help strangers who needed food and water. It started with the Bedouins who were
nomads and it became a tradition that carried over into the lives of those who settled
in villages and cities. It was an obligation to sacrifice in order to make your guests
welcome and safe. Lot's example in this matter is used to illustrate just how far that
sacrifice could go.
7 and said, o, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
1. Lot make a futile effort to be kind by calling them his friends, and then pleads for
them to forsake their evil goal. If you know anything about mobs, you know they are
not easily influenced by politeness and pleading. Lot knew it instantly that he had to
be radical to have a chance of changing their minds, and so he comes up with the
most outlandish offer that we have anywhere in the Bible. If there is a major blot on
the record of this Bible hero, it is right here in the next verse. He was a desperate
man, but nothing can justify what he does. At least that is the typical judgment, but
maybe there is some reason for his action.
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them
out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these
men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.
1. This is absurd, and we think that this makes Lot as evil as the fools he is trying to
placate. How dare you offer your virgin daughters to this crowd of scum? It is just
an illustration of how serious the people of the ancient world took hospitality. If you
ate with a stranger they became your responsibility and you had to do whatever
possible to protect them. It may have been a foolish tradition, but it was just that

10. and Lot was being loyal to it. Stupid things are done in loyalty to traditions and
customs. It is a form of legalism that puts the rule above the person, and this is a
poor value system. Clarke writes, othing but that sacred light in which the rights
of hospitality were regarded among the eastern nations, could either justify or
palliate this proposal of Lot. A man who had taken a stranger under his care and
protection, was bound to defend him even at the expense of his own life. In this light
the rights of hospitality are still regarded in Asiatic countries; and on these high
notions only, the influence of which an Asiatic mind alone can properly appreciate,
Lot's conduct on this occasion can be at all excused: Some suggest that it was
clever of Lot, for he knew they would not desire his daughters because they were
homosexuals. There may be some truth to this, but it is a weak excuse for his action.
Morgan wrote, To preserve his sacred bond of protection to his guests, he offers
the mob his two virgin daughters to satisfy their lusts. His offer shocks us, as it
probably did the early Israelite readers. It shows the importance of hospitality in
that ancient world, and how Lot considered his daughters the only cards he had to
play.
2. Calvin gives high praise to Lot and writes, “ It appears from the fact that Lot
went out and exposed himself to danger, how faithfully he observed the sacred right
of hospitality. It was truly a rare virtue, that he preferred the safety and honor of
the guests whom he had once undertaken to protect, to his own life: yet this degree
of magnanimity is required from the children of God, that where duty and fidelity
are
concerned, they should not spare themselves.” Calvin cannot praise him one
hundred percent, however, for he goes on, As the constancy of Lot, in risking his
own life for the defense of his guests, deserves no common praise; so now Moses
relates that a defect was mixed with this great virtue, which sprinkled it with some
imperfection. For, being destitute of advice, he devises (as is usual in intricate
affairs) an unlawful remedy. He does not hesitate to prostitute his own daughters,
that he may restrain the indomitable fury of the people. But he should rather have
endured a thousand deaths, than have resorted to such a measure. Yet such are
commonly the works of holy men: since nothing proceeds from them so excellent, as
not to be in some respect defective. Lot, indeed, is urged by extreme necessity; and it
is no wonder that he offers his daughters to be polluted, when he sees that he has to
deal with wild beasts; yet he inconsiderately seeks to remedy one evil by means of
another. I can easily excuse some for extenuating his fault; yet he is not free from
blame, because he would ward off evil with evil.
3. What we learn from this is the folly and absurdity of traditions and customs that
become a form of legalism. Ordinarily it is wonderful to offer protection to
strangers, but the rules of hospitality in the ancient East went so far as to say that
once you invite someone into your home you are obligated to protect them even at
the expense of your own family and your own life. It was a high-risk situation you
created by having stranger in your home. This tradition that influenced the whole
Middle East for both Jews and Arabs was largely a blessing and beneficial to many,
but when it is taken literally as Lot is doing here it becomes a dangerous legalism
that is unreasonable. Lot was nobly following a sacred tradition and risking his own

11. daughter’s lives, but he was exalting a tradition of men above the will of God. When
any tradition forces you to do what is contrary to the Word of God, that tradition is
to be ignored. Lot just carried a good thing too far until it became a bad thing.
Barnes is merciful toward him and writes, We may suppose it was spoken rashly,
in the heat of the moment, and with the expectation that he would not be taken at
his word. So it turned out. Another writer says that Lot made this radical offer,
not because he intended to do it, but to shock the mob into seeing just how
despicable they were being in forcing him to break the law of hospitality. If we could
really know this was his motive it would change the whole picture. All we know is
that God nowhere has any condemning words for Lot's behavior.
4. 2 Peter 2:7 Tells us something about Lot that saves him from being a bad guy. It
says, Lot, a righteous man, was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men-for
that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his
righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard. If not for this defense in the
ew Testament we would be tempted to consider Lot as one of the perverts of
Sodom. Henry writes, He reasoned with them, pleaded the laws of hospitality and
the protection of his house which his guests were entitled to; but he might as well
have offered reason to a roaring lion and a raging bear as to these head-strong
sinners, who were governed only by lust and passion. Lot's arguing with them does
but exasperate them; and, to complete their wickedness, and fill up the measure of
it, they fall foul upon him.
9 Get out of our way, they replied. And they said, This fellow came here as an
alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them. They
kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
1. Two young virgins had no appeal to these men, and so they press forward
pushing Lot back with the intent of breaking down the door. This implies that Lot
locked the door somehow when he came out. Otherwise, why break the door down
rather than just open it? Lot was having a very bad day, for he is now being crushed
between a locked door and an angry mob. On top of this the crowd is criticizing and
threatening him. They call him an alien who came into their midst as an outsider
and now he is making judgments on their lifestyle and calling it wicked. Some are
saying let’s rape him and treat him worse than we are going to treat his guests. I
think you can grasp just how great a crisis Lot is in, and how desperately he must
feel the need for help. He had to be crying out inside, God help me!
2. Gill points out that this refutes any of the nonsense that says Lot was a judge in
the city with some official capacity. They are mocking his attempt to judge them,
and not acknowledging that he was a judge. Only a superficial reading of the text
can lead to the conclusion that these people had somehow elected or appointed Lot
as a leader. They despised him for coming into their town with his godly and ethical
purity and condemning their behavior. It is laughable to think they would have any
part of making a man like him a leader in their midst. The only reason they

12. tolerated his presence in their city was because of his uncle Abraham who had a
military might that rescued Lot earlier, and they would have to deal with Abraham
if they did anything to Lot.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the
door.
1. It is not everyday that one is saved by an angel, but Lot had the honor of being so
loved by God that his angels saved his life in this critical situation. They were
obviously listening to all that was going on outside that door and realized that things
had gotten to a point where they had to come to his rescue. They did not do
anything until it was obvious that Lot had no chance of persuading them to cease
their evil mission. So often God lets us do all we can to make a difference, and he
does not come to our rescue until the last moment. Lot did his best to save these
men, and now they do their best to save him, and being angels they were far more
successful because of superior gifts. Lot had no idea he had two guardian angels in
his house, but how glad he was to learn about them when they dragged him to
safety. It was oah and the ark all over again, for just as God shut the door of the
ark, so these angels shut the door, and all those outside had their doom sealed.
11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old,
with blindness so that they could not find the door.
1. How is this for a weapon? The ability to make the enemy blind is about as
effective a weapon as we can imagine. Henry said, Justly were those struck blind
who had been deaf to reason. We have come a long way from bows and arrows,
but man's technology in weapons still lags light years behind those of angels. What a
way to win a war! All your enemies are blind and you only let them see again when
it is to your advantage, and they learn the folly of fighting you. We actually have an
account of just such a warfare in II Kings 6:18-22 And when they came down to
him, Elisha prayed unto the LORD, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with
blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. 19
And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me,
and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But he led them to Samaria. 20 And
it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, LORD, open
the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the LORD opened their eyes, and they
saw; and, behold, they were in the midst of Samaria. 21 And the king of Israel said
unto Elisha, when he saw them, my father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them? 22
And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou
hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before
them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. How wonderful if all
wars could end this way, for it would mean the end of warfare. The only catch is
coming up with angelic technology that makes it possible to blind the enemy. There
are not many strategies that deal with a mob effectively, but blindness is extremely

13. effective. Someone pointed out that they apparently were still trying to find the door
after struck with blindness and this shows to what depth they had fallen, for they
were determined to pursue their evil no matter what. They were drunk with their
evil lust, and would molest these men in their blindness if only they could find the
door.
12 The two men said to Lot, Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or
daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,
1. This was the last straw that broke the camel's back, or the camel driver's back, as
many of the Sodomites probably were. There was no more pleading to be done, and
the angels took command of the situation, for it was now out of the hands of man.
God's cup of wrath was full to overflowing, and now all that could be done was to
run for your life. The angels allowed Lot to take any relative with him to escape the
judgment that was about to fall. Unfortunately every offer of salvation on the
physical or spiritual level calls for acceptance by those to whom it is offered. If they
do not accept the offer for whatever reason they are not saved. The offer is always
more widespread than the acceptance, and so there are many who could be saved
but are not because they do not accept the opportunity to be saved. Lot was told to
get his sons-in-law out of there, but what could he do if they would not go? otice
how loving the angels are to Lot. They offer to save all who belong to him as an act
of pure grace. Apparently these angels did not know how bad a man Lot was, and
that is because only modern commentators teach about all his badness, and neglect
to point out that God considered him righteous and worthy of being saved from this
terrible place.
2. Henry has some interesting comments here: ow this implies, 1. The command
of a great duty, which was to do all he could for the salvation of those about him, to
snatch them as brands out of the fire. ote, Those who through grace are themselves
delivered out of a sinful state should do what they can for the deliverance of others,
especially their relations. 2. The offer of great favor. They do not ask whether he
knew any righteous ones in the city fit to be spared: no, they knew there were none;
but they ask what relations he had there, that, whether righteous or unrighteous,
they might be saved with him. ote, Bad people often fare the better in this world
for the sake of their good relations. It is good being akin to a godly man. Henry
makes a good point, and that is that even unbelievers can benefit by being related to
believers, for they can be blest in ways that those who have no such connection can
never be. Lot is amazingly blest and spared because he is related to Abraham, and
those sons-in-law had a chance to be saved because of their relationship to Lot. God
does a lot of good things for unbelievers just because of their relationship to some
godly person. As we read on in the history of Lots two sons, they became really bad
guys, but they were still blest of God and their land was protected because they were
sons of Lot. The whole history of God's people is filled with grace and mercy no
matter how far they fall from pleasing God because they are the children of
Abraham.

14. 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its
people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.
1. Quoting one author makes it clear that there are unanswered questions about
who is making the outcry, and what happened to them. Who are these people
crying to the Lord against the people of Sodom? We are not told, but they had to be
just a few righteous souls, for if there had been even ten the Lord would have
spared the city. These few had to escape also, but we are not given any details, but
only the escape of Lot and his daughters. It could be that this outcry was of people
who had visited the city, but who lived elsewhere, and they saw just how bad things
were, and they may have experienced it for themselves. Gill interprets this cry as,
.. the cry of the sins of the inhabitants of it, which were many, and openly, and
daringly committed, and reached to heaven, and called for immediate vengeance
and punishment:
2. Even good angels can have the task of destroying those who have filled the cup of
God's wrath by their wickedness. They are usually sent to minister grace to the
believer, but sometimes, as here, they are sent to minister judgment to the
unbeliever.
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [1] his
daughters. He said, Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to
destroy the city! But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
1. The typical response to the prophet who comes shouting about the end of the
world and the need to flee the imminent destruction is to laugh and say, You have
got to be kidding. The radical nature of a message like this seems too preposterous
to be believed, and so we assume the messenger is crazy or joking. This was the
response of these two boys who were going to marry Lot's two daughters. The joke
was on them, of course, but how could they know Lot was speaking the truth? This
same thing will happen when God judges the entire world. We read of it in II Peter
3:3-4, First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come,
scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, `Where is this coming
he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the
beginning of creation. It is the task of every believer to warn those whom he loves
about this judgment, but they need to be aware that not all will be willing to take the
way of escape, which is trusting Jesus as their personal Savior. All you can do is
what Lot did, and try to warn and persuade.
2. The folly of not heeding a warning is common in history, and here were men who
had a chance to be saved, but who perished because they took the warning as a joke.
It did not speak well for Lot’s influence in the family. He could not get his sons-in-law
to escape or his wife to obey and survive. All in all it was a fairly slipshod
rescue. You cannot rescue people who will not listen, or who will not follow
instructions. Calvin wrote, the pious old man was despised and derided and that

15. what he said was accounted a fable; because his sons-in-law supposed him to be
seized with delirium, and to be vainly framing imaginary dangers. Lot, therefore,
did not seem to them to mock purposely or to have come for the sake of trifling with
them; but they deemed his language fabulous; because, where there is no religion,
and no fear of God, whatever is said concerning the punishment of the wicked,
vanishes as a vain and illusory thing. Warning people of the impending doom of
the day of the Lord is a thankless task, for most will greet such a warning with a
skeptical laugh. I like the way Henry describes the situation: They had not forty
days to repent in, as the inevites had. ow or never they must make their escape.
At midnight this cry was made. Such as this is our call to the unconverted, to turn
and live. 2. The slight they put upon this warning: He seemed to them as one that
mocked. They thought, perhaps, that the assault which the Sodomites had just now
made upon his house had disturbed his head, and put him into such a fright that he
knew not what he said; or they thought that he was not in earnest with them. Those
who lived a merry life, and made a jest of everything, made a jest of this warning,
and so they perished in the overthrow. Thus many who are warned of the misery
and danger they are in by sin make a light matter of it, and think their ministers do
but jest with them; such will perish with their blood upon their own heads.
3. Typical of anti-Lot preaching one author says, Why? Why would they not take
Lot seriously? otice that we are not told that they refused to believe Lot so much as
they did not even take him seriously. There seems to be only one possible
explanation: Lot had never mentioned his faith before. His words were not a
repetition of his life-long warnings of sin and Judgment—they are something totally
new and novel. What a rebuke to the witness of Lot. Those who have a prejudice
against Lot see some evil in his life everywhere and never give him a benefit of the
doubt. obody blames oah for not winning anyone but his family to come on to the
ark, and he had far more time than Lot to witness, but they pick on Lot. obody
mentions how many missionaries have labored for decades without winning a single
convert. They just like to make Lot out as the bad guy as often as they can to justify
their false interpretation of the evidence. Again, there is no hint of rebuke from
God, and I prefer God's view of Lot.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, Hurry! Take your wife
and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is
punished.
1. The angels imply that even though it was God's intention to spare Lot and his
family, they still had to leave the city to be spared. They were chosen to be spared,
but had they stayed in the city they too would have perished. It is presumption to
say because I am chosen to be spared I can stay in the city and still survive. God
demands that the chosen still flee the city. The Sons-in-law were also chosen and had
the choice that others did not have to be spared, but they perished because they did
not leave. Man has to respond and take action in obedience to God's warning to be
spared. Lot's wife was chosen too, but she took action that disobeyed the warning
and she perished. Lot would have perished as well had he continued to delay and

16. resist fleeing with the angels.
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of
his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to
them.
1. This hesitation of Lot leads the anti-Lot preachers to blast him again for his
worldliness as if he was clinging to his possession as his god. This negative
interpretation has no basis in the text, or in any word of God referring to this
situation. He could be delaying his departure because there were still others in the
city that he wanted to warn. Some speculate that he had other daughters who were
married, and he may have wanted to warn them as well. The point is, there is no
good reason to read anything negative into his hesitation except prejudice against
this man of God. If he was a bad as some make him out to be, the angels should have
let him stay instead of grabbing him and forcefully pulling him from destruction. He
had to be saved by force because of his delay. Put yourself in the same situation, and
you know that there are many good reasons why you would hesitate to leave
everything and everyone. Gill says he may have been waiting to see if his sons-in-law
would be coming after all. It was all happening so fast that there was not time to
think of all that should be done. His mind would be racing to think of who else could
be warned before it was too late. Whatever the reason for his delay, the angels knew
the time was up and it was now or never and so they did not reason or argue, but
just took him and the rest by their hands and led them away. Some people have to
be dragged to salvation kicking and screaming, and Lot was one of them, but do not
rob him of his place in the heart and mind of God who loved him enough to send
two angels to save him. How many others can you name who have had this kind of
special treatment?
2. It is interesting to note that even those who recognize Lot to be a man of God see
more negatives in his life than the Biblical text can justify. One such author is Don
Fortner who sees Lot as few preachers see him. I have not found another preacher
who has a more honest and exalted view of this man according to the Scripture. He
writes, Many seem to think that Lot was a bad man, a wicked worldling, a child of
the devil; but he was not such a person Lot was a righteous man, made righteous by
the grace of God, born of God, washed in the blood of Christ, robed in his
righteousness, though he often behaved horribly. Lot was a true believer, a child of
God. He was a converted man, a justified soul, or heir of heaven. Lot truly was a
righteous man. The Holy Spirit places this matter beyond all controversy (2 Pet. 2:7-
8). God himself has given us good evidence of his grace in Lot. He was a man who
lived in a wicked place, seeing and hearing the evil around him. Yet, he was not a
wicked man. Lot had his faults, plenty of them; but he was distinctly different from
the men of Sodom. He vexed his righteous soul with the unlawful deeds he beheld
around him. He was wounded, grieved, pained, hurt, and angered by the deeds of
his neighbors. Lot had the same attitude toward the society in which he lived as
David did in his (Psa. 119:136, 158). Furthermore, Peter tells us that he vexed his
righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds. Many of us are shocked

17. by certain acts of evil the first time we see them, but after a while we become
accustom to the abomination. ot Lot. He was continually grieved by the
wickedness he beheld around him. This is the thing I want you to see. God's saints in
this world have many blemishes. We are sinners still. We do not despise the gold
because it is mixed with dross; and we must not undervalue the grace of God in a
man because it is accompanied by corruption. Lot suffered much, because of his
lingering, and his family even more; but he was a true believer. Though he lingered
in Sodom, he is seated today in the blessed circle of the redeemed around the throne
of Christ. There he sits, elect, chosen of God, and precious. -- Redeemed, washed
and forgiven by the blood of Christ. -- Born again, sanctified and glorified by the
Spirit of grace. -- Side by side with and heir of the same glory as Abraham.
ow the text does leave it open for speculation about the cause of Lot's hesitation.
But there are good reasons as well as bad, and that is why I question the radical
interpretation that says Lot was being negative here. Maybe he was, but we have no
basis in the text to come to this conclusion. Yet most do, and even Pastor Fortner
who has the highest view of Lot, writes this about this hesitation: Moses tells us,
He lingered! What a short sentence that is to tell us so much about this man.
Consider these words in the context in which they are found, and I am sure you will
agree that Lot's behavior was shocking. - He lingered! This, it seems to me, is the
most shocking thing revealed about him. His greed and covetousness, his
drunkenness, his incest are all less shocking than this - He lingered! Lot knew the
awful condition of the city in which he lived. The cry of its abomination was
great before the face of the Lord (19:13). Yet, he lingered! Lot knew the fearful
judgment coming down upon all within the city (19:13). Yet, he lingered! He
knew that God is a God of righteousness, justice, and truth. Yet, he lingered! He
knew and believed that judgment was both real and imminent. He tried to persuade
his sons-in-law to flee the wrath of God (19:14). Yet, he lingered! Lot saw the
angels of God standing by, warning him and his family to flee. Yet, he lingered!
He heard the command of God by his messengers (19:15). Yet, he lingered! C. H.
Spurgeon wrote, Lot was slow when he should have been fast, backward when he
should have been forward, trifling when he should have been hastening, loitering
when he should have been hurrying, cold when he should have been hot. This
seems incredible. It is shocking beyond imagination. He lingered! This shocking
behavior of Lot is written in the Scriptures for our learning.
3. Maclaren wrote, Second thoughts are not always best. When great resolves have
to be made, and when a clear divine command has to be obeyed, the first thought is
usually the nobler; and the second, which pulls it back, and damps its ardor, is
usually of the earth, earthy. So was it with Lot. Overnight, in the excitement of the
terrible scene enacted before his door, Lot had been not only resolved himself to
flee, but his voice had urged his sons-in-law to escape from the doom which he then
felt to be imminent. But with the cold gray light of morning his mood has changed.
The ties, which held him in Sodom, reassert their power. Perhaps daylight made his
fears seem less real. There was no sign in the chill Eastern twilight that this day was
to be unlike the other days. Perhaps the angels’ summons roused him from sleep,
and there ‘arise’ is literally meant. It might have given wings to his flight. Urgent,

18. and resonant, like the morning bugle, it bids him be stirring lest he be swept away
‘in the punishment of the city.
4. J. C. Ryle's sermon on this text is an amazing paradox, for none praises Lot more
than Ryle, and yet he also paints a bad picture of him because of this hesitation to
leave Sodom. He wrote, You would perhaps say, after reading this paper, “Ah, Lot
was a poor, dark creature,—an unconverted man,—a child of this world!—no
wonder he lingered.”
But mark now what I say. Lot was nothing of the kind. Lot was a true believer,—a
real child of God,—a justified soul,—a righteous man.
Has any one of you grace in his heart?—So also had Lot.
Has any one of you a hope of salvation?—So also had Lot.
Is any one of you a “new creature”?—So also was Lot.
Is any one of you a traveler in the narrow way which leads unto life?—So also was
Lot.
Do not think this is only my private opinion,—a mere arbitrary fancy of my own,—
a notion unsupported by Scripture. Do not suppose I want you to believe it, merely
because I say it. The Holy Ghost has placed the matter beyond controversy, by
calling him “just,” and “righteous” (2 Peter ii. 7, 8), and has given us evidence of
the grace that was in him.
One evidence is, that he lived in a wicked place, “seeing and hearing” evil all around
him (2 Peter ii. 8), and yet was not wicked himself. ow to be a Daniel in Babylon,—
an Obadiah in Ahab’s house,—an Abijah in Jeroboam’s family,—a saint in ero’s
court, and a righteous man in Sodom, a man must have the grace of God.
Another evidence is, that he “vexed his soul with the unlawful deeds” he beheld
around him. (2 Peter ii. 8.) He was wounded, grieved, pained, and hurt at the sight
of sin. This was feeling like holy David, who says, “I beheld the transgressors, and
was grieved, because they kept not Thy word.” “Rivers of waters run down mine
eyes, because they keep not Thy law.” (Psalm cxix. 136, 158.) othing will account
for this but the grace of God.
Another evidence is, that he “vexed his soul from day to day” with the unlawful
deeds he saw (2 Peter ii. 8.) He did not at length become cool and lukewarm about
sin, as many do. Familiarity and habit did not take off the fine edge of his feelings,
as too often is the case. Many a man is shocked and startled at the first sight of
wickedness, and yet becomes at last so accustomed to see it, that he views it with
comparative unconcern. This is especially the case with those who live in towns and
cities. But it was not so with Lot. And this is a great mark of the reality of his grace.
Such an one was Lot,—a just and righteous man, a man sealed and stamped as an
heir of heaven by the Holy Ghost Himself.
Reader, before you pass on, remember that a true Christian may have many a
blemish, many a defect, many an infirmity, and yet be a true Christian nevertheless.
You do not despise gold because it is mixed with much dross. You must not
undervalue grace because it is accompanied by much corruption. Read on, and you

19. will find that Lot paid dearly for his “lingering.” But do not forget, as you read, that
Lot was a child of God.
Yet, after all this, Ryle goes on to point out all of the bad things about Lot that
make him quite worthless, even though he will be saved. The major criticism is that
he did not seem to have any influence for good in his community of Sodom. He could
not win his own sons-in-law to believe, and none but his own family were worthy of
being saved, and so he made no difference for God in his whole life. He has a tragic
end with nothing to show for his life, and so he was a failure. The problem with this
kind of criticism is that it is clearly discrimination against Lot. We have said it
before, oah had ten times the time to win people to belief and he won none but his
own family, and he is not ever criticized for it.
When we read of all the great men and women of faith in Heb. 11 we often forget
how it ends. Heb. 11:35-40 says, Women received back their dead, raised to life
again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a
better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained
and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to
death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute,
persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered
in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. 39These were all
commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised.
40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they
be made perfect. ot all people of faith have fairy tale type endings. Many suffer
great persecution and death and never have a chance to impact their society because
of the terrible times in which they live. Many a godly missionary has spent a lifetime
in some lands with no fruit for their labor, but they please God, and that is the
greatest success. My point is, Lot is not held up to us as a great example in the Old
Testament, for he did live among a very wicked people, and there is not much to
praise him for, but there is very little evidence to support the extreme negativity
toward him. He is not my hero, but neither is he my enemy, and I see no call to go
out of my way to find bad things to say of him based on speculation and insinuation.
17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, Flee for your lives!
Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you
will be swept away!
1. Again we see that their salvation was conditional upon their obedience to focus on
what they were running to and not what the were running from. Don't look back is
a command, and if it is not obey the salvation from death is forfeited, and that is just
what happened to Lot's wife. She was almost saved, but almost does not count, for
she lost her life for one mistake of looking back. She was warned and did not heed
the warning as did the rest of her family, and the end result was that she lost the
very salvation she had in her hands.
2. They could not stop anywhere in the plains, for the whole plains were going up in

20. flames. They had to get to the mountains or they were toast. Getting out of town was
just the first step in his salvation, and this leads us to see an analogy with the
experience of salvation in Christ. The initial step of asking Jesus to be our Savior
takes us out of hell, but it does not take us to complete safety. The rest of our lives
needs to be saved as well, and this means getting to the mountains of sanctification
and out of the plains of worldly living, which is so dangerous and detrimental to our
soul's growth. Don Fortner puts it so forcefully when he writes, In verse 17, there
is a word of instruction for all believers. Though he had been delivered from Sodom,
Lot was still in danger. He must not rest in the plain. He must escape for his life to
the mountain. You and I who have been delivered by God's almighty grace from the
bondage and dominion of sin are here given an urgent word of instruction. Escape
for thy life! Ever flee from sin, Satan and the world. Work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling. ever imagine that you have apprehended that
for which you have been apprehended by Christ, as long as you live in this world.
Look not behind thee! Forgetting those things, which are behind, reach forth
unto those things which are before. Count all things but loss for Christ. Do not
hanker after the world. Flee from it. Escape to the mountain, lest thou be
consumed. Set your affection on things above. Press toward the mark for the
prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Having put your hand to the plow,
do not look back. It is written, If any man draw back, my soul shall have no
pleasure in him.
18 But Lot said to them, o, my lords, [2] please!
1. What audacity to say no to God's word to him through these servant angels. Yet,
God respected his desire to do something different that what was planned. The
original plan was to get him to the mountains, but he pleads to be able to go to a
small town instead. He is arguing with God's plan and seeking to modify it, and this
makes him seem like a rebel against the wisdom of God. Then when God allows it to
go his way, it seems like he is a man of great faith, for God agrees that his idea is not
bad. This leads commentators to be torn between condemning his resistance to God,
and praising him for his thinking outside the box that so pleased the Lord that he
made a modification of his plan.
2. Calvin is a good example of trying to condemn and commend Lot at the same
time. He wrote: For it is to be held as an axiom, that our prayers are faulty, so far
as they are not founded on the word. Lot, however, not only departs from the word,
but preposterously indulges himself in opposition to the word; such importunity
has, certainly, no affinity with faith. Afterwards, a sudden change of mind was the
punishment of his foolish cupidity. For thus do all necessarily vacillate, who do not
submit themselves to God. As soon as they attain
one wish, immediately a new disquietude is produced, which compels them to
change their opinion. It must then, in short, be maintained, that Lot is by no means
free from blame, in wishing for a city as his residence; for he both sets himself in
opposition to the command of God, which it was his duty to obey; and desires to

21. remain among those pleasures, from which it was profitable for him to be removed.
He, therefore, acts just as a sick person would do, who should decline an operation,
or a bitter draught, which his physician had prescribed. evertheless, I do not
suppose, that the prayer of Lot was altogether destitute of faith; I rather think, that
though he declined from the right way, he not only did
not depart far from it, but was even fully purposed in his mind to keep it. For he
always depended upon the word of God; but in one particular he fell from it, by
entreating that a place should be given to him, which had been denied. Thus, with
the pious desires of holy men, some defiled
and turbid admixture is often found. I am not however ignorant, that sometimes
they are constrained, by a remarkable impulse of the Spirit, to depart in appearance
from the word, yet without really transgressing its limits. But the immoderate carnal
affection of Lot betrays itself, in
that he is held entangled by those very delights, which he ought to have shunned.
Moreover, his inconstancy is a proof of his rashness, because he is soon displeased
with himself for what he has done.
3. Maclaren thinks Lot is so fear filled that he is just acting crazy. He wrote, Lot’s
answer shows a complete change of feeling. He is too fully alarmed now. His fright is
so desperate that it has killed faith and common sense. The natural conclusion from
God’s mercy, which he acknowledges, would have been trust and obedience.
‘Therefore I can escape,’ not ‘but I cannot escape,’ would have been the logic of
faith. The latter is the irrationality of fear. When a man who has been cleaving to
this fleeting life of earthly good wakes up to believe his danger, he is ever apt to
plunge into an abyss of terror, in which God’s commands seem impossible, and His
will to save becomes dim.
Maclaren wants to condemn this craziness, but in the light of God's response to his
request he has to change his mind, and he wrote,
God answered the cry, whatever its fault, and that may well make us pause in
our condemnation. He hears even a very imperfect petition, and can see the
tiniest germ of faith buried under thick clods of doubt and fear. This
stooping readiness to meet Lot’s weakness comes in wonderful contrast with
the terrible revelation of judgment, which follows. What a conception of God,
which had room for this more than human patience with weakness, and also for
the flashing, lurid glories of destructive retribution! Zoar is spared, not
for the unworthy reason which Lot suggested—because its minuteness might buy
impunity, as some noxious insect too small to be worth crushing—but in
accordance with the principle, which was illustrated in Abraham’s
intercession, and even in Lot’s safety; namely, that the righteous are
shields for others, as Paul had the lives of all that sailed with him given
to him.
19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness
to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake

22. me, and I'll die.
1. Lot is saying that your plan won't work because I will not be able to get to the
mountains in time to escape and so the this whole rescue attempt will be futile and I
will perish anyway in spite of all your effort. So thanks for nothing guys, if you are
locked into your agenda, and cannot see that my way will work better. The
implication is that he is so tired from being up all night trying to get his family to
listen to his plea to escape the city before it is too late. He is exhausted and ready to
drop and he knows he cannot make it to the mountains, and so he comes up with an
alternate plan.
2. Calvin again has such ambivalence in trying to both condemn and commend the
prayer of Lot. He wrote,
Behold now, they servant has found grace in thy sight. Though Lot
saw two persons, he yet directs his discourse to one. Whence we infer,
that he did not rely upon the angels; because he was well convinced that
they had no authority of their own, and that his salvation was not placed
in their hands. He uses therefore their presence in no other way than as
a mirror, in which the face of God may be contemplated. Besides, Lot
commemorates the kindness of God, not so much for the sake of testifying
his gratitude, as of acquiring thence greater confidence in asking for
more. For since the goodness of God is neither exhausted, nor wearied, by
bestowing; the more ready we find him to give, the more confident does it
become us to be, in hoping for what is good. And this truly is the
property of faith, to take encouragement for the future, from the
experience of past favor. And Lot does not err on this point; but he
acts rashly in going beyond the word for the sake of self-gratification.
Therefore I have said, that his prayer, though it flowed from the
fountain of faith, yet drew something turbid from the mire of carnal
affection. Let us then, relying upon the mercy of God, not hesitate to
expect all things from him; especially those which he himself has
promised, and which he permits us to choose.
I cannot escape to the mountains. He does not indeed rage against
God, with determined malice as the wicked are wont to do; yet, because he
rests not upon the word of God, he slides, and almost falls away. For why
does he fear destruction in the mountain, where he was to be protected by
the hand of God, and yet expect to find a safe abode in that place, which
is both near to Sodom, and obnoxious to similar vengeance, on account of
its impure and wicked inhabitants? But this verily is the nature of men,
that they choose to seek their safety in hell itself, rather than in
heaven, whenever they follow their own reason. We see, then, how greatly
Lot errs, in seeing from, and entertaining suspicions of, a mountain
infected with no contagion of iniquity and choosing a city which,
overflowing with crimes, could not but be hateful to God. He pretends
that it is a little one, in order that he may the more easily obtain his
request. As if he had said, that he only wanted a corner where he might

23. be safely sheltered. This would have been right, if he had not declined
the asylum divinely granted to him and rashly contrived another for
himself.
20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it--it is
very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared.
1. In other words, you do not have to spare a large segment of this land under
condemnation, but just one little town. It is no big deal to let a handful of people
survive this judgment day, so I and my daughters can also survive. He is pleading
for mercy based on how few people need to be spared in order for him to survive.
But in total disregard for the Word of God in the ew Testament that declares that
Lot was a righteous man and that he hated all of the wickedness of Sodom, we read
comments like the following from the anti-Lot crowd: In verse 20, Lot twice
emphasizes the smallness of the city to which he wants to flee. He seems to think that
Sodom is wicked because it is large and that his addictions and sin are a problem
only in such a place. What he really wants is a manageable version of his problems.
What he wants is a small city where he can retain control of things, where he can
indulge in idolatry and wickedness on a small enough scale to keep it from being
overwhelming. Righteousness demands that we take up our crosses and crucify
what needs to die. It is foolish to attempt sin management in Zoar.
2. The anti-Lot people say he wants to continue his life of sin in Zoar, but fail to
point out that God approves of his plan and agrees to save the small town for his
sake. If they are right as to Lot's motives, then they are including God in on the plan
to approve his sinful desires. This is clearly nonsense and should make us see how
fanatical the anti-Lot crowd is in finding every possible reason to condemn this
man, even when it is on a matter where God takes a stand along side of him. To me
it is sinful to condemn a man for doing what God agrees to let him do. To read in sin
when it is not there is not expounding the Word, but one's own prejudices.
3. Almost all commentators struggle with trying to be objective about Lot. They
want to acknowledge that God is going out of his way to save this man, but they are
not really sure they agree with God in doing so. They feel they have to make Lot out
to be the bad guy even when God is treating him like a precious jewel to be saved at
all cost. Even Matthew Henry who comments favorably on Lot here feels the need to
throw in some negatives lest anyone think he is implying that Lot is a good guy. He
wrote, It was Lot's weakness to think a city of his own choosing safer than the
mountain of God's appointing. And he argued against himself when he pleaded,
Thou hast magnified thy mercy in saving my life, and I cannot escape to the
mountain; for could not he that plucked him out of Sodom, when he lingered, carry
him safely to the mountain, though he began to tire? Could not he that saved him
from greater evils save him from the less? He insists much in his petition upon the
smallness of the place: It is a little one, is it not? Therefore, it was to be hoped, not so
bad as the rest. This gave a new name to the place; it was called Zoar, a little one.
Intercessions for little ones are worthy to be remembered. 2. God granted him his

24. request, though there was much infirmity in it, Genesis 19:21,22. See what favor
God showed to a true saint, though weak. (1.) Zoar was spared, to gratify him.
Though his intercession for it was not, as Abraham's for Sodom, from a principle of
generous charity, but merely from self-interest, yet God granted him his request, to
show how much the fervent prayer of a righteous man avails. (2.) Sodom's ruin was
suspended till he was safe: I cannot do any thing till thou shalt have come thither.
ote, The very presence of good men in a place helps to keep off judgments. See
what care God takes for the preservation of his people. The winds are held till God's
servants are sealed, Revelation 7:3,Eze+9:4.
4. Even Spurgeon uses the word foolish frequently when commenting on this request
of Lot, and he wrote, Foolishly, Lot thought that he knew what was better for him
than the angels of the Lord. Let us not be too hard on Lot, though. We also often
believe that we know what is best for us, as we ignore the word of the Lord. We can
infer Lot's motive in resisting the angels' advice from what he says next: Look,
here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it--it is very
small, isn't it? Lot desired to go to a small town near Sodom, a town similar to
Sodom. Lot, despite his hatred for the sin there, still had affection for the lifestyle
that Sodom afforded him. He is also subtly asking the angels to spare that small
town, saying it is small...it is very small, isn't it? Lot (foolishly) thinks that a small
town of sin is less deserving of judgment than a large town of sin. We have a similar
misconception when we think that a small sin is less deserving of judgment than a
(so-called) large sin. We swear off and abhor the large sins, but cherish and
continue to dwell in the small sins. We think nothing of gossiping, teasing, lusting,
profanity, cheating on taxes, etc. We must realize that the small sins are just as
destructive and hated in God's sight as the large sins. James states: [W]hoever
keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it
(James 2:10).
5. The big problem with calling something foolish when God says it is fine with me is
that it makes God approve of what is foolish. We have to understand all things in
the light of what God's attitude is on a matter. In this case God says it is fine to go to
the small city, and yet men are constantly finding reasons why it is not fine with
them. It seems that we all have to choose what voice to follow. Will we accept what
God accepts as acceptable, or will we oppose it because it is not acceptable to us?
21 He said to him, Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the
town you speak of.
1. It is downright funny to see the contrast between the response of God and that of
anti-Lot skeptics who have little to nothing good to say of Lot. God responds with
sympathy for his fatigue that makes it unlikely for him to get to the mountains. God
says, okay we will change the plan and let you escape to that town, which will also
be allowed to survive because you are in it. Here is the marvelous grace of God in
action. The people of this little town did not have a clue that they were going to
benefit from the prayer of Lot. God granted his request to get to this small town,

25. and since there was not way to spare Lot without also sparing that town, the people
there survived the judgment of God. We have no record of what happened in that
town after the destruction of Sodom and other cities all around them, but you would
hope they were overwhelmed with being spared out of all this destruction, and that
they repented in dust and ashes, of which there were plenty all around them, and
turned to the Lord in thanksgiving. God's mercy to the righteous often benefits
those who are completely undeserving. This little town would have been burned to a
crisp with all the others around them had it not been for Lot begging to run to it for
shelter.
2. ow that we have heard from God in his mercy, let us hear from Mackintosh in
his judgmental spirit when he writes, What a picture! He seems like a drowning
man, ready to catch even at a floating feather. Though commanded by the angel to
flee to the mountain, he refuses, and still fondly clings to the idea of a little city,
— some little shred of the world. He feared death in the place to which God was
mercifully directing him — yea, he feared all manner of evil, and could only hope
for safety in some little city, some spot of his own devising. Oh! Let me escape
thither, and my soul shall live. How sad. There is no casting himself wholly upon
God. Alas! He had too long walked at a distance from Him; too long breathed the
dense atmosphere of a city, to be able to appreciate the pure air of the divine
presence, or lean on the arm of the Almighty. His soul seemed completely unhinged;
his worldly nest had been abruptly broken up, and he was not quite able to nestle
himself, by faith, in the bosom of God. He had not been cultivating communion with
the invisible world; and, now, the visible was passing away from beneath his feet
with tremendous rapidity. The fire and brimstone from heaven were about to fall
upon that in which all his hopes and all his affections were centered. The thief had
broken in upon him, and he seems entirely divested of spiritual nerve and self-possession.
He is at his wits' end; but the worldly element, being strong in his heart,
prevails, and he seeks his only refuge in a little city.
22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it. (That is
why the town was called Zoar.)
1. God's plan had to be put on hold until Lot was safe. The button could not be
pushed until Lot was in place. The fires of judgment were ready to burst forth in
awesome and destructive power, but for the moment they were held back because of
Lot having to drag his weary rear into this small town. It is funny what God will do
to spare someone he loves. God's love limits him in what he can do, for he cannot
just let Lot go up in flames because he is too tired to get to the mountains. He had
the power to go ahead and destroy Lot and his daughters along with the small town
too, but he was limited by his love. The love of God limits his power so that he does
not do what he can do. In other words, if God was not love he would do just what we
would do if we were God. He would operate on power only and wipe out every evil
person instantly, which means that the end of history would have been right then,
and his judgment would not have been limited to Sodom and the cities of the plain.
It would have been universal. The only reason it was not, and is not yet, is because
God is limited by his love. He is not willing to let the world perish in its sin, but

26. waits patiently for people to repent, for his plan is not to destroy man but to save
man. He cannot bring himself to let his wrath at sin lead to the end of the world, for
he wants to send a Savior with a message of salvation that will go into all the world.
God's goal is not to tear down, but to build up. He wants to save and not destroy,
and this little town is an illustration of his plan and his grace. Like the little town of
Bethlehem, it marks a spot where God tells us what he really wants for this
judgment-deserving world. Zoar means little, and that is how God works in the
world. He starts with a mustard seed, or a little baby, and from the little he blesses
the whole world.
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land.
1. The sun was rising and it was a beautiful morning in the neighborhood, for Zoar
that is, and for Lot and his girls. For Sodom and Gomorrah and other cities of the
plain it was their last morning, and they would never see another sunrise, for the
moment Lot was safe the fires of judgment fell from heaven. It makes you realize
that every morning is a delight for some and a dread for others. Good and evil are
happening at the same time everywhere. Deliverance and damnation are only a
small distance apart.
24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from
the LORD out of the heavens.
1. Barnes gives us a lot of information in his commentary as he writes, The dale of
Siddim, in which the cities were, appears to have abounded in asphalt and other
combustible materials Gen_14:10. The district was liable to earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions from the earliest to the latest times. We read of an earthquake in
the days of king Uzziah Amo_1:1. An earthquake in 1759 destroyed many thousands
of persons in the valley of Baalbec. Josephus (De Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 7) reports that the
Salt Sea sends up in many places black masses of asphalt, which are not unlike
headless bulls in shape and size. After an earthquake in 1834, masses of asphalt
were thrown up from the bottom, and in 1837 a similar cause was attended with
similar effects.
The lake lies in the lowest part of the valley of the Jordan, and its surface is about
thirteen hundred feet below the level of the sea. In such a hollow, exposed to the
burning rays of an unclouded sun, its waters evaporate as much as it receives by the
influx of the Jordan. Its present area is about forty-five miles by eight miles. A
peninsula pushes into it from the east called the Lisan, or tongue, the north point of
which is about twenty miles from the south end of the lake. orth of this point the
depth is from forty to two hundred and eighteen fathoms. This southern part of the
lake seems to have been the original dale of Siddim, in which were the cities of the
vale. The remarkable salt hills lying on the south of the lake are still called Khashm
Usdum (Sodom). A tremendous storm, accompanied with flashes of lightning, and
torrents of rain, impregnated with sulphur, descended upon the doomed cities.
2. Gill adds much more information as he writes, Lord rained upon Sodom, and
upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And not upon

27. those two cities only, but upon Admah and Zeboiim also, see Deu_29:23; this was
not a common storm of thunder and lightning, with which often there is a smell of
sulphur or brimstone; but this was a continued shower of sulphurous fire, or of
burning flaming brimstone, which at once consumed those cities and the inhabitants
of them; and the land adjacent being bituminous, or however some parts of it, full of
slime pits, or pits of bitumen, a liquid of a pitchy quality, Gen_14:10; this flaming
sulphur falling thereon, must burn in a most fierce and furious manner; and which
utterly consumed not only houses, goods, and everything upon the land, but the land
itself, and turned it into a bituminous lake, called to this day, from thence, the Lake
Asphaltites, the Greek word for bitumen being asphaltos. Of this conflagration
some Heathen writers speak, as particularly Tacitus (f) who says, some large and
famous cities, or, as some copies have it, Jewish ones, not far from Jordan, were
struck with thunderbolts, and were fired igni ceolesti, with fire from heaven, and
were consumed; and so Solinus (g) relates, that, “at some distance from Jerusalem, a
sorrowful lake appears, which the black ground testifies was stricken by heaven and
turned into ashes; where were two towns, the one called Sodomum, the other
Gomorrum.''This was a righteous judgment on those cities, and a just retaliation for
their sin; their sin was an unnatural one, and nature is inverted to punish them, fire
comes down from heaven, or hell from heaven, as Salvian's words are, to consume
them; they burned with lusts one against another, and flaming sheets of sulphurous
fire fall upon them, burn and destroy them; and, in allusion to this terrible
conflagration, hell is called the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, Jud_1:7
Rev_20:14; and this destruction was brought upon them by Jehovah the Son of God,
who had appeared to Abraham in an human form, and gave him notice of it, and
heard all he had to plead for those cities, and then departed from him to Sodom, and
was the author of this sad catastrophe; this amazing shower of fire and brimstone
was rained by him from Jehovah his Father, out of heaven; so the Targums of
Jonathan and Jerusalem both call him, the Word of the Lord.
3. W. B. Johnson writes, ot only these cities, but as we learn from Deut. 29:23,
Admah and Zeboim, all the five cities of the plain except Zoar, were submerged by
fire. The five cities are named in, Gen. 14:2. Bush holds that brimstone and fire is
used to signify lightning. Adam Clarke holds that brimstone is used
metaphorically, to point out the utmost degree of punishment executed on the most
flagitious criminals. He refers for examples to Deut. 29:23; Job 18:15; Psalm 11:6;
Isa. 34:9; Ezek. 38:22. He adds: As hell and an everlasting separation from God
and the glory of his power, is the utmost punishment that can be inflicted on sinners,
brimstone and fire are used metaphorically to indicate its torments. He adds
further: We may safely suppose that it was quite possible that a shower of nitrous
particles may have been precipitated from the atmosphere, here, as in many other
places, called heaven, which by the action of fire, or the electric fluid, would be
immediately ignited, and so consume the cities. As we have already seen that the
plains about Sodom and Gomorrah abounded with asphaltum or bitumen pits
(slime pits in chap. 14), that what is particularly meant here in reference to the plain
is the setting fire to this vast store of inflammable matter by the agency of lightning;
and this, in the most natural and literal manner, accounts for the whole plain being
burnt up; as that plain abounded in this bituminous substance. Thus we find that

28. three agents were employed in the total ruin of these cities, and all the circumjacent
plain: 1. Innumerable nitrous particles precipitated from the atmosphere; 2. The
vast quantity of bitumen which abounded in that country, and 3. Lightning, rained
from heaven in a mighty storm, which ignited the inflammable materials, and thus
consumed both the cities and the plain in which they were situated. It is probable
that this explanation suggests nearly the nature of the catastrophe. While the
judgment was of God, natural causes were employed to effect his judgments. It
cannot be doubted that some fearful visitation, terrible as that upon Herculaneum
and Pompeii, destroyed this region. Outside of the Bible the traditions have survived
in the other ancient writers who have alluded to this region, among them Josephus,
and the Roman geographer Strabo, and the historian Tacitus.
25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in
the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.
1. It was animal, mineral and vegetable that were destroyed, for nothing could
withstand the burning flames of that sulphurous shower from heaven. As one said,
It was hell from heaven. Long before the atomic bomb, God had weapons that
were equally powerful in doing a complete job of destroying everything he aimed at,
but he had the equal power to let one little town escape the flames because of Lot.
That is what you call pinpoint accuracy. Keep in mind this area was so beautiful
and fruitful that it was like the Garden of Eden, and now it is the most worthless
spot on earth revealing just how devastating the sinfulness of man can be on the
ecology of the world.
2. Clarke in his commentary tries to separate the facts from the myths and gives us
this account:
This forms what is called the lake Asphaltites, Dead Sea, or Salt Sea, which,
according to the most authentic accounts, is about seventy miles in length, and
eighteen in breadth. The most strange and incredible tales are told by many of the
ancients, and by many of the moderns, concerning the place where these cities stood.
Common fame says that the waters of this sea are so thick that a stone will not sink
in them, so tough and clammy that the most boisterous wind cannot ruffle them, so
deadly that no fish can live in them, and that if a bird happen to fly over the lake, it
is killed by the poisonous effluvia proceeding from the waters; that scarcely any
verdure can grow near the place, and that in the vicinity where there are any trees
they bear a most beautiful fruit, but when you come to open it you find nothing but
ashes! and that the place was burning long after the apostles' times. These and all
similar tales may be safely pronounced great exaggerations of facts, or fictions of
ignorant, stupid, and superstitious monks, or impositions of unprincipled travellers,
who, knowing that the common people are delighted with the marvellous, have
stuffed their narratives with such accounts merely to procure a better sale for their
books.
The truth is, the waters are exceedingly salt, far beyond the usual saltness of the sea,
and hence it is called the Salt Sea. In consequence of this circumstance bodies will
float in it that would sink in common salt water, and probably it is on this account

29. that few fish can live in it. But the monks of St. Saba affirmed to Dr. Shaw, that they
had seen fish caught in it; and as to the reports of any noxious quality in the air, or
in the evaporations from its surface, the simple fact is, lumps of bitumen often rise
from the bottom to its surface, and exhale a foetid odour which does not appear to
have any thing poisonous in it. Dr. Pococke swam in it for nearly a quarter of an
hour, and felt no kind of inconvenience; the water, he says, is very clear, and having
brought away a bottle of it, he had it analyzed, and found it to contain no
substances besides salt and a little alum.
As there are frequent eruptions of a bituminous matter from the bottom of this lake,
which seem to argue a subterraneous fire, hence the accounts that this place was
burning even after the days of the apostles. And this phenomenon still continues, for
masses of bitumen, says Dr. Shaw, in large hemispheres, are raised at certain
times from the bottom, which, as soon as they touch the surface, and are thereby
acted upon by the external air, burst at once, with great smoke and noise, like the
pulvis fulminans of the chemists, and disperse themselves in a thousand pieces. But
this only happens near the shore, for in greater depths the eruptions are supposed to
discover themselves in such columns of smoke as are now and then observed to arise
from the lake. And perhaps to such eruptions as these we may attribute that variety
of pits and hollows, not unlike the traces of many of our ancient limekilns, which are
found in the neighbourhood of this lake. The bitumen is in all probability
accompanied from the bottom with sulphur, as both of them are found
promiscuously upon the shore, and the latter is precisely the same with common
native sulphur; the other is friable, yielding upon friction, or by being put into the
fire, a foetid smell. The bitumen, after having been some time exposed to the air,
becomes indurated like a stone. I have some portions of it before me, brought by a
friend of mine from the spot; it is very black, hard, and on friction yields a foetid
odour.
26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
1. It almost seems like Lot and his daughters had just stepped over the towns city
limit line when the fire fell from heaven, but Lot's wife stopped short and turned to
see her home in Sodom, and she was caught in the raining sulphur just inches away
from being secure in Zoar. It was really bad timing to stop and look back at that
moment when just another step or two and she would have been out of the danger
zone into the safety zone. Many a happy ending is ruined by bad timing, and this
was one of the worst. Morgan has a strange comment when he says, She glances
back. In that one glance, she identified herself with the damned townand forfeited
her gift of salvation. Even more disturbing than the sight of Lot's petrified wife is
her husband's silence. There is no mention of grief. By whose standard is the lack
of a tear mentioned about Lot a more disturbing sight than a dead wife wrapped in
sulpher? Here we see the argument from silence that is so perverted that we are to
suppose Lot is so hard hearted that he had no concern that he lost his wife so near to
the place where she could have been safe. You can easily damn anybody by
supposing things that are not said of them to be true anyway. Again it is the ugly

30. head of the anti-Lot mob being raised with no basis in the text.
2. What a strange text this is. History is filled with comments on this matter of Lot's
wife becoming a pillar of salt, and the speculations are endless as to just what
caused this once in a history of the world event. As far as I know, there are no other
examples of this happening to anyone, and so it is as rare as anything can be. You
cannot get anything to be less than once, and so it is the ultimate in rare. That is
why it attracts so much attention, for everyone wants to solve the mystery of
something so rare. God does not inspire Moses to give any details, and so it is up to
the detective-like minds of commentators to dig for clues.
3. Clarke in his commentary give us all we need to know and more about the
foolishness surrounding the history of the comments on this foolish decision of Lot's
wife to look back. He wrote, The vast variety of opinions, both ancient and
modern, on the crime of Lot's wife, her change, and the manner in which that
change was effected, are in many cases as unsatisfactory as they are ridiculous. On
this point the sacred Scripture says little. God had commanded Lot and his family
not to look behind them; the wife of Lot disobeyed this command; she looked back
from behind him-Lot, her husband, and she became a pillar of salt. This is all the
information the inspired historian has thought proper to give us on this subject; it is
true the account is short, but commentators and critics have made it long enough by
their laborious glosses. The opinions which are the most probable are the following:
1. Lot's wife, by the miraculous power of God, was changed into a mass of rock
salt, probably retaining the human figure. 2. Tarrying too long in the plain, she
was struck with lightning and enveloped in the bituminous and sulphuric matter
which abounded in that country, and which, not being exposed afterwards to the
action of the fire, resisted the air and the wet, and was thus rendered permanent. 3.
She was struck dead and consumed in the burning up of the plain; and this
judgment on her disobedience being recorded, is an imperishable memorial of the
fact itself, and an everlasting warning to sinners in general, and to backsliders or
apostates in particular. On these opinions it may be only necessary to state that the
two first understand the text literally, and that the last considers it metaphorically.
That God might in a moment convert this disobedient woman into a pillar or mass
of salt, or any other substance, there can be no doubt. Or that, by continuing in the
plain till the brimstone and fire descended from heaven, she might be struck dead
with lightning, and indurated or petrified on the spot, is as possible. And that the
account of her becoming a pillar of salt may be designed to be understood
metaphorically, is also highly probable. It is certain that salt is frequently used in
the Scriptures as an emblem of incorruption, durability, covenant of salt, umbers
18:19, is a perpetual covenant, one that is ever to be in full force, and never broken;
on this ground a pillar of salt may signify no more in this case than an everlasting
monument against criminal curiosity, unbelief, and disobedience.
Could we depend upon the various accounts given by different persons who pretend
to have seen the wife of Lot standing in her complete human form, with all her
distinctive marks about her, the difficulty would be at an end. But we cannot
depend on these accounts; they are discordant, improbable, ridiculous, and often

31. grossly absurd. Some profess to have seen her as a heap of salt; others, as a rock of
salt; others, as a complete human being as to shape, proportion of parts, human
form, according to others, has still resident in it a miraculous continual energy;
break off a finger, a toe, an arm, reproduced, so that though multitudes of curious
persons have gone to see this woman, and every one has brought away a part of her,
yet still she is found by the next comer a complete human form! To crown this
absurd description, the author of the poem De Sodoma, usually attributed to
Tertullian, and annexed to his works, represents her as yet instinct with a portion of
animal life, which is unequivocally designated by certain signs which every month
produces. I shall transcribe the whole passage and refer to my author; and as I have
given above the sense of the whole, my readers must excuse me from giving a more
literal translation:-
The sentiment in the last lines is supported by Irenaeus, who assures us that, though
still remaining as a pillar of salt, the statue, in form and other natural accidents,
exhibits decisive proofs of its original. Jam non caro corruptibilis, sed statua salis
semper manens, et, per naturalla, ea quoe sunt consuetudinis hominis ostendens, lib.
iv., c. 51. To complete this absurdity, this father makes her an emblem of the true
Church, which, though she suffers much, and often loses whole members, yet
preserves the pillar of salt, that is, the foundation of the true faith, . See Calmet.
Josephus says that this pillar was standing in his time, and that himself had seen it:
Εισστηληναλωνμετεβαλενιοτορηκαδ αυτηνετιγαρκαινυνδοιμενει. Ant. lib. i., c. xi.
3,4. St. Clement, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. ii., follows Josephus,
and asserts that Lot's wife was remaining even at that time as a pillar of salt.
Authors of respectability and credit who have since travelled into the Holy Land,
and made it their business to inquire into this subject in the most particular and
careful manner, have not been able to meet with any remains of this pillar; and all
accounts begin now to be confounded in the pretty general concession, both of Jews
and Gentiles, that either the statue does not now remain, or that some of the heaps
of salt or blocks of salt rock which are to be met with in the vicinity of the Dead Sea,
may be the remains of Lot's wife! All speculations on this subject are perfectly idle;
and if the general prejudice in favour of the continued existence of this monument
of God's justice had not been very strong, I should not have deemed myself justified
in entering so much at length into the subject. Those who profess to have seen it,
have in general sufficiently invalidated their own testimony by the monstrous
absurdities with which they have encumbered their relations. Had Lot's wife been
changed in the way that many have supposed, and had she been still preserved
somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, surely we might expect some
account of it in after parts of the Scripture history; but it is never more mentioned
in the Bible, and occurs nowhere in the ew Testament but in the simple reference
of our Lord to the judgment itself, as a warning to the disobedient and backsliding,
Luke 17:32: Remember Lot's wife!
4. The first thing we know is that one of the angels back in verse 17 shouted, Don't
look back. This was good advice, but he did not say anything about the
consequences if his command was disobeyed. There was no judgment involved in his
command. They were just to run for their lives and not stop or look back. Had he

32. said, If you do, you will end up as the only human salt pillar in history, it might
have persuaded Mrs. Lot to keep looking ahead, but there was no such warning. So
lets be honest and face this reality that a large percentage of us would have wanted
to turn and run backward for awhile as we watched our whole city go up in flames.
It would be a natural human desire to see something so spectacular, and even more
so for people who have not had exposure to the spectacular scenes we can now see in
movies and on television. The point is, she just disobeyed the wise counsel of her
guide. She did not commit some unforgivable sin that made her as bad as the wicked
people of Sodom, and deserving of equal punishment. She made a mistake, and
showed poor judgment, but she did not do anything that can be called a sin. You can
say she disobeyed the command of God's angel who represented him, and so it was
equal to God's command, but keep in mind Lot did more disobeying of the angels
than she did. In verse 15 the angels urged him to hurry and get going, but he
hesitated and they had to grab his hands and use force to get him out of the city.
Then in verse 18 he responds to their instruction to flee to the mountains by saying
no, and then he pleads for a change of plans that he likes better and they grant him
his wish. If anyone is in a disobedient mood it is Lot. He resisted the plan God had
laid out, but there were no negative consequences for him. It is hard to believe that
his wife was being punished so severely because she looked back. Why can't it just
be that by doing so she was caught in a bad spot and suffered a tragic end? Does this
ever happen to good and godly people, and does it happen without it being
considered a judgment for some sin?
5. Jesus makes a brief reference to Lot's wife, and clearly makes her an example of
one who did not take seriously the danger of the situation. He says in Luke 17:28-3,
It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and
selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained
down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30It will be just like this on the day the
Son of Man is revealed. 31On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with
his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go
back for anything. 32Remember Lot's wife! In other words, when the end comes
do not look back at what you will lose in the destruction. Count all things as nothing
and flee for your life with no effort to save anything of earthly value. Remember
what happened to Lot's wife when she looked back, for she paid with her life for
that longing for what was to be lost. Jesus does not put her into the category of the
sinful and evil, but into the category of those who do not take warnings seriously
and die because of it. History is filled with people in this category, and masses have
died who could have lived, but they refused to take warnings seriously enough to
make escape their only priority. Jesus is not telling people in this context that they
will be considered great sinners if they do not listen to him. He is telling them they
will be toast when the fire falls. They may be good people, but if they do not make
escape their priority and instead try to save some of their possessions they will
perish. It is not a matter of who is sinful and who is righteous, but who is wise
enough to forsake all in order to save their lives. Lot's wife was not wise, but there is
no reason to call her one who is as evil as the Sodomites and worthy of the same
judgment. owhere is that even implied.

33. 6. In the light of how Jesus refers to this woman, it makes it all the more interesting
to look more closely as the words used to describe her. A commentator by the name
of Morris says this: The word looked back has the connotation of looking intently.
It might possibly be rendered lagged back, or maybe even returned back. This
makes sense, for it would mean that there was not a mere glance back, but a
stopping to gaze and leave her in the path of the raging fire. The others were
running for their lives and she paused and could not escape. If you watch any crisis
movie you know people often just escape by the skin of their teeth. It is all about the
narrow escape, for that is what makes it so scary and keeps you on the edge of your
seat. arrow escaped do not happen to those who are in pause. They happen to
those in fast forward, and Lot's wife was in pause, and possibly even in stop. Call
her foolish and even stupid, but not sinful. If that be the case then all who foolishly
die in tragic situation are sinful and not just foolish.
7. ow it is true that there are a number of illustration in life of how looking back is
a negative thing. A man said he was like Lot's wife for he was petrified because he
kept looking back and turning old problems over and over in his mind. He who
puts his hand to plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom. Why? Because if
you look back to see how you are doing you make crooked rows. Look ahead and
not behind. The Christian who looks back and sees his poor response in the past is
ruined for today.
8. The sin was not in the backward look but in the divided heart, for you cannot
serve two masters. Lot was a hesitant husband as a lingering Lot and he had to be
dragged from the city. He was only saved by force. His wife was more stubborn
and persistent in her resistance. She proves that second thoughts are not always
best. To begin to rethink your commitment and wonder if it was wise is to be
tempted to draw back. Many look back to the world because the price they paid
was to high they think. They debate the issue and end up going back to perish with
the world. She only got part way and part way is not enough. Commitment means
that you start going in God's direction and you keep going regardless of how hard it
is. It was insanity to the angels who knew all the stuff she left behind would soon be
ashes.
9. Beware of making everything an absolute, for in communion we are encouraged
to look back at him who told us not to look back, which means that it is not a
command that applies to every situation. We want our children to look back at our
heritage in Christ and as a family to understand where we came from and what our
values are. We want them to look back before they make a radical turn on their
bikes to see if there is a car coming behind them. We want to look back in order to
study the history of the world and the history of our nation. Looking back can be a
good thing too, and so we need to make a distinction about when it is a bad thing
and when it is a good thing.
10. All are in agreement that Lot's wife was not wise to look back, but as I read and
re-read the poem of Anna Akhmatova it dawned on me that it is possible to see a
noble side of her sacrifice, for she was a mother of children still in that city being

34. burned in the fire from heaven, and she could not refrain from looking back at the
lives she loved. It was not wise, for it did nothing to save her family, but it did reveal
the depth of her love. Most see only a longing for her stuff and her sinful pleasures,
but there is not text to support this view. There is none to support the view that it
was love either, but it has the right to equal time among the theories, and so I share
this poem:
And the just man trailed God's messenger
His huge, light shape devoured the black hill.
But uneasiness shadowed his wife and spoke to her:
It's not too late, you can look back still
At the red towers of Sodom, the place that bore you,
The square in which you sang, the spinning-shed,
At the empty windows of that upper story
Where children blessed your happy marriage-bed.'
Her eyes that were still turning when a bolt
Of pain shot through them, were instantly blind;
Her body turned into transparent salt,
And her swift legs were rooted to the ground.
Who mourns one woman in a holocaust?
Surely her death has no significance?
Yet in my heart she will never be lost
She who gave up her life to steal one glance.
-- Anna Akhmatova
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had
stood before the LORD.
1. Here is a sudden switch back to Abraham and his perspective. He got up the day
after the destruction of Sodom and went back to where he pleaded with God to save
that wicked city. He was not encouraged by what he saw. He doubtless came still
praying that the city would be spared, but what he saw was the end of his hope.
Abraham knew by experience how devastating it is to have great hope for something
and then see it go up in smoke before his eyes.
28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain,
and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
1. It had been 24 hours since the fire fell from heaven, and the smoke was still rising
from the land like smoke from a furnace, and if you ever saw such smoke you know
it can be a sure sign of great firepower at work. It looked like the pictures we see on
the screen when they show the vast forest fires from out West. The whole landscape
is aflame and the smoke billows up into the sky. It is a picture of awesome

35. destruction.
29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he
brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
1. God had not answered the full prayer, but he did answer that part of the prayer
of Abraham that was most on his heart, and that was the preservation of Lot. God
had promised Abraham that he would be a blessing to the whole world, and so it
was only right that he be a blessing to his own relative Lot, and so God spared him.
Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was
afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.
1. We cannot imagine the devastation that Lot saw after the smoke settled. It was
scary to him to be in any part of this land so wiped out by God. The city of Zoar was
a nice place to visit and find security for a while, but he was fearful that God would
finish the job and wipe this place off the map as well, and so now that he was
recovered he decided to go to the mountains like God first suggested. He was afraid
to stay in this little town, and here we see the good side of fear. Good fear makes us
take actions that are preventative, and that is just what Lot is doing as he leaves this
town with his two daughters. Better a cave in the mountains than a front row seat in
a fire hazard. He had no idea if God had a phase two to his judgment on the plain
cities, and so he took off to phase one of God’s plan for his deliverance in the first
place. He got to where he was being led, and that was to the mountains. It was
probably so smoky in Zoar from the clouds of smoke from Sodom that it was a
strong reminder that the fire falls without warning, and so you have to get out, and
now is always the best time to flee a disaster waiting to happen.
2. Henry makes a good point when he wonders why Lot does not head back to the
shelter of his uncle Abraham who would gladly welcome him back into his family,
and we cannot be sure that this did not ever happen, but there is no record of it. But
Henry cannot refrain from another negative slam at Lot as he writes, He that,
awhile ago, could not find room enough for himself and his stock in the whole land,
but must jostle with Abraham, and get as far from him as he could, is now confined
to a hole in a hill, where he has scarcely room to turn himself, and there he is
solitary and trembling. ote, It is just with God to reduce those to poverty and
restraint who have abused their liberty and plenty. See also in Lot what those bring
themselves to, at last, that forsake the communion of saints for secular advantages;
they will be beaten with their own rod.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, Our father is old, and there is
no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.
1. This older daughter was wise in the way of the world, for she knew what only the
very wise can know and that is the custom of the world is for women to have a man

36. to lie with in order to have a child. Of course, I jest, for it sounds so funny to call
this a custom that is universal. It is not as though there was an alternative, and that
anybody wrote it down as one of their customs. It was the natural process of
reproduction. It is on the same level as eating and drinking, and we do not call these
universal customs, but just universal practices for survival. That is, of course, what
this older daughter is getting at. All the men are gone, and so we do not have a lot of
choices if we expect to bear children. This was a valid observation as she looked out
of the cave and saw nothing but bare mountains. She did have the choice to get back
down into the burnt plains and climb back up the hills to the area where Abraham
lived, and where there were plenty of men available, but that option did not enter
her mind. It was like the end of the world to her, and all she could think of is that
they were the last people on earth and dad was the only hope of them starting
civilization over again.
2. I think Henry is missing the point completely when he writes, one would wonder
how the fire of lust could possibly kindle upon those, who had so lately been the eye-witnesses
of Sodom's flames. [2.] Solitude has its temptations as well as company,
and particularly to uncleanness. When Joseph was alone with his mistress he was in
danger, Genesis 39:11. Relations that dwell together, especially if solitary, have need
carefully to watch even against the least evil thought of this kind, lest Satan get an
advantage. It is ridiculous to read lust into this picture, or that there was great
temptation because they were alone in the cave. It fits with Joseph and the bosses
wife, but this is not the same kind of context. These girls are concerned about their
posterity and the carrying on the name of their father whom they love and greatly
respect. They not thinking of their sex urges, but of their family heritage. Some even
say they were concerned that their godly father should have a chance to be in the
blood line to the Messiah, which was the hope of all God's people, and which they
succeeded in making possible by their incest.
3. There are a number of theories as to what was going on in the mind of this
daughter. She knew the world had been destroyed in the flood and just a few
families had to repopulate the world, and now it was the same, but with fire, and
now we have to do it again and get the world repopulated. She may have looked
down from the mountain and seen the small town of Zoar now in flames that had
caught them from the smoldering fields all around, and concluded the whole world
is now destroyed. She may have thought she was being very wise in seeing that they
could be the key to the survival of the human race, and if this was her serious
conviction it would make her plan valid. If Lot was the last man on earth, what
would you do if you were his daughter? Lot was about 65 years old at this point,
and after all he had been through he could die before too much longer, and so she is
saying, it may be now or never for the human race.
32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family
line through our father.
1. Her motive is stated clearly, and that is that the family line might be preserved.
Getting dad drunk was an act of kindness to him, for it would be so humiliating for

37. him to know he was guilty of incest. They had to make him delirious to make this
plan work, and that is what they did. We have no idea what happened when they
began to show and he knew they were pregnant. The Bible keeps us in the dark
about many of the details of what happens in the future from this point on.
2. Gill in his commentary is caught in the same paradox as others in trying to justify
this line of thinking and at the same time be disgusted with it. He writes, ...and we
will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father; have children by him,
and propagate and preserve the human species; this they might think lawful, such
incestuous copulations being usual among their neighbors the Arabs, as appears
from Strabo (s) and other writers, and especially when there seemed to them to be a
necessity for it; and it may be this did not arise from a spirit of uncleanness, or a
brutish lust prevailing in them, having been religiously educated, and having
preserved their chastity among such an impure generation as the men of Sodom:
wherefore this might rather arise, as Bishop Patrick and others have thought, from
an eager desire after the Messiah, they might hope would spring from them; their
father being a descendant of Shem, a son of Abraham's elder brother, and now
remarkably saved from Sodom, which they might conclude was for this purpose;
and they knew of no way in which it could be brought about but in this they
proposed; and the rather this may be thought to be their view, as the above learned
commentator observes, when we remark their former chaste life in Sodom; their
joining together in this contrivance, which, had it been a lustful business, they
would have been ashamed to have communicated their thoughts of it to one another;
and their imposition of names on their children to perpetuate the memory of this
fact, which they rather gloried in, than were ashamed of: to which may be added,
that the ancient Jewish writers (t) interpret this of the Messiah; and they observe,”
it is not said a son, but seed, that seed, which is he that comes from another place:
and what is this? this is the King Messiah:''and Ruth, the Moabitess, who was of the
race of the eldest daughter of Lot, stands in the genealogy of our Lord, Mat_1:5,
however, let the intention be ever so good, it will, not justify an action so
monstrously vile.
3. Stedman, on the other hand, sees nothing but sin that they picked up from their
wicked culture in Sodom as he writes, These two girls were virgins in body, but
they were already debauched in mind. They had long since grown accustomed to
obscenity and unrestrained luridness, so, up in the cave on the mountainside, they
seized the thinnest tissue of excuses and the story ends in a foul orgy of drunkenness
and incest. The problem with this easy negative view is then how to explain that
God made this an event that was crucial to the line of the Messiah. Everyone wants
to have an easy answer, but there are none, for this incest has to be seen as both bad
and good, and so give the girls here a break and recognize that maybe they were
doing the best they knew in the situation. All we know is that God never condemed
them in his Word.
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in
and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

38. 1. Enquiring minds want to know how a young women can get herself pregnant
when the man she is with is in a practical coma induced by excessive drinking? She
has some knowledge about sperm harvesting that seems rather advanced for her
times. Moses protects Lot from having any awareness of what is going on. Moses
was not anti-Lot, for if that group had their way they would have lot rejoicing in his
free sex with his own daughters. They would make him out worse than the
Sodomites, and equally worthy of a fire shower from heaven. But unfortunately,
they are robbed of this pleasure by the facts. This whole scheme was devised and
carried out by the daughters without his awareness. He is not innocent, however, for
he allowed himself to become so drunk that he was not aware, and nowhere is this
considered a virtue. How he fell for this two nights in a row is a mystery, but he was
putty in his daughter's hands as they treat him like royalty in order to get what they
want.
2. Gill writes, They persuaded him to drink liberally, urged him to it again, in
order to make him drunk, and so complete their design; and Lot might be the more
prevailed upon to drink freely, in order to remove his sorrow, and refresh his spirits
under the loss of his wife, and his daughters, if he had any married in Sodom, as
some suppose, and his sons-in-law, and of all his goods and substance; though this
will not excuse his drinking to excess, nor can ignorance of the strength of wine be
pleaded, since he must needs know it as well as his daughters, who, it is plain, did,
and therefore plied him with it: Gill goes on to suppose that he was deceived into
thinking that it was his wife that was in bed with him. He writes, He never heard
her come to bed nor get up, so dead drunk and fast asleep was he; but finding a
woman in bed with him, lay with her, taking her to be his wife, forgetting, through
the force of liquor, that she was dead.
3. In contrast to most who feel some need to condemn all involved in this incestuous
affair, Gill finds no condemnation as he writes, That is, he did not perceive the
time she came to his bed, nor the time she quitted it; consequently did not know who
it was that had lain with him. In this transaction Lot appears to me to be in many
respects excusable. 1. He had no accurate knowledge of what took place either on
the first or second night, therefore he cannot be supposed to have been drawn away
by his own lust, and enticed. That he must have been sensible that some person had
been in his bed, it would be ridiculous to deny; but he might have judged it to have
been some of his female domestics, which it is reasonable to suppose he might have
brought from Zoar. 2. It is very likely that he was deceived in the wine, as well as in
the consequences; either he knew not the strength of the wine, or wine of a superior
power had been given to him on this occasion. As he had in general followed the
simple pastoral life, it is not to be wondered at if he did not know the intoxicating
power of wine, and being an old man, and unused to it, a small portion would be
sufficient to overcome him; sound sleep would soon, at his time of life, be the effect
of taking the liquor to which he was unaccustomed, and cause him to forget the
effects of his intoxication. Except in this case, his moral conduct stands unblemished
in the sacred writings; and as the whole transaction, especially as it relates to him, is
capable of an interpretation not wholly injurious to his piety, both reason and
religion conjoin to recommend that explanation. As to his daughters, let their

39. ignorance of the real state of the case plead for them, as far as that can go; and let it
be remembered that their sin was of that very peculiar nature as never to be capable
of becoming a precedent. For it is scarcely possible that any should ever be able to
plead similar circumstances in vindication of a similar line of conduct.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, Last night I lay with my
father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so
we can preserve our family line through our father.
1. It was an incredible plan, but the fact is, it worked. These two girls carried on the
line of their father and it led all the way to the Messiah through Ruth. This older
daughter was conscious of the reality that they were the end of the line on this
family tree, and it was like the end of the world for this family name. It was tragic
they needed to carry on that line with the seed of their own father, but the were
convinced they were in a situation where it was their only option.
35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter
went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she
got up.
1. This seems hard to believe that Lot could be such a lush that he could be led to
drink himself into a stupor two nights in a row and still have the ability to
impregnate two females without being aware of it. We are dealing with a situation
that is rare and unlikely to ever happen to anyone, and so the unusual is to be also
expected in the behavior of those involved.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.
1. As bad as this case of incest sounds to us, we need to keep in mind that the law
that revealed God's will about who you cannot have sex with and be pleasing to him
was not yet given, and so where there is no law it cannot be broken. We read in the
disgust based on present day morality that makes even the most godless of people in
our culture think this is terrible.
37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of
the Moabites of today.
1. The Moabites and the Ammonites have a very similar history in that they are
blest of God with a special land of their own that the Jews were not to take, and yet
they both become major enemies of God's people. I take you through an extended
look at the history of the Ammonites in the next verse, but since they both have
similar history I will abbreviate the history of the Moabites in comparison. The
study of the Ammonites is such a parallel with the Moabites that it is like a rerun to
go through their history twice. They had their promised land and Solomon married
some of them, and they were in perpetual warfare with Israel. Judges 3:29 shows
them being defeated as ten thousand of them are killed. In II Sam. 8:2 they are

40. defeated by David and made subject to him. They were slaughtered on a regular
basis and yet they were still around after the exile to be a pain to Israel and corrupt
them with their god called Chemosh. In um. 25 we see them seducing Israel into
sexual immorality. In Deut. 23:3 we read this judgment on them: o Ammonite or
Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down
to the tenth generation.
2. In II Kings 24:1-4 we see God using the Moabites and the Ammonites as tools to
punish his own people. During Jehoiakim's reign, ebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But
then he changed his mind and rebelled against ebuchadnezzar. 2 The LORD sent
Babylonian, [a] Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent
them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his
servants the prophets. 3 Surely these things happened to Judah according to the
LORD'S command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins
of Manasseh and all he had done, 4 including the shedding of innocent blood. For he
had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to
forgive. Quite often in the Bible we see God using bad people to punish his own
people who have become even worse than the bad guys.
3. There are 147 verses that mention the Moabites, and so it is a large part of Bible
history, and most of it is bad news. However, God is the God of bringing good news
out of bad news, and we have just that out of the Moabites. Ruth was a Moabite and
her story ends with her in marriage to an Israelite. Together they bring a child into
the world who becomes a part of the bloodline to the Messiah. These great enemies
of God's people produced one woman who became a channel to the one who would
bless Israel and all the world with the good news of salvation. Boaz was of the line of
Abraham, and Ruth was of the line of Lot, and these two lines come together and
continue the chain to the Messiah. Abraham and Lot started out together and were
the first people of God to explore the Promised Land. Many are very negative
toward Lot because of his involvement with Sodom, but God says he stayed faithful
and was a righteous man, and the final honor was that his seed became a direct line
to the Messiah. In the providence of God Lot is a partner all the way with Abraham,
and one of the great men of the Old Testament. In spite of these facts the anti-Lot
group still has to have a final thrust of the sword of criticism into the heart of this
man that God so loved. One writes, In many ways, the failure of Lot and his
daughters is more sad than the quick destruction of the wicked cities of the plain.
In other words, he is sorry that they did not die in the fire with the rest of the scum
of the earth. Everyone has to choose which voice they will hear in evaluating Lot-the
voice of God, or the voice of men.
38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is
the father of the Ammonites of today.
1. Ben-Ammi means the son of my people. These two girls did not feel any shame
for what they had done, but felt it was excusable because of the necessity of it, and
because it gave their father a people when he otherwise would have been a dead

41. branch with no progeny. We hear no more of him in the Old Testament, and so
without these daughters and this strange scheme of there's he would have been lost
to history. The bad news is that even though God blest them to some extent because
they were the children of Lot, they went after idols and became pagans who fought
against the people of God.
2. These people who descended from Lot were protected by God when the Jews
came to the Promised Land to take it. All of the fighting men who came out of Egypt
had died and now it was time for the new generation to go to battle and take the
land that was promised to them. But we read this in Deut. 2:19-21, When you come
to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give
you possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites. I have given it as a
possession to the descendants of Lot. 20 (That too was considered a land of the
Rephaites, who used to live there; but the Ammonites called them Zamzummites. 21
They were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. The LORD
destroyed them from before the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their
place. God honored Lot and his descendants by giving them a special land, and it
was off limits to God's chosen people. They had to leave that land alone, for it was
God's gift to the Ammonites, and he was not going to allow it to be taken from them.
Moses records the honoring of God's command in respect to the Ammonites in Deut.
2:37, But in accordance with the command of the LORD our God, you did not
encroach on any of the land of the Ammonites, neither the land along the course of
the Jabbok nor that around the towns in the hills. God honored these people who
were the seed of Lot, and the seed of incest, because he was loved by Abraham, and
was a righteous man.
3. The Ammonites became a blessing to David and his men by feeding them when
they were hungry in the desert. II Sam. 17:27-29 says, When David came to
Mahanaim, Shobi son of ahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites, and Makir son of
Ammiel from Lo Debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite from Rogelim 28 brought
bedding and bowls and articles of pottery. They also brought wheat and barley,
flour and roasted grain, beans and lentils, [j] 29 honey and curds, sheep, and cheese
from cows' milk for David and his people to eat. For they said, The people have
become hungry and tired and thirsty in the desert.
4. Solomon took wives from these people as we read in 1 Kings 11:1 IV King
Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter—
Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. The point is, they had
some positive imput into the history of Israel. Unfortunately it was a minor issue on
the positive side, and it became a major issue on the negative side as we see in the
following verses of Scripture.
5. The Ammonites joined others in attacking Israel. Judges 3:13 says, Getting the
Ammonites and Amalekites to join him, Eglon came and attacked Israel, and they
took possession of the City of Palms. [ That is, Jericho ] If you go and read the
context you will see God was using them to punish the Isralites because of their evil,
and so though they are enemies of Israel, it is also true that they are being used as

42. allies in God's plan to punish his own people. They are the bad guys, but Israel was
the even badder guys. Later in chapter 10 of Judges the Ammonites play a major
role in the domination of Israel, and again it is due to the sin of God's people. Israel
was so enamored of the gods of the Ammonites and other nations that God had to
turn them over to the pagan people. He almost forsook his own people in this
chapter. In Judges chapter 11 God changes his mind because of their repentance
and he gives Israel the victory over the Ammonites. So we see a lot of warfare and a
great many verses of the Bible dealing with the Ammonites and their conflicts with
Israel. Abraham and Lot were great friends and partners, as well as being related,
but their descendants went on to become enemies. Then in chapter 12 of Judges
there was a civil war in Israel over the defeat of the Ammonites. Ephraimites were
mad because they were not called in on the war against the Ammonites, and they
went to war with the Gileadites, and this prideful folly led to 42 thousand of them
being killed. The Ammonites lost the war, but it led to the Israelites losing too
because of stupidity.
6. This defeat of the Ammonites did not eliminate them, however, for we see them
again in great power in I Sam 11. This entire chapter deals with their threat to a city
in Israel and the anger of Saul that led him to gather an army of all Israel and
defeat the Ammonites. It led to Saul being a great hero and the people reconfirming
his kingship. It ended in a great celebration. You would think this would be the end
of the Ammonites, but not so, for II Sam 10 is another entire chapter in God's Word
dealing with these descendants of Lot who are fighting the descendants of Abraham.
David had a friendly relationship with the Ammonites, but their king died and the
next king listened to foolish advice and treated David's men badly and started
another war that forced David to defeat them again. It was while David's men were
out destroying the Ammonites that he committed adultery with Bathsheba. This is
recorded in II Sam. 11, and then in II Sam. 12:9-10 God's word to David was this:
Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You
struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You
killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 ow, therefore, the sword will never
depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the
Hittite to be your own. David defeated the Ammonites, but because of his folly he
had to live in warfare the rest of his life and not have the life of peace that Solomon
had. II Sam. 12:26-31 does record that David made a great triumph over the
Ammonites. It says, Meanwhile Joab fought against Rabbah of the Ammonites and
captured the royal citadel. 27 Joab then sent messengers to David, saying, I have
fought against Rabbah and taken its water supply. 28 ow muster the rest of the
troops and besiege the city and capture it. Otherwise I will take the city, and it will
be named after me. 29 So David mustered the entire army and went to Rabbah,
and attacked and captured it. 30 He took the crown from the head of their king —
its weight was a talent of gold, and it was set with precious stones—and it was
placed on David's head. He took a great quantity of plunder from the city 31 and
brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and
with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brick making. He did this to all
the Ammonite towns. Then David and his entire army returned to Jerusalem.

43. 7. Solomon never fought with the Ammonites, but they still defeated him by
bringing idolatry into his life and kingdom. We read in 1 Kings 11:7
On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable
god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. In I Kings
11:33 we read that God was going to divide the kingdom of Israel in judgment. It
says, I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the
goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of
the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, nor done what is right in my eyes,
nor kept my statutes and laws as David, Solomon's father, did. The Ammonites are
not even fighting Israel, but they are still defeating them by introducing their god
into Israel, and the people are worshipping their god instead of the God of
Abraham. You do not need to win battles in warfare to defeat a people, for they can
also be defeated by spiritual warfare in which they are deceived into forsaking their
loyalty to God. If you go to Jeremiah 49 you get God's word on these Ammonites.
We read this in the first six verses,
1 Concerning the Ammonites:
This is what the LORD says:
Has Israel no sons?
Has she no heirs?
Why then has Molech [a] taken possession of Gad?
Why do his people live in its towns?
2 But the days are coming,
declares the LORD,
when I will sound the battle cry
against Rabbah of the Ammonites;
it will become a mound of ruins,
and its surrounding villages will be set on fire.
Then Israel will drive out
those who drove her out,
says the LORD.
3 Wail, O Heshbon, for Ai is destroyed!
Cry out, O inhabitants of Rabbah!
Put on sackcloth and mourn;
rush here and there inside the walls,
for Molech will go into exile,
together with his priests and officials.
4 Why do you boast of your valleys,
boast of your valleys so fruitful?
O unfaithful daughter,
you trust in your riches and say,
'Who will attack me?'
5 I will bring terror on you
from all those around you,
declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
Every one of you will be driven away,
and no one will gather the fugitives.
6 Yet afterward, I will restore the fortunes of the Ammonites,

44. declares the LORD.
There you have it. God hates them and God loves them. They are to be destroyed,
but also restored, and so we see that even God is ambivalent about these
descendants of one of his heroes. Like his own people Israel they had to be punished
for their idolatry, but he still loved them and wants them to come out winners in the
end. But they never do surrender to God, and so the final picture we have is not
hopeful.
8. Believe it or not, we still have not heard the last of these Ammonites, and
centuries later after the Jews return from exile in Babylon to rebuild Jerusalem the
again appear as foes. In eh. 4:7-8 we read, But when Sanballat, Tobiah, the
Arabs, the Ammonites and the men of Ashdod heard that the repairs to Jerusalem's
walls had gone ahead and that the gaps were being closed, they were very angry. 8
They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and stir up trouble
against it. Lot's people are still trying to mess things up for Abraham's people. So
we see a long history with some good and mostly bad concerning the Ammonites.
What are we to make of this people who came from a great hero by the name of Lot
who was a part of the family of Abraham? If you read Ezek 21:18 to the end, you
will see God using Babylon to destroy the Ammonites. In Ezek. 25 we see another
prophecy of their destruction. In Zeph. 2:8-10 we read,
8 I have heard the insults of Moab
and the taunts of the Ammonites,
who insulted my people
and made threats against their land.
9 Therefore, as surely as I live,
declares the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel,
surely Moab will become like Sodom,
the Ammonites like Gomorrah—
a place of weeds and salt pits,
a wasteland forever.
The remnant of my people will plunder them;
the survivors of my nation will inherit their land.
10 This is what they will get in return for their pride,
for insulting and mocking the people of the LORD Almighty.
11 The LORD will be awesome to them
when he destroys all the gods of the land.
The nations on every shore will worship him,
every one in its own land. It seems that they pushed the grace and mercy of God to
the limit, and after so many times of becoming enemies to his people, God chose to
cut them off and eliminate them as a separate people. They were just incorporated
into other tribes and ceased to exist as a distinct people. Had they returned to the
God of their father Lot there is no reason to believe they would not be around yet
today as a nation in the Middle East.

45. Genesis 20
1 ow Abraham moved on from there into the region of the egev and lived
between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar,
1. His stay in Gerar became sort of a re-run of his stay in Egypt. He had lived in
Mamre for nearly 20 years, but now he moves into the territory of the Philistines.
We are not told what made him move, but there are some reasonable theories. For
one, the whole area down the hill from them where Sodom and the other cities had
been burned to a crisp was no longer the place that reminded them of the Garden of
Eden. It was now a disaster area and the smell of sulphur would be in the air for a
long time. It was not a long move, for Gill says it was only about 6 miles from
Mamre. Gerar was the capital city of the Philistines, and it has been demonstrated
to have been a very prosperous city by archaeologists.
2. Those who are looking for sin in Abraham's life can find it anywhere, and even in
this move to a new location. One author writes, There is no indication here that
Abraham sought the Lord about his move to Gerar (20:1). Since the land of Canaan
was so crucial in God’s plan for Abraham and since God had blessed Abraham in
his years by the oaks of Mamre, I can’t believe that it was right for him to pack up
and move without consulting the Lord, especially into a situation that exposed him
to his old weakness. I quote this type of thing just to keep us aware that it is so easy
to assume that every prayer of Abraham's life is on record, when the fact is, it is
more likely that most of his prayers are not on record. To assume that he never
prayed about this move is to claim an omniscience that no man can possess. To
argue from silence is sometimes valid, but usually not when it draws a negative
conclusion on someone's character or actions. Abraham is a man of prayer, and so
give him the benefit of the doubt when there is no verse to confirm he prayed about
a major decision in his life.
2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, She is my sister. Then Abimelech
king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
1. And now for a rerun, for Abraham is doing again what he did when he went
down to Egypt. He gave people the impression that Sarah was his sister and not his
wife. As soon as he said this, she was available to be taken as a wife by any leader
who had the wealth to support another wife. Sarah was able to see the inside of
some pretty fancy places because she was taken into the king’s quarters and

46. prepared for marriage to the king. This worked before and God protected her and
Abraham came out looking like a rose, for the Pharaoh gave him great gifts, and
now it is going to happen again. It almost looks like these two have a scam going
where they entice leader to take Sarah for a wife and then receive a hugh gift in
return when they learn of their error. It was quite a con game, and it couldn't lose
because God made sure Sarah was not violated. By this means Abraham was able to
keep growing in wealth so that he could support the large number of people who
worked for him. We are told what the motive of Abraham was in doing this for a
second time, and it was for the same reason he did it the first time. It was for safety
and survival. He knew he could be killed by those who wanted to have Sarah if he
was her husband, but as a brother he would be treated with kindness, and so that
was his strategy. The thing that most puzzles me is that men condemn this strategy
so forcefully, and yet God does not say anything to condemn it. It makes me
suspicious that commentators are reading into it far more than is really there, just
as they do so often in making Lot look bad. They make Abraham look bad here, and
not because they have God's authority to do so, but just because they feel they must
so as not to give the impression that they support what seems evil.
2. Here below are some of the common comments on Abraham's fall into sin:
Arthur Pink is a great example of commentating on the badness of Abraham's
behavior. He writes, The contents of Genesis 20 furnish a striking proof of the
Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. o fictitious historian would have recorded this
dark blot on the life of such an illustrious personage as Abraham. The tendency of
the human heart is ever toward hero worship, and the common custom of
biographers is to conceal the defects and blemishes in the careers of the characters
which they delineate, and this, had it been followed, would naturally forbid the
mention of such a sad fall in the life of one of the most venerated names on the scroll
of history. Ah! But herein the Bible differs from all other books. The Holy Spirit has
painted the portraits of Scripture characters in the colors of nature and truth. He
has given a faithful picture of the human heart such as is common to all mankind.....
Sad indeed, inexpressibly sad, was Abraham’s conduct. It was not the fall of a
young and inexperienced disciple, but the lapse of one who had long walked the
path of faith that here shows himself ready to sacrifice the honor of his wife, and
what is worse, give up the one who was the depositary of all the promises.
An unknown author writes what many others do as well and says, This chapter
could be titled dejavu because it so closely resembles what happened in Egypt
between Pharaoh and Abraham (12:10-20). Even though Abraham is 100 years old
and Sarah 90 he is still worried that someone might want to kill him in order to take
his wife. All that I can say is that if Sarah can still turn a king's head at age 90 she
could have easily been Miss. Universe uncontested for several decades in a row.
However, all joking aside, this is, in one way, a sad testament to Abraham's faith.
Twenty-five years have passed since Abraham used the same tactics in Egypt to save
his own skin, by now, with all that he has gone through, you would tend to think
that Abraham wouldn't feel the need hide behind half-truths and deception. This
again illustrates the weakness and humanness from time to time of even God's

47. greatest men. It seems almost ironic that Abraham is praised throughout scripture
for his great faith yet he falls into the same sin a second time even after God
protected Him in Egypt. Additionally, in my mind, this chapter teaches that a truth
told with the intent to deceive is still a lie and thus carries consequences with it
(20:12).
Calvin adds his censure:
For it is impossible to excuse his gross negligence, in not calling to mind, that
he had once tempted God; and that he would have had himself alone to
blame, if his wife had become the property of another man. But if we
thoroughly examine ourselves scarcely any one will be found who will not
acknowledge, that he has often offended in the same way. It may be added,
that Abraham was not free from the charge of ingratitude; because, if he
had rejected that his wife had been wonderfully preserved to him by the
Lord, he would never again, knowingly and willingly, have cast himself
into similar danger. For he makes the former favor divinely offered unto
him, so far as he is able, of none effect. We must, however, notice the
nature of the sin, on which we have touched before. For Abraham did not,
for the sake of providing for his own safety prostitute his wife, (as
impious men cavil.) But, as he had before been anxious to preserve his
life, till he should receive the seed divinely promised to him; so now,
seeing his wife with child, in the hope of enjoying so great a blessing,
he thought nothing of his wife's danger. Therefore if we thoroughly weigh
all things, he sinned through unbelief, by attributing less than he ought
to the providence of God. Whence also, we are admonished, how dangerous a
thing it is, to trust our own counsels. For Abraham's disposition is
right, while fixing his attention on the promise of God; but inasmuch as
he does not patiently wait for God's helps but turns aside to the use of
unlawful means, he is, in this respect, worthy of censure.
Henry has strong words about this sin: His sin in denying his wife, as before (ch.
xii. 13), which was not only in itself such an equivocation as bordered upon a lie,
and which, if admitted as lawful, would be the ruin of human converse and an inlet
to all falsehood, but was also an exposing of the chastity and honor of his wife, of
which he ought to have been the protector. But, besides this, it had here a two-fold
aggravation:-- (1.) He had been guilty of this same sin before, and had been
reproved for it, and convinced of the folly of the suggestion, which induced him to
it; yet he returns to it. ote, It is possible that a good man may, not only fall into sin,
but relapse into the same sin, through the surprise and strength of temptation and
the infirmity of the flesh. Let backsliders repent then, but not despair, Jer. iii. 22.
(2.) Sarah, as it should seem, was now with child of the promised seed, or, at least, in
expectation of being so quickly, according to the word of God; he ought therefore to
have taken particular care of her now, as Judg. xiii. 4.
One author went so far as to wonder how God could associate himself with such a
sinner as Abraham. He wrote, .... the faithfulness of God to Abraham at this time
of failure is amazing. Had I been God, the last thing I would have considered would

48. be to reveal my relationship to Abraham. Even if my own character demanded that
I remain faithful to my promises, I would not have disclosed to Abimelech that
Abraham was a believer, albeit a carnal one. And yet God disclosed the fact that
Abraham was the object of His special care. Abraham, who was to be a source of
blessing (12:2,3), had become a proverbial pain in the neck to those in whose land he
sojourned. His conduct differs little from that of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Lot, by inviting the two strangers under his roof, assured them of protection. Rather
than break this commitment, he was willing to sacrifice the purity of his two virgin
daughters and give them over to the men outside his door. Abraham, fearing for his
own safety, was willing to give over his wife to the king (or any other citizen of
Gerar) to protect himself from harm.
Gill wrote, And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, she [is] my sister,.... This he gave
out in all conversation he came into, and said it to every one that asked who she was,
which was little better than a lie; it at least was an equivocation and deception, and
not at all justifiable, and tended to expose his wife's chastity, and discovered a
distrust of divine Providence; the same infirmity be had given way to, and the same
evil he had fallen into in Egypt, Ge 12:11, and therefore was the more inexcusable
now; good men not only fall into sin, but have their relapses:
Another author says he was worse than Lot, for Lot offered his daughters to be
raped to save the angels, but Abraham offers his wife to the same end for the sake of
saving his own hide. He is seen as one of the most despicable sinners in the Bible.
3.My question is, if it is such a dark blot on Abraham's life, and so inexpressibly
sad, and so worthy of censure, why does it not show up in the text. It is true he gets
rebuked by the king for deceiving him, but the king becomes his friend in the end,
and God never says a negative thing about it, but supports the strategy all the way.
What is sad is all the criticism thrown at Abraham by sinful men, when the God of
holiness does not have a single word of criticism. It makes me wonder if Bible
interpreters are on a different wave link from God, and from Moses the author of
this history. Pink later makes this statement, Plainly, the evil compact which
Abraham made with Sarah was due to the feebleness of his faith in God’s power to
take care of them. God must have missed this insight, for he proclaims Abraham
all over the ew Testament as one of the great pillars of faith. Pink is not alone in
making such criticism of Abraham, for the majority seem to support his views, but
they fail to get God's support, and this makes me question the validity of the
negative perspective. On each of the occasions where Abraham deceives a king and
he takes Sarah, it is the king who is held responsible for the wrongdoing in the
situation. God punishes them, or threatens them with punishment for their
movement toward sin. ever is Abraham told he was sinning, and never is he
rebuked by God. The evidence would support that there was no sin or wrongdoing
by Abraham at all, and all of the criticism of his actions come from commentators
and preacher who have made it a tradition. Could it be that we should be more
about expounding what the Word of God says, and not just expounding on the
words of men and their traditions? If God never says it was a sin, and never hints
that Abraham was wrong to practice this kind of deception about his wife, it may
just be that men are making accusations that are not valid. It is of interest that men

49. can admit that there is not a single reference to this being a sin in the Bible, and yet
still call it a sin. Here is an example:
Jim Boice has these beautiful words of comment. I am especially impressed by the
way God showed His grace to Abraham. God did so when He spoke to Abimelech.
Moreover, in all the references to Abraham that we have in the remainder of the
Bible, never once does God bring up this incident as if to highlight Abraham’s
failure, not in Romans, not in Galatians, not in Hebrews 11. In that last passage
Abraham is praised with a faith which he showed in four situations in leaving Ur for
an unknown promised land and staying in the land in spite of great depravation and
danger, believing that God could give him a son when he and Sarah were past the
age of child bearing and being willing to offer up Isaac, counting that God could
raise him from the dead. ot once in all that great survey of Abraham’s progress in
the life of faith, does God refer to his past sin as if to shame him by the
remembrance of it.
4. Abimelech was the second sovereign to be swindled out of his shekels of silver for
Sarah. She was the woman most taken by men to be a wife of anyone in the Bible,
and who knows how many other times she and Abraham pulled this trick on some
king? It is really such a strange thing to be recorded twice, and not have a negative
word from God for doing it. In fact, it appears that God approves of their scheme,
for he does amazing things to guarantee that it does not lead to harm, but instead,
leads to benefits.
5. The difference this time is that Sarah is no longer a danger because of her beauty,
for she is now 90 years old and probably pregnant. Clarke suggests that she was
taken this time because Abimelech wanted to form an alliance with Abraham. He
was a rich man and any petty king would welcome a powerful chief like Abraham to
part of an alliance with him. ot only that, but Abraham was known after defeating
the 4 kings of the East as a strong military force, and who would not enjoy being
linked with one who could give you that king of security? Taking Sarah was his way
of securing the link with Abraham. I think Pastor Zeisler says it so well when he
writes, Why did the lie about their marriage become standard for Sarah and
Abraham? Every time they had to move into a new region, they encountered new
families, new pressures, and new relationships. Abraham knew that if he had a
marriageable woman with him he would be welcomed with open arms. Since he was
a very rich man with a large family and large staff of able fighters, he could appear
to be a threat to the people of any new territory. And they would probably respond
with men of arms and threats in return. On the other hand, if there was an available
woman in his entourage, he could expect a positive reception. A marriageable
woman would offer the hope of alliance and shared wealth to his new neighbors.
Since he did not have children, he never had a daughter to act as the eligible female.
Thus, he adopted the strategy with Sarah saying, Pretend to be my sister so that
everywhere we go, we will not be perceived as a threat. This will give us time to
show that we intend these people no harm. Then when we finally tell them that you

50. are my wife, we will have already built a relationship This was a survival strategy
for a nomadic people in a dangerous world. I think Abraham and Sarah agreed on
this strategy and used it throughout the years they traveled around the land of
Canaan.
The bottom line is that it was a strategy that worked, and was supported by God,
even to the point of doing miracles to protect Abraham and Sarah. God never
condemned it, but gave his approval by condemning only the kings who took Sarah.
In the light of the evidence I see no sin or backsliding on the part of this couple, and
no loss of faith, or any basis for the masses of negative criticism hurled at them by
commentators and preachers. God's Word is the final authority, and his Word has
only positives to say of this godly couple.
6. Why not see the whole picture from the point of view of Heb. 11, where this
couple are great heroes of faith? They believed that God would make sure that if
anything went wrong with their plan, which it did twice, that he would overcome
that negative event and turn it into good, and that is exactly what God did both
times, and they come away with great blessings. In this second case it is not only
riches that they get, but the offer to live anywhere in the land and be at peace with
the people. Instead of making it out that these two are horrible liars and faithless
scoundrels on the loose being a danger and pain to every poor king who wants a
fling with every new woman who crosses his path, why not give them the benefit of
the doubt, and see them as God sees them. God chastises and threatens each king
who takes advantage of them, and never utters a word of criticism of the couple. I
know it is going against the grain of just about everyone on the planet, but I say, if
God is for them, who are we to be against them?
7. Abimelech means my father a king, of father of a king, and it was a very common
name for kings among the Philistines. There are four other men with this name in
the Old Testament. This Abimelech rebuked Abraham for his deception, but A few
years after this Abimelech visited Abraham, who had removed southward beyond
his territory, and there entered into a league of peace and friendship with him. This
league was the first of which we have any record. It was confirmed by a mutual oath
at Beer-sheba (Gen. 21:22-34). This man is one of the righteous Gentiles in the Bible,
and God acknowledges it as the case. He knows this man operated with a clean
conscience, and thus did not judge him for taking Sarah.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, You are as
good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.
1. Dreams seemed to be a common way that God would communicate with those
who were outside of his chosen people. He gave Pharaoh a dream that Joseph
interpreted that changed the history of Egypt and many other countries. He gave
ebuchadnezzar a dream that was interpreted by Daniel, and here now to a pagan
king of the Philistines. Keep in mind that the Philistines were not yet as wicked as

51. they were later to become as the enemies of God's people. God works in ways that
make sense to the people he is trying to reach, and dreams were considered by just
about all people a method by which the gods communicated.
2. obody else would tell this harem builder that he had taken a married woman,
and so God comes to him in a dream to give him this vital information. It is really
more like a nightmare than a dream, for God's introduction is about as scary as it
gets. He said, You are as good as dead.. God is serious about what he has done to
Sarah, for he has plans for this woman that are the biggest plans in history. She may
already at this time be pregnant with the child that will lead to the Messiah who will
bless the whole world. She is a jewel to God that he treasures, and he will protect
her at all costs, even if he has to wipe out the whole community to get her released.
Abimelech is interfering with the grandest plan in history, and it is serious business
to be hauling off the mother of God's promised child into his harem. God does not
pull any punches, but lays in on the line. You have just signed your death warrant,
for you have chosen the wrong women, and you took her without her consent, and
with inadequate inquiry as to her marital status.
3. God does not take adultery lightly, as is the case with our sex-saturated society
where it is portrayed in film as no big deal. It is so serious an offense to God to take
another man's wife that it deserves the death sentence without trial. David had
many wives and it was fine with God, but when he took another man's wife it was
the end of home sweet home for him. He ruined his life by taking a wife that
belonged to another man. Even killing the other man was not as serious as the
taking of his wife, and for this he suffered the rest of his life. If ever there was a kick
out of life that kicked back tenfold, it is the act of adultery. Wise men learn from the
folly of those who fall for this common temptation, but there are plenty of fools who
insist on learning the hard way. God's tone of voice to Abimelech makes it clear that
he is not going to let his lust for another wife change the plans he has for this
woman. He offers him a choice: Die on the spot, or give her back to her husband,
and then says, Deal or no Deal. Of course these words were left out because the
ancient people would not understand them. Abimelech did understand fully and he
responded immediately with fear and trembling.
4 ow Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, Lord, will you destroy an
innocent nation?
1. This king was not a dimwit, for he knew that the death sentence God had in mind
was not just for him alone, but for all his people as well. But he also knew what
Abraham knew, and that is that God is fair and just, and he does not just
haphazardly wipe out people without just cause. So he asks the Lord is he will
destroy an innocent nation. He is not saying he had a righteous and sinless people,
but he is saying there has been no evil intent in my action of taking this woman
named Sarah into my harem. There is no guilt worthy of punishment, for what has
been done was done in ignorance of the facts. God does make a distinction between
sins of knowledge and sins of ignorance, and this king knows that much about God.

52. He knows he has not gone near Sarah to violate her in any way, and so he knows he
is not guilty of any sin against her. Gill points out that he would have known about
how God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, and he pleads that he and his people are
not in that category at all, and deserve no such wrath as they suffered.
5 Did he not say to me, `She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, `He is my
brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.
1. Here is a pagan king who acts as his own lawyer before God as his judge, and he
has a good case. He puts the facts before God, and the fact is Abraham and Sarah
had a conspiracy going to deceive me about their relationship. The king said he
talked to both of them and they confirmed each other. Each said they were just
brother and sister, and so when I took Sarah to be my wife I did it with a clear
conscience and clean hands. I had no reason to doubt that she was an available
woman. I did no conscious wrong is the basis of his defense.
2. Here we see that Abraham and Sarah are in complete agreement on their plan to
give everyone the impression that they are brother and sister. It was Abraham's
plan, but he persuaded Sarah to go along with it and she did just that. We don't
know if she liked it or not, but in obedience and submission to her husband she did
it everywhere they went. She is commended in the ew Testament for her
submission to her husband, and is used as an illustration of what all Christian wives
are to be. Those who are convinced that their whole plan of deceiving people is the
same as the sin of lying cannot justify either Abraham or Sarah. She obeyed her
husband, but it was a lie they say and we must obey God rather than men. Sarah,
according to them, should have defied Abraham and told everyone that they were
husband and wife, and if this meant she had to be widowed, then so be it, for she
would have been obedient to God at all no matter the cost. All such thinking runs
contrary to the message of Scripture, and especially to the praise of this couple in
the ew Testament. The implication of a lack of any negative word from God on
this issue makes it clear that Sarah could say the same thing as Abimelech-I told
him Abraham was my brother with a clear conscience and clean hands. If you go
by God's response there was no sin involved in the life of the king or Abraham and
Sarah. They had a perfect right to say they were brother and sister and withhold the
information that they were married. Where is the law that says you have to let
people know you are husband and wife even if it puts you in a high risk situation? If
you cannot come up with such a law, then there is no law broken, and no sin
committed.
6 Then God said to him in the dream, Yes, I know you did this with a clear
conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let
you touch her.
1. All of this has been happening in a dream, and the king has been responding in

53. his sleep, but with great success, for God says that he buys the kings defense, and
that is why in mercy he does not judge him but keeps him from following through
on the direction that would lead him to sin. God will protect this pagan king from
the sin that otherwise would be a sure thing, and would lead to the death of him and
his people. Here is amazing mercy on a people not his chosen, but people who later
will be great enemies of his people.
2. God prevented sin in this case, and we wonder why he does not do so more often?
But we have no idea how often God works in the lives of people to lead them away
from a path that will lead to destruction. God is at work in so many lives that we
know nothing about. Prevention is a key factor in the lives of more than we can
imagine. All preventatives of sin and bad actions that lead to judgment and negative
consequences are part of the vast working of God's Spirit in this world. There is no
end of lives that are being spared because of the prevention of sin.
3. We are not given any details as to how God kept him from touching Sarah and
taking her to his bed. We get a clue in verse 17 that we will deal with there. God in
his providence made him impotent likely. It would be wonderful if God made
everyman who is intent on immoral sex to lose interest or become impotent, but God
does not regulate the world that way. He did it in this case because Sarah was to be
the mother of the promised child whose seed would lead all the way to the Messiah.
This was a crucial situation that God would not allow anything to foul up. He would
prevent any human action that threatened to mess up his plan. He would break into
history and do miracles to make sure that his plan would move forward. What is
amazing is that Abimelech did take Sarah with the intention of having sex with her.
She is a 90 year old woman, and yet still so attractive with sex appeal that a man
with a harem wants her as an addition. She was a rare woman to have such sexual
attraction at her age, and this just confirms that it was a wise and logical plan for
her and Abraham to give people the impression that they were brother and sister.
They were not just speculating, but knew that someone would likely want to kill
Abraham to possess her.
4. Henry has an interesting note here and writes, He lets him know that he was
kept from proceeding in the sin merely by the good hand of God upon him: I
withheld thee from sinning against me. Abimelech was hereby kept from doing
wrong, Abraham from suffering wrong, and Sarah from both. ote, (1.) There is a
great deal of sin devised and designed that is never executed. As bad as things are in
the world, they are not so bad as the devil and wicked men would have them. (2.) It
is God that restrains men from doing the ill they would do. It is not from him that
there is sin, but it is from him that there is not more sin, either by his influence upon
men's minds, checking their inclination to sin, or by his providence, taking away the
opportunity to sin. (3.) It is a great mercy to be hindered from committing sin; of
this God must have the glory, whoever is the instrument.
5. Pink uses this text to support a theological viewpoint. He writes, In these words
we have (as so often in Scripture) an apparently incidental statement which throws
great light upon a difficult problem and which positively refutes the proud

54. reasoning of the philosophic theologians. How often it has been said that in
endowing Adam with the power of choice God was unable to prevent his fall. But
how untenable are such theorizing in the face of the above passage! If God could
withhold Abimelech from sinning against Him, then had He pleased He could
have done the same with our first parents. Should it be asked why He did not
withhold Adam from sinning, the answer must be that He permitted sin to enter
that opportunity might be given to display His grace.”
Pink reads too much into this, for the king was innocent and acting on false
information. Adam and Eve had good information and were not innocent at all.
They had a direct command from God and they defied it. That God did this in this
situation is no reason to imply that he could have justly prevented Adam from
sinning and so wanted him to do so. God could prevent all sin, but this would be a
rejection of his whole purpose in making man a being with a will. If God can
prevent all sin and be just in doing so, then we are led to the conclusion that God is
the author of sin. “He who knows to do good and does it not is sinning.” This would
be the case with God, and it makes God the cause of all evil, and all for the purpose
of his glory and grace says Pink. The fact is the number one cause for people
denying God any glory is the belief that he allows so much sin and evil when he
could prevent it.
6. It is clear here that it is possible for a pagan to still be a good man. Good and
moral people can be found in every culture, even when that culture is quite wicked
overall. Gill writes, Abimelech's plea is admitted, and a very great testimony borne
to his integrity in this matter; and throughout the whole account he appears to be a
man of great honor and uprightness, especially in this affair, if not a good man.
Constable writes, In king Abimelech we meet with a totally different character
from that of
Pharaoh [ch. 12]. We see in him a heathen imbued with a moral consciousness of
right, and open to receive divine revelation, of which there is not the slightest trace
in the king of Egypt.
7 ow return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you
will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will
die.
1. Do you think this was a tough decision for the king? I can hold on to this woman
and end up dead with all my people, or I can give her back and live out my life with
a prophet of God to pray for me. What should I do? An agonizing decision it was
not. God gave him the free will to choose either way, but his options were so limited
that he really did not have a choice, but he still had to make it and obey God and
give Sarah back if he wanted to live. He was free to die too, but that would be folly.
2. He tells him that Abraham is a prophet, and he will pray for him. This is the
first time the word prophet appears in the Bible, and I find it interesting that in

55. this case it has nothing to do with telling the future. We often mistakenly define
prophecy as foretelling the future, but it is actually forth-telling the Word of God.
Very often it does have to do with God revealing the future to man, but many times
the gift of prophecy is manifested simply by quoting the Word of God. The exercise
of the gift of prophecy takes place as the Word of God is being spoken on a Sunday
morning or Thursday night teaching. It can also take place during the worship
service, as the Lord lays a Scripture on your heart, you can feel free to speak it forth
between the songs. As you forth-tell the Word of God, you are exercising the gift of
prophecy. God will inspire His prophet Abraham with His own words to pray for
Abimelech and his kingdom.
3. Gill describes what a prophet is: familiar with God, dear unto him, a friend of
his, to whom he communicates his secrets; is able to foretell things to come, as well
as to interpret the mind of God, and instruct in the knowledge of divine things, all
which agrees with Abraham's character; and he is the first man that is dignified in
Scripture with the title of a prophet; so he is called in the Apocrypha: He then
quotes this passage from the book of Tobit: Beware of all whoredom, my son, and
chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife,
which is not of thy father's tribe: for we are the children of the prophets, oe,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: remember, my son, that our fathers from the
beginning, even that they all married wives of their own kindred, and were blessed
in their children, and their seed shall inherit the land.'' (Tobit 4:12)
4. Gill goes on to stress the role of the prophet in prayer. .... it being one part of the
business of a prophet to pray for others, and make intercession for them, especially
in any distress or trouble, see Jer 27:18. Prophets were praying persons, had usually
a great gift in prayer, and great power with God, and prevailed with him for the
good of others; and such an one was Abraham; and it is here intimated, that upon
the restoration of his wife to him, as he was familiar with God, and had an interest
with him, he would make use of it, and pray for Abimelech, that whatsoever offence
he had been guilty of to God or men, it might be forgiven, and that he might be
healed of the disease with which he was smitten, and so recover of it, and live in
health and happiness.
4. Calvin, who elsewhere is often critical of Abraham, here greatly honors him in the
light of God calling him a prophet. He wrote, He calls Abraham a prophet, for the
sake of honor; as if he were charging Abimelech with having injured a man of great
and singular excellence; that he might not wonder at the greatness of the
punishment inflicted upon him. And although the word prophet is properly the
name of an office; yet I think it has here a more comprehensive import, and that it is
put for a chosen man, and one who is familiar with God. For since at that time, no
Scripture was in existence, God not only made himself known by dreams and visions
but chose also to himself rare and excellent men, to scatter abroad the seed of piety,
by which the world would become more inexcusable. But since Abraham is a
prophet, he is constituted, as it were, a mediator between God and Abimelech.
Christ, even then, was the only Mediator; but this was no reason why some men
should not pray for others; especially they who excelled in holiness, and were

56. accepted by God; as the Apostle teaches, that 'the fervent prayers of a righteous
man avail much.' (James 5: 16.)
8 Early the next morning Abimelech summoned all his officials, and when he told
them all that had happened, they were very much afraid.
1. I am amazed that he did not hop out of bed and go to Sarah's room and wake her
and get her back to Abraham in the night. Instead he has to go through channels
and do things by the book. It is no surprise that he got up early, for this matter had
to be resolved before God lost patience. They all knew about Sodom too, and so it
was really bad news that Abimelech had to share with his officials. Fear dominated
the meeting because it was a life and death issue, and they had to make sure Sarah
got back to Abraham unharmed.
9 Then Abimelech called Abraham in and said, What have you done to us? How
have I wronged you that you have brought such great guilt upon me and my
kingdom? You have done things to me that should not be done.
1. Abimelech was having a royal fit over facing the threat of death just because
Abraham let him believe Sarah was an available mate. It was an outrage that he
should be thought guilty of evil when it was Abraham who was in the wrong for
letting him take his wife. He is casting all the blame back on Abraham. It could be,
however, that maybe he has enough wives and needs to leave strangers alone.
Whatever the case, God holds him responsible for doing wrong, and had he not been
ignorant he would have suffered greatly for his taking another man's wife. God
never once says Abraham was wrong in hiding the fact that Sarah was his wife. The
king is very disturbed, and rightly so, for he had done nothing to deserve the threat
he had from God. But the issue is, would he have done wrong had he known the
truth. Would he have had Abraham killed in order to take his wife into his bed.
Only God knows, and the fact that God never blames Abraham for his deception
implies that he knows Abraham was right, and he may have been killed for the sake
of taking Sarah.
2. Henry takes an absolute position on the issue of whether it is ever right to lie or
deceive and says, Equivocation and dissimulation, however they may be palliated,
are very bad things, and by no means to be admitted in any case. This is a major
controversy, and I deal with it back in Chapter 12 where the deception about Sarah
first takes place.
3. Somone expressed this opinion, Can a non-believer rebuke a believer and be
justified? Yes, for many a non-Christian can be more moral and fair than many a
believer. If people were saved by their moral behavior and character there would be
many more pagans in heaven than Christians. Although this has much truth to it,
there is exaggeration here, for overall the Christian population has a higher
standard of morality than the non-Christian population. Most of the pagans who

57. live a clean life have been greatly influenced by the Christians.
4. Some authors get so radical in making Abraham out to be a sinful saint so as to
encourage believers to have hope even if they are living a terrible Christian life, that
they say wild thngs like the following: One of the most important aspects of this
story is the one that’s never stated: Why doesn’t God ditch that loser Abraham and
hook up with Abimelech? Abimelech is the man who fears God/ Abraham fears
men. Abimelech testifies to his own righteousness, internal and external; and God
confirms his assertion/ Abraham tries to vindicate himself and every syllable he
utters condemns him more. Abraham evades responsibility for a sin he committed/
Abimelech shoulder’s responsibility for a sin — and a sin of ignorance at that —
that he might have committed. Why doesn’t God turn and make of Abimelech a
great nation? It is as if the anti-Abraham group is trying to keep up with the anti-
Lot group. Both are experts in finding sinful behavior where God never spots it.
Omniscience does not impress these people, for they can see sin that God apparently
never sees. Don't waste your time trying to be omniscient when you can know more
just by having a super judgmental spirit.
10 And Abimelech asked Abraham, What was your reason for doing this?
1. The king is trying to make sense out of this near tragedy that came upon him and
his people, and he wants to know the logic behind Abraham's behavior. He is
seeking for some answers, which is natural when a mystery suddenly pops up in
your life. He wants to get to the bottom of this mess and understand the motivation
that brought it about.
2. Someone trying to be funny, succeeded by having Abraham respond, I do this all
the time. Don't think you're so special, Abimelech, we pull this stunt everywhere we
go. It is true, but we only have two times when it got them into trouble. We have no
idea how many other times they escaped trouble by this plan to deceive.
11 Abraham replied, I said to myself, `There is surely no fear of God in this place,
and they will kill me because of my wife.'
1. The evidence is that Abraham really did fear he could be killed by someone who
wanted to have his wife. That is why they made the plan to tell everyone they were
brother and sister. It was for protection. Abraham was not lying about his fear, and
if this is so, then who are we to condemn him for his strategy of trying to deceive
others about their true relationship when God does not anywhere do so? Abraham
and Sarah had just witnessed the destruction of Sodom and other cities because of
evil living that could not be changed. They had good reason to fear the actions of the
Canaanites, and they would assume that no evil was beyond them. The people of
Sodom were willing to kill to get sex, and how could they doubt that other pagans
would kill a husband to have sex with a his beautiful wife? We just cannot grasp the

58. fearfulness of what they were doing in traveling through this land of idolaters who
were heading for the same judgment that fell on Sodom. Those who call this a
pathetic excuse are sitting in a plush office in a land of freedom and security with no
fear, and they have the audacity to call Abraham a liar for saying he had a fear of
being killed. These same people would do the same thing as he did if they were
marching with their wife into some village in Baghdad with fighting going on all
around them. If deception of some kind could save their hide, they would be
deceivers, and proud of it if they survived.
2. One author writes, Let me also say in passing that it was apparently in accord
with the custom of the time that if an unmarried woman was sojourning in the land
of a particular king or prince, then he had the right to claim her with dowry for his
harem. And so this custom would have been common and we can see from whence
Abraham’s scheme may have arisen in the first place. That, of course, does not
make it right, but it explains why this would have happened in the first place.
3. My question is, why does it not make it right? Are we to cooperate with evil
customs and leave ourselves open to be victims of the evil designs of others? The
problem was not the deception of Abraham and Sarah, but the evil tradition of
kings being able to basically take any women they found appealing into their harem.
That was a custom that was wrong, and Abraham had to take measures to insure
that this evil custom did not rob him of his wife. Is deception valid in dealing with
an evil custom? What about when slavery existed? Was it valid to lie and deceive to
protect a runaway slave? In wartime is it right to deceive an enemy? The whole
world of spying is based on deception to protect one's identity. It plays an important
role in the security of our nation, and who would call it sin to do what keeps us safe
from our foes?
4. Clarke has an excellent paragraph dealing with the prejudice of Abraham in
assuming that these people had no fear of God. He writes, The cause why the
patriarch did not acknowledge Sarah as his wife, was a fear lest he should lose his
life on her account, for he said, Surely the fear, i.e., the true worship, of the true
God is not in this place. Such is the natural bigotry and narrowness of the human
heart that we can scarcely allow that any besides ourselves possess the true religion.
To indulge a disposition of this kind is highly blamable. The true religion is neither
confined to one spot nor to one people; it is spread in various forms over the whole
earth. He who fills immensity has left a record of himself in every nation and among
every people under heaven. Beware of the spirit of intolerance! For bigotry
produces uncharitableness; and uncharitableness, harsh judging; and in such a
spirit a man may think he does God service when he tortures, or makes a burnt-offering
of the person whom his narrow mind and hard heart have dishonored with
the name of heretic. Such a spirit is not confined to any one community, though it
has predominated in some more than in others. But these things are highly
displeasing in the sight of God. HE, as the Father of the spirits of all flesh, loves
every branch of his vastly extended family; and as far as we love one another, no
matter of what sect of party, so far we resemble HIM. Had Abraham possessed
more charity for man and confidence in God at this time, he had not fallen into that

59. snare from which he barely escaped. A hasty judgment is generally both erroneous
and harsh; and those who are the most apt to form it are generally the most difficult
to be convinced of the truth.
The reason I love this is because it is so true, and we all need to be aware of the
danger of prejudice, which I see as one of the greatest evils of Christians. On the
other hand, it is too strong to use this language against Abraham, for he was moving
around the land promised to him and his seed, and it was going to be taken from the
Canaanites because they were so evil they needed to be destroyed. They were not
there yet, but they were on their way, and Abraham had every reason to fear the
depth of their wickedness. Abimelech may have been a good guy as kings go, but
most would not think twice about killing a man to have his beautiful wife. A godly
man like David would do it, and so why doubt that the Canaanite kings would do
the same?
5. It amazes me how so many become anti-Abraham and call his reasons for what he
did mere weak and worthless excuses, when they can easily be taken as serious and
valid reasons for what he did. It is especially mysterious that they do so without any
word from God that it is all a sham, and that he is to be condemned for this
inexcusable behavior. According to them Abraham is just adding sin upon sin and
piling it up, while God, on the other hand, is saying my prophet Abraham will come
to the rescue in this whole mess.
6. Pastor Deffinbaugh, whom I love to study and quote, for he has given us so much
good Bible study, takes this anti-Abraham position. I quote him, for he represents
what many others are saying, and he says it well. I agree with him that the three
excuses that he accuses Abraham of making are indeed common excuses to defend
foolish and sinful behavior, but I totally disagree with him that these apply to what
Abraham is saying here to explain his plan to keep his marriage hidden from the
mind of strangers as they travel through unknown territory.
Our disobedience is often camouflaged by excuses transparent to all but ourselves.
Abraham’s three excuses are easily seen to be a sham, and yet variations on these
three themes serve as justification for much wrong that we do.
The first is situational ethics, which is a system of ethics based upon the denial of
either the existence of God or His ability to act in man’s behalf. Situationalism
always posits a dilemma in which there is no alternative other than a sinful act. In
such cases we are forced to decide on the basis of the lesser of two evils. First
Corinthians 10:13 dogmatically asserts that the premise on which situationalism is
based is wrong. It teaches that God never places the Christian in a circumstance
where he or she must sin. The outcome, which we dread, is always a figment of our
fearful imagination, and not of reality. Abraham feared that someone would kill
him to take away his wife. It never happened, nor was their any reported situation
where this was even a remote possibility. Faith in a God Who is sovereign in every
situation keeps us from flirting with sinful acts which allegedly will deliver us from
emergency situations—ones in which godliness must be put on the shelf.

60. The second is dealing in technicalities rather than truth. The information Abraham
gave to Abimelech was totally factual (verse 12). Sarah was his sister. But what
Abraham failed to report made it all a lie. She was his wife, as well as his sister. How
often we allow people to draw the wrong conclusions or impressions by withholding
evidence. We want to give the impression we are spiritual when we are not. We try
to appear happy when our heart is breaking. We try to look sophisticated when we
are desperate and despondent. Faith is facing up to reality and dealing openly with
others, even when the truth may appear to put us in jeopardy or may make us
vulnerable.
The third, and very common, excuse is that of tradition. “We’ve always done it that
way.” That was Abraham’s excuse. All that it indicates is our persistence in sin. As
my uncle used to say of someone who always had a good word for everyone, “She
would say of the Devil, ‘He’s persistent.’” Tradition is not wrong, but neither does it
make any practice right.
12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my
mother; and she became my wife.
1. What Abraham is saying here is that there is no lie involved in our plan to call
each other brother and sister wherever we go, for it is a fact that we are that. My
sister did become my wife, but that does not make her less my sister, and so it is just
a valid statement that we are brother and sister, although by two different mothers.
Commentators and preachers call the plan they carried out everywhere they went as
an outright lie. The word lie is used over and over by so many authors that it is
assumed by just about everyone that it is a lie. My problem with it is that God never
calls it a lie, nor does he ever say they should stop with their plan of saying they are
brother and sister. Even more amazing is that everyone can see it is a lie and a
terrible one at that, and yet God does not see it as such, for he never once condemns
them for saying it. They used it over and over everywhere, and yet God does not
once say they should knock it off and come up with a better plan. Clarke has this
note of confirmation: The daughter of my father, but not-of my mother] Ebn
Batrick, in his annals, among other ancient traditions has preserved the following:
Terah first married Yona, by whom he had Abraham; afterwards he married
Tehevita, by whom he had Sarah. Thus she was the sister of Abraham, being the
daughter of the same father by a different mother.
2. obody wants to accept these words of Abraham as a valid excuse for what he did
because if there is a valid excuse then he was not a liar, and if he was not a liar the
multitude of sermons based on saying it is a lie will have to be burned or thrown
away. This would be a shame after so many have worked so hard to make these two
whom God exalts to the highest level, look like the criminal element of society. They
say that not only did they lie, but they refused to repent of it even when they were
caught. One author wrote, There is absolutely no indication of acceptance of

61. responsibility for sin, nor of sorrow or repentance. Abraham here is like one of our
children who is caught dead to rights. They are sorry they are caught but not
repentant for the wrong they have done. It also explains the repetition of this sin by
Abraham and, later, by his son Isaac. Abraham never said to himself, “I’ll never do
that again,” either in Egypt or in Gerar. In both cases Abraham escaped with his
wife’s purity and with a sizeable profit to boot. So far as I can tell, Abraham never
saw his deceptiveness as a sin. Consequently, it kept cropping up in later
generations.
3. If we wanted to join the critics of Abraham we would point out that he had an
unlawful marriage to Sarah, and they should have gotten a divorce and stopped
living in sin. Deut. 27:22 was quite clear when it said, Cursed is he that lieth with
his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. Also in Lev.
18:9 we read, The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter
of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness
thou shalt not uncover.And again in even stronger language we read in Lev. 20:17,
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter,
and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they
shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness;
he shall bear his iniquity. So here we have another sin in their lives, for they are
living in a forbidden marriage. This could be convincing to those who do not know
the timeline of events in the Old Testament. This law came over 400 years after
Abraham and Sarah were married. It did not exist in their lifetime and so it was not
a law, and you cannot break a law before it becomes a law. So they had a perfectly
legal marriage in the eyes of God and man, and God fully approved for he was going
to start the bloodline to the Messiah through them. There were many sexual
relationships that were valid in the early days of the history of mankind that became
unlawful later, and so it is possible for something to be perfectly allright at one time
that becomes sinful at another time. Abraham and Sarah lived when it was right to
marry your sister.
13 And when God had me wander from my father's household, I said to her, `This
is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, He is my
brother.
1. What we need to see is that Abraham and Sarah are just carrying out an
agreement they made for their safety as they planned to enter into a strange land. It
is a thought out strategy to deal with a very real danger. They were not trying to be
evil, but trying to be wise in facing the unknown. They were aware of how kings had
the authority to take any women they found appealing, and Sarah was appealing, so
they came up with a plan to try and outwit this evil that they would likely face as
they traveled from place to place. If they were wrong to plan for their own
protection in this way, and by this method, you would think that God would have
told them to scratch that plan and come up with a better idea, but there is no such
command like this recorded. In other words, God's silence on an issue that he knew

62. about, and did not correct, is the same as approval. There was no reason they could
see why they should not tell everyone that they were brother and sister, and so that
was their plan and what they did.
2. Some authors are so determined to make Abraham out to be the bad guy that
they read into the text all kinds of things that are not there. One author comments
on this verse and says, ..we find Abraham virtually blaming God for his troubles --
or his supposed troubles -- in v. 13: When God had me wander, as if he is saying,
If it hadn't been for God, I wouldn't be in this mess. This is very nearly
blasphemy. And then, on top of all that, there is the complete failure of faith. Why,
it had only been shortly before this that God, in 18:10, had promised Abraham that
he would have a son within the year. But it is as if God had never said a word, as if
God's word and promise mattered nothing. Then, to make matters worse,
Abraham's disappointing weakness and selfishness is set in contrast to Abimilech's
generally honorable conduct: while Abraham is indifferent to the honor of his wife,
Abimilech is concerned for her reputation; while Abraham shows no concern for his
nation, the promised descendants of God's covenant with him, Abimilech takes
notice of the danger posed by these circumstances to his people and nation. While
Abraham showed little reverence for the words God had spoken to him, Abimilech
can't act on God's warning fast enough!My only response to this is, thank God this
author was not on the committee that voted on who would get into the great faith
chapter of Heb. But wait a minute! It was not a committee, but God himself who
made Abraham and Sarah the two most recognized in that chapter as righteous and
faithful. I choose God's perspective on these two, and not the ravings of men who
love to see sin in the saints. It is there, to be sure, but not everywhere that they find
it. To find it in this verse is to abuse the Scripture.
3. Henry has a theory about this pact that Abraham and Sarah made, and he writes,
It may, for aught I know, be suggested that God denied to Abraham and Sarah the
blessing of children so long to punish them for this sinful compact if they will not
own their marriage, why should God own it? But we may suppose that, after this
reproof which Abimelech gave them, they agreed never to do so again, and then
presently we read (ch. xxi. 1, 2) that Sarah conceived. It is a truly clever theory, but
if God did not like what they were going to do, he could have told them from the
start not to do it, rather than go through all they endured and put others through to
learn it was not a good plan. And there is no hint that they agreed never to do it
again.
4. Barnhouse stretches way out to make Abraham worse than Scripture reveals him
to be. He had a plan, and he thought it was the best plan to go by, but Barnhouse
makes him a criminal. He even makes a suggestion as to how he should have
apologized. It is too bad God did not think of this. He writes, There is a terrible
meaning in this verb wander which Abraham uses. The Hebrew word occurs exactly
fifty times in Scripture and never in a good sense. It is used of animals going astray,
of a drunken man reeling, or staggering, of sinful seduction, of a prophet's lies
causing the people to err, of the path of a lying heart. Six other words are translated
wander, any one of which Abraham might have used, but he used the worst word

63. available. (Barnhouse)
Abraham should have said: 'Forgive me, Abimelech, for dishonoring both you and
my God. My selfish cowardice overwhelmed me, and I denied my God by fearing
that He who called me could not take care of me. He is not as your gods of wood and
stone. He is the God of glory. He is the living God, the Creator, the most High God,
possessor of heaven and earth. He told me He would be my shield and my exceeding
great reward, and supplier of all my needs . . . In sinning against Him, I sinned
against you. Forgive me, Abimelech.' (Barnhouse)
5. Barnhouse is not alone in his view, but Zeisler goes one step further and makes it
a situation where Abraham is blaming God for the entire mess. He writes, If we
look at Gen.20:13, we can discover some of the dynamic behind Abraham's
willingness to lie. As he was speaking to Abimelech, who was shocked that Abraham
would treat him in such a manner, he said, It came about that when God caused
me to wander from my father's house we developed this strategy. The undertone in
this statement God has caused me to wander suggests why Abraham was willing
to do what he did as he wandered from place to place. ever having a city of his
own, he continually had to engage a new stronghold of people as he wandered and
had to face danger anew each time. He recognized that he would not have been in
this mess if it had not been for God: God caused me to wander from my father's
house. This is exactly what Adam said when he was caught in sin. When God came
to him, he complained of the woman you gave me. YOU gave her to me. If you had
not done what you have done, I would be innocent of my sin. I think Abraham did
not even realize that he harbored resentment against God for the repeated danger in
which he was placed. Yet it was this resentment, which led him to adopt the
defensive strategy that said, I am willing to lie and deceive people because it is
God's fault that I am in this mess anyway. My only recourse is to find a way to
defend myself.
6. My problem with all of the negative things said of Abraham is that these negatives
are coming from man's perspective and not from God's perspective. When men of
God do wrong in the Old Testament they are usually rebuked and even judged for
their sin. In Abraham's case he comes out smelling like a rose as he receives great
gifts from the one he is supposed to have offended. This is contrary to all the rest of
Scripture. If God does not take pot shots at Abraham for his actions, who are we to
do so? The ew Testament had nothing be the highest praise for Abraham, and yet
so much of what I read by commentators on the Old Testament make him out to be
one of the great scoundrels of the Bible. There is something wrong with this picture,
and my guess the problem is not with God's revelation, but with man's
interpretation. I prefer to stick to the positive image of the ew Testament on this
man of God and not read negatives in where God does not. If the Master does not
find blame, then neither should his fellow servants. God's attitude seems clearly to
be one of approval of Abraham's plan, for not once is he rebuked for implementing
it.

64. 14 Then Abimelech brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves and gave
them to Abraham, and he returned Sarah his wife to him.
1. Abraham was already wealthy with vast herds, and now he is given another gift
of more wealth to enhance his richness. These kings always seem to have a lot of
extra male and female slaves, and this just proves Abraham's point about being
afraid when he went into a different territory, for these slaves were gotten by killing
off other tribes and taking people into captivity. Abraham did not need more slaves
I would assume, but he did need his wife back, for she was going to have his
promised child before the year was over. It cost Abimelech a small fortune to take
Sarah for a night, and all he got out of it was a nightmare, and probably a severe
headache. He was thankful, however, to survive, and so it was a gift he was glad to
give to have this whole affair over with.
2. Gill actually has a positive word here as he writes, In a good measure satisfied
with what Abraham had said to excuse himself; and these gifts he gave unto him,
that he might, as Jarchi observes, pray and intercede for him, that he and his family
might be healed, having understood by the divine oracle that he was a prophet, and
if he prayed for him he would be restored to health: If Gill is right, and I think he
is, then Abimelech, like God, missed all of the evil that so many others find in
Abraham's defense of his action.
15 And Abimelech said, My land is before you; live wherever you like.
1. What a contrast we see with the two kings who took Sarah into their harem. The
Pharaoh was anxious to get rid of Abraham and his people. He hurried them on
their way with gifts and considered it good riddance. This king was grateful for
Abraham's prayer that restored him and his family to health, and so he was ready
to bond with Abraham. He offered him the opportunity to live on his land and be
his neighbor. Thank heavens he never got to read all of the anti-Abraham literature
that makes him look like a fool for falling for all of his lies. He would have been just
like the Pharaoh had he known how Abraham's excuses were just a sham. He would
have booted him out of the land with joy that he was out of his sight for good.
Lacking the insights he could have had from this uninspiring material, he thought of
Abraham as a friend and looked forward to a continued relationship with him. My
land is your land, is his response to the honest sharing of Abraham's motivation in
what he did. ow Abraham had the same option that he gave Lot. He has to choose
just which part of this land is the best place for him and his people. Thank heavens
again that it is not revealed what part he chose, for it would be called a selfish choice
by the anti-Abraham group.
16 To Sarah he said, I am giving your brother a thousand shekels of silver. This is
to cover the offense against you before all who are with you; you are completely
vindicated.

65. 1. otice how convinced this king is of Abraham's defense. Abraham said it is no lie,
we are brother and sister. So what does the king do? He calls Abraham Sarah's
brother. He does not say I am giving your husband all of this silver, but I am giving
your brother this loot. I can just hear a certain group of commentators shouting,
You fool, it is all a lie. You are a victim of a scam artist, and you are honoring a
man whom you should be cursing. I know they are shouting this for they say this is
a sarcastic remark to rebuke Sarah for her lie. He is actually being nasty as he
hands over this silver fortune. Such is the nonsense some read into this response of
the king just before he needs Abraham to pray for his healing. If you believe that
you will fall for all of the anti-Abraham slander. Fortunately, the king does not
hear this voice and goes ahead to be kind to Abraham and Sarah. This gift said, I
am sorry for what I did, and declare that Sarah has not been touched, but is free of
all blame in this matter, and is completely vindicated. I have been the offender and I
acknowledge that by this gift of a thousand shekels of silver. Like God, this king had
not a bad word to say here of either Abraham or Sarah. As always they come out of
this experience smelling like a rose.
2. Those who persist in calling their plan a sin refuse to accept that the king says the
offense was against them. One author just can't let it go and he writes, While it’s
right for a wife to submit to her husband, it’s not right for her to submit to him in
doing wrong. But in spite of their sin, God graciously blessed Abraham and Sarah,
financially through Abimelech’s gifts, and with the birth of Isaac (21:1-7). God
graciously was willing to be associated with Abraham, even in his sin, by calling
Abraham his prophet. If I were God, I’d want to keep it quiet that Abraham knew
me until this thing blew over. But God didn’t disown Abraham for this failure. In
the many other references to Abraham in the Bible, God mentions his faith often,
but He never mentions this sin. Amazing grace! God does not mention it, but notice
how often he does, and so it is with all who persist in the theory that Abraham is a
sinful saint in his strategy to survive.
3. Pink also follows the line that Abraham is the bad guy here. He writes, And how
did God act? Did He lose patience with Abraham, and cast off one so fickle and
inconsistent? Manifestly Abraham had dishonored the Lord in acting as he did, in
setting such an evil example before these heathen (Philistines). Yet, behold the grace
of Him with whom we have to do. Instead of casting him off, God interposed and
delivered Abraham and his wife from the peril which menaced them.
17 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his
slave girls so they could have children again,
1. Here we get a clue as to how God prevented Abimelech from taking Sarah to his
bed. If he had to be healed along with his wife and his slave girls, it meant that he
was either made impotent, or all of them had some kind of sexual disease that made
it offensive to have sex. His whole household was cut off from sex by some means so
that nobody was engaged in it due to the problem they were all having. As soon as

66. Abraham prayed God healed this problem so that they could all go back to the
normal sex routine of their lives and continue to have children. This is one of the
strangest miracles of the Bible, for it was a double miracle. It was by miracle that
they had to cease their sexual practices, and then another miracle that they were
healed and could resume their sexual practices. It was a double sex related miracle.
This story has a happy ending with nobody suffering for sin, and everybody happy
to be back to normal.
Abimelech and his wife and all the rest of his household were rejoicing that they
could be back in baby making mode, and Sarah was back in the arms of Abraham,
and they were in that same mode, for they were promised that they would have a
baby in less than a year from this strange experience.
2. Someone adds this note, This was not a faith healing. It did not depend on the
people being healed, but upon Abraham's prayer and God's grace. Faith does not
always play a role in healing. Paul healed the father of the king of Malta as an act
of love and with no hint of faith on his part-Acts 28. This issue of faith is complex
for there are text that make faith the key to healing but others make it a non-issue.
God healed here because there was no reason to keep them suffering after the issue
that brought the suffering had been settled. There was really no reason for
Abraham to pray even, for God could have just reversed the miracle he did to close
down their sex life without any prayer. The fact that he made his miracle of
restoration based on Abraham's prayer is evidence that God wanted Abraham to be
respected by Abimelech, and this is what happened. It is also is evidence that God is
saying that there was no sin involved in Abraham and Sarah in saying they were
brother and sister. If God hated this as much as preachers and commentators do,
why did he exalt Abraham instead of putting him down a peg or two for this which
so many call an abominable sin? The only sin that God even mentions in this whole
story is the one he
prevented.
3. It is of interest that we have a prayer for the healing of those who are not a part of
God's people. Many are convinced that we cannot pray for unbelievers to be healed,
but Scripture will not support limiting God's healing power to believers. Many non-believers
get healed, and there is no reason why we should not lift up suffering non-
Christians for God to show his grace in healing them.
18 for the LORD had closed up every womb in Abimelech's household because of
Abraham's wife Sarah.
1. Abimelech and all of his household were basically neutered, and this could have
been the end of his family growth had God not reversed the curse. Gill has his guess
about these closed wombs and says, With large tumors probably, so that they
could not cohabit with their husbands and conceive.. Pastor Deffinbaugh agrees
with what we have said above and writes, By means of some undisclosed physical
malady, no one in the royal household was able to conceive. Further, it seems that
sexual activity was prohibited altogether. This would ensure Sarah’s purity, as well

67. as prevent the birth of a child by Abimelech. The revelation Abimelech received in
the dream thus explained the reason for the plague, which had fallen upon his
household. This also sheds light on the great fear of the male servants in
Abimelech’s household. They, too, suffered from this affliction which prohibited
normal sexual activity. In a culture that placed a high value on many offspring and
virility, the situation would have been taken as critical. And so it was.
Genesis 21
The Birth of Isaac
1 ow the LORD was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for
Sarah what he had promised.
1. It took a long time (25 years) for this promise to come to pass, but the Lord did
for Sarah as He had spoken, just as He always does. God never seems to be in a rush
to do things. If we were God we would have all the problems of the world solved
before lunch on the first day. Because God is patient, it means that no matter how
old you are you can still be used in his plan. Anyone else would have Isaac born to a
young couple, but God does not have a retirement age for his people. He uses them
in vital ways at every age.
2. It was special for Sarah, and God meant this child to be special for her. Abraham
already had a son that he loved greatly, but Sarah still went childless all these years.
Abraham would have been happy if Ishmael had been the promised child, but she
longed to be so blest as to have that child, and here we see God being gracious to her
in granting her the promised child. This gave her life meaning as nothing else could.
3, Brian Morgan implies that the greatest joy was that of Sarah as he writes, The
opening scene resonates with the pure, unadulterated joy that is ours when God
breaks into our lives and fulfills his promises. Given the ages of Abraham and
Sarah, and their twenty-five years of waiting, their joy must have been
indescribable. But for the narrator, it is Sarah's exultation that is predominant.
othing compares to the joy of a barren woman who bears a child at last. Thus the
narrator frames the scene with God's intervention for Sarah and her consequent
joy. Between the echoes of Sarah's delight we read of the obedient actions of
Abraham. But as we go to verse 8 we see it was Abraham who planned for the
greatest feast in their lives. It would be hard to measure whose joy was greatest, nor
is there any need to try.

68. 4. This event confirms what Isaiah would later write of God saying,
As the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven,
And returneth not thither,
Except it water the earth,
And maketh it bring forth and bud,
And give seed to the sower and bread to the eater ;
So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth:
It shall not return unto Me void,
Except it accomplish that which I please,
And make the thing whereto I sent it prosper. (Isaiah IV, 10-11.)
2 Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time
God had promised him.
1. Someone noted, If all is by natural process there is no evidence of God stepping
into history. God's greatest miracles that had an impact on all of history came
through motherhood. Sarah and Mary had babies by miracles and they changed
the course of history as no other babies. Both Abraham and Sarah were without
any capacity to have a child, and yet God promised that they would. You talk about
faith! Imagine how great a faith it took to believe this promise. Paul talks like they
were just barely above being a couple of corpses in their decrepit old bodies, but
they believed in the impossible. Paul writes in Rom. 4:18-21, Against all hope,
Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had
been said to him, So shall your offspring be.19Without weakening in his faith, he
faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred
years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through
unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave
glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had
promised.
2. Pink has an interesting paragraph showing the parallel of the birth of Isaac with
that of the Lord Jesus Christ. He wrote, The birth of Christ was markedly
foreshadowed by that of Isaac and this in seven ways at least. First, Isaac was the
promised seed and son (Gen. 17:16); so also was Christ (Gen. 3:15; Isaiah 7:14).
Second, a lengthy interval occurred between God’s first promise to Abraham and its
realization. When we are told, And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said (Gen.
21:1), the immediate reference is to Genesis 17:16 and Genesis 18:14, but the remote

69. reference was to the original promise of Genesis 12:7. So also was there a lengthy
interval between God’s promise to send Christ and the actual fulfillment of it.
Third, when Isaac’s birth was announced, his mother asked, Shall I of a surety
bear a child, which am old? (Gen. 18:13), to which the answer was returned, Is
anything too hard for the Lord? and the striking analogy is seen in the fact that
when the angel of the Lord made known unto Mary that she was to be the mother of
the Savior, she asked, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (Luke 1:34), to
which query the answer was returned, With God nothing shall be impossible’’
(Luke 1:37): so that in each case God’s omnipotency was affirmed following the
annunciation of the birth of the child. Fourth, Isaac’s name was specified before he
was born—And thou shalt call his name Isaac (Gen. 17:19); compare with this the
words of the angel to Joseph before Christ was born—And thou shalt call his name
Jesus (Matthew 1:21)! Fifth, Isaac’s birth occurred at God’s appointed time (Gen.
21:2) at the set time; so also in connection with the Lord Jesus we read But
when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman (Gal.
4:4). Sixth, as we have seen above, Isaac’s birth required a miracle to bring it about;
so also was it with the incarnation of Immanuel. Seventh, the name Isaac (given unto
him by Abraham and not Sarah, Genesis 21:3), which means laughter, declared him
to be his father’s delight; so also was the one born at Bethlehem—this is My
beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. eed we remark how strikingly this
sevenfold type evidences the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and demonstrates that
the book of Genesis—so much attacked by the critics—was written by one moved
by the Holy Spirit.
3 Abraham gave the name Isaac [a] to the son Sarah bore him.
1. God told Abraham to call his son Isaac back before he was born in Gen. 17:19
where we read, And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and
thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an
everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Abraham obeyed God and
named him Laughter just as God said he should. This was the promised child
through whom the people of God would be established, and through whom God
would bless the whole world. Here we have Father, mother, and child; the ideal
family from which to build the greater family of the children of God. This is what
we might call the first family of the kingdom of God on earth
2. It was such a joke that an old couple like Abraham and Sarah would have a child,
and it led both of them to laugh at the very thought of it, and so the child born in the
midst of such laughter was named laughter. Look again at the two texts that show
their response to God's promise of a child. (Gen 17:17) Abraham fell facedown; he
laughed and said to himself, Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will
Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety? (Gen 18:12) So Sarah laughed to herself as
she thought, After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this
pleasure? Isaac was a perpetual reminder that God has a sense of humor, for only
a God of humor would seek to change the history of the world through an old man

70. and woman, and do it through giving them a baby.
Another baby that brought laughter to a family was this one I read about. When
my daughter-in-law was pregnant, my son went with her to her doctor's
appointment. The day the doctor checked the baby's heartbeat for the first time, he
handed the stethoscope to my son to listen. The doctor said, Sounds like a washing
machine, doesn't it? My son agreed. On the way home my son was very quiet.
Then came these words: If it's a boy, we can name him Kenmore. If it's a girl, we
could call her Maytag.
4 When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God
commanded him.
1. Abraham was carrying out God's orders perfectly in naming him as God said he
was to do, and now in circumcising him on the eighth day as God commanded. He
lived in obedience, which is the best state a person can live it to please God and be
blest with his favor.
2. Donald J. Gettys writes, Why on the eighth day? ow, why on the eighth day?
Well, Leviticus 12:3 dictates that all circumcisions in Bible times should take place
on the eighth day. Why was this? For years we could only guess, but now we know.
Science has determined that on the eighth day the quantity of vitamin K in the body
is the highest it will ever be. After that day it diminishes. Vitamin K is responsible
for blood clotting. ow, God knew that, didn't He, because God made the body and
so that's when you should do your circumcising. Even if we don't understand why, it
is always best to closely follow God's will. Who does the bible say circumcised
Isaac? Who did it? Abraham himself did it, didn't he? His ancient daddy, that old
hand took the knife and circumcised Isaac. There on the desert floor the father
painfully shed the blood of his only son. Observe how closely Abraham followed
God's instruction. The circumcision was not done on the seventh day or the tenth
day, but on the eighth day, the day of God's choosing.
5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
1. Abraham was more like a grand or great grandfather in age, but now he is a
father again. It would be bad news in our day, but he lived for another 75 years and
so he had a long life as a father with Isaac. He seems to have health right up to near
the time of his death, and so his old age did not limit him as much as we might think.
God had confidence that an old man could do the job that a father had to do. James
Garfield said, If wrinkles must be written upon our brow, let them not be written
upon our heart. The spirit should not grow old. George W. Curtis said, To have
known one good old man-one man who, through the chances and mischances of a
long life, has carried his heart in his hand, like a palm branch waving all discords
into peace-helps our faith in God, in ourselves and in each other, more than many
sermons. Abraham was just that kind of an old man.

71. Edward Tuck,
Age is a quality of the mind!
If you have left your dreams behind,
If hope is cold;
If you no longer look ahead,
If your ambition's fires are dead-
Then you are old.
But if from life you take the best,
And if in life you keep the jest,
If love you hold,
o matter how the years go by,
o matter how the birthdays fly
You are not old.
6 Sarah said, God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this
will laugh with me.
1. Isaac was not the result of a virgin birth, but it was nevertheless a miracle of
special providence. Today they would be in the Guinness Book of World Records.
Their age would make the birth of a baby a joke in the community, and people
would laugh when they heard about it. Take any couple you know 80 or older and
imagine then having a baby, and you will enter into the emotions involved in the
birth of Isaac. An old joke says, My grandmother died at 93, but they saved the
baby. Conrad Hyers wrote, The history of Israel begins with a joke, a divine
joke. It was a joke when Sarah first heard she would have a baby, but now it is no
joke but a joy, for she is laughing with God now, and not at him for such an
outlandish prediction. God gets the last laugh, but Sarah joins in that laughter, and
she expects that people to the end of history will laugh with them when they read
about this joke that became an historical reality. God brought laughter into their
lives and into the world. The gift of laughter is one of God’s greatest gifts to all
mankind. It is a universal quality of all people, for they are made in the image of a
God who laughs and loves laughter in his people. Technically God here has taken
on the role of comedian, for a comedian is one who makes people laugh, and that is
what God is doing here. There was great mirth at the birth of this one they called
laughter, for it was the birth of laughter. People will be laughing for the rest of
history because this child is proof that God will fulfill all of his promises no matter
how unlikely they seem. It was still a joke, but a joke come true, and she had a baby
called laughter at the age of 90. It was a joke that was to make people laugh for the
rest of history, for everyone who hears of a woman who could be a great great
grandmother having her first baby will laugh with her.
2. One pastor writing about the joy of Sarah after 25 years of anxious waiting wrote,
“The joy must have been incredible. I am reminded of old Ebenezer Scrooge He had
been haunted by three ghosts only to wake up on Christmas morning. He was so
transported with joy he could hardly put his clothes on. I don't know what to do,
cried Scrooge, laughing and crying at the same time. I am as light as a feather, I

72. am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school boy, and I am as giddy as a
drunken man. He burst into a laugh. Really, exclaims Dickens, Really, for a
man who had been out of practice for so many years it was a splendid laugh, a most
illustrious laugh, the father of a long line of laughs. Something on this level of
laughter must have been the experience of Sarah at the birth of her impossible baby
becoming a dream come true.
3. God has brought me laughter
And now for ever after
All who hear of this
Will join me in bliss,
This miracle they will see
And they will laugh with me.
For how can such an awesome birth
ot be greeted with abundant mirth?
It was once a laughing matter because it was so far fetched and absurd. ow it is a
laughing matter because it is a present reality and a wonder. It is almost as if God
was playing a practical joke on Abraham and Sarah, and that the plan was that
people all through history would laugh at what he did for them in giving them a
baby in their old age. They have the record for all time, and it is laughable that God
made it possible. Every child of God has something to laugh about too, because of
their own new birth, for we are born again by the Spirit of God and by his grace
when we are dead and have no capacity to be saved on our own power. It is the
wonder of his grace that makes it possible for us to be born into his family when we
are dead in sin. We need to think of this wonder from time to time and laugh in
joyful celebration that we have experienced a miracle of birth. As somone said, If
you went out to golf and hit your first ball and made a hole in one you would
collapse in laughter and others would laugh with you in amazement. Unbelievable
things stimulate laughter. And what is more amazing than being saved for eternity
when we can do nothing to deserve such love and reward?
4. Pastor Deffinbaugh has an excellent paragraph dealing with the laughter that
God created in this couple's life. He writes, What does it mean? God is a comedian.
Look it up. Third connotation. A comedian is someone who amuses or makes people
laugh. God made Abraham laugh. God made Sarah laugh. In this context, God is a
comedian. Voltaire was right. God is a comedian but this audience was not afraid to
laugh. Here's the problem. Their laughter was filled with hubris. Disbelief.
Incredulous skepticism. But that's the trouble don't you see. It's been the problem
all along. God makes these incredible promises, issues these marvelous blessings and
then entrusts them to slapstick. Chaplainesque creatures who mess it all up.
Keystone cops. Three stooges. People like you and me. God sets into a motion a
movement of benevolent grace and blessing and we counter with a reaction of self-will
that endangers the blessing. You see when Sarah first laughed, hers was a laugh
of disbelief. o way she could have a child. That hope was long gone. But then she
did. God had the last laugh. So do you know what Sarah did when her son was
born? She laughed too! She joined right in and named her son yits-khawk or

73. Isaac. He laughed. God had the last laugh and Sarah laughed too. She's with the
program, she's celebrating, she understands now. So we need to celebrate God's
blessings with laughter.
5. Spurgeon was eloquent in describing his new birth and its parallel to the birth of
Isaac and the joy and laughter it brought to Sarah. He wrote, I would have all
those that hear of my great deliverance from hell, and my most blessed visitation
from on high, laugh for joy with me. I would surprise my family with my abundant
peace; I would delight my friends with my ever-increasing happiness; I would edify
the Church with my grateful confessions; and even impress the world with the
cheerfulness of my daily conversation. Bunyan tells us that Mercy laughed in her
sleep, and no wonder when she dreamed of Jesus; my joy shall not stop short of hers
while my Beloved is the theme of my daily thoughts. The Lord Jesus is a deep sea of
joy: my soul shall dive therein, shall be swallowed up in the delights of His society.
Sarah looked on her Isaac, and laughed with excess of rapture, and all her friends
laughed with her; and thou, my soul, look on thy Jesus, and bid heaven and earth
unite in thy joy unspeakable.
6. Scott Hoezee has an interesting paragraph here: It's not the way we would have
written it. As commentators note, the story of Isaac's long-awaited birth is both
understated and brief. That is quite surprising when you consider what a big build-up
this event has received in Genesis. ine full chapters have come and gone since
the initial call of Abram in Genesis 12. A good deal of chapter 12, all of chapters 15,
16, 17, and most of 18 had something or another to do with the promise of a son and
the various covenant ceremonies God gave to back up those divine vows. So after all
this drama that has been raising the stakes and heightening the anticipation, it's
rather surprising to see that the text manages to dispense with the actual birth in
just 7 short verses! All along the very thought of someone like old Sarah having a
baby was a source of laughter, and so when the boy is finally born, they name him
Laughter, or Isaac in Hebrew. o sooner did Sarah stop crying over the pain of
childbirth and her tears dissolved into chortles. The sight of a baby nursing at her
old breasts was almost too funny to believe, and so Sarah laughs and predicts that
everyone who hears about this will soon be joining in on the knee-slapping hilarity
of it all!
7. We thank you Father than in your wisdom you have appointed a time in our
lives for laughter -- and that laughter and a merry heart are means by
which you bring healing and wholeness to that which would be otherwise
dried up and without beauty or vitality . Indeed, O Lord, we praise you
for giving Abraham and Sarah laughter in their old age -- and for ever
since sending unto us those like Isaac who warm our hearts by their
presence -- those people and events who enter our life when we think it is
impossible and prove all our certainties to be entirely too limiting...
Thank you Lord for granting to us a sense of the ridiculous and the ability
to appreciate it when it comes to pass.... Lord hear our prayer....
Bring joy and hope, laughter and wholeness, rejoicing and healing, today, O
Lord, to the many people and situations we lift up to you at this time...

74. Lord, hear our prayer...These things we ask in the name of Jesus. Amen. Rev.
Richard J. Fairchild
7 And she added, Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse
children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.
1. Who that is, but God. obody else would be so presumptuous as to give them
hope of having a child at their age. o one in their right mind would give such a
thought a moment in their brain. It was a fantasy dream without substance; an
illusion fit only for the unstable and foolish who have lost touch with reality and the
facts of life. The number of people who would have told Abraham that his wife will
one day be nursing a child at her age would not be just around zero, but exactly
zero. The only being in the universe to be holding such an extreme view would be
God, who alone can make unbelievable things happen.
2. Sarah is overjoyed and in a state of wonder, because God has done the impossible.
If you look at all the promises God had made to her and Abraham, you realize that
none of them could be fulfilled without the birth of this child. Everything in God's
plan hinged on an impossible baby coming from their dead bodies. You might just
as well expect life to rise from a tomb as for 90 year old Sarah to give birth to a new
life. Her body was like a lifeless tomb, but that is the way God works. He not only
does the unlikely, but the impossible. That is God's specialty. If he could not bring
Jesus Christ back from the tomb, all of the promises of God to Israel and all
mankind would have been meaningless. And if he could not bring a baby out of
Sarah from the seed of Abraham, all of his promises would be meaningless as well.
Carl Sandburg said, and rightly so, A baby is God's opinion that the world should
go on. Look at how worthless all of God's promises would be without this baby.
(Gen 12:2-3) I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make
your name great, and you will be a blessing. (3) I will bless those who bless you, and
whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through
you.
(Gen 12:7) To your offspring I will give this land.
(Gen 13:15-17) All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring
forever. (16) I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone
could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. (17) Go, walk through
the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.
(Gen 17:6-7) I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings
will come from you. (7) I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant
between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to
be your God and the God of your descendants after you.
Take the baby out of the picture and all you have are words without worth. The

75. bottom line is, if God cannot do the impossible, it is the end of the line for his entire
plan for Abraham and Sarah, and for the world. Thank God that he is the God of
the impossible. Scripture stresses this over and over. Rev. Adrian Dieleman, who
put together the above Scriptures, has put together a list of other Scriptures that
point out the reality of God's miracle working power, and he concludes with a
children's song. He writes:
The Lord has a response for Abraham and Sarah: Is anything too hard for the
Lord? (Gen 18:14).
The Lord has a response for Joseph and Mary too: For nothing is impossible with
God (Lk 1:37).
Often God's people forget: our God is so almighty! Jesus can say, What is
impossible with men is possible with God (Lk 18:27).
Job listens to all of this and then he responds with this confession of faith: I know
that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted (Job 42:2).
The prophet Jeremiah comes to the same conclusion when he says to the Lord,
othing is too hard for you (Jer 32:17). And the Lord replies to Jeremiah, I am
the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? (Jer 32:27).
I've quoted once before a delightful children's song entitled Anything:
You gotta believe God can do anything,
Anything He wants to do.
He can paint the sky a bright, bright green
And turn all the trees to blue.
You gotta believe God can do anything,
For everything is in His hands.
Anything? Anything!!
For everything is in His hands.
3. Brian Morgan gets poetic also in his description of how Sarah must have felt. He
writes, Sarah is enraptured by delight. While Abraham is busy at work, she is
making melodious music and poetic praise. Abraham names the son laughter, but
Sarah sings it. Her first refrain praises God, who transformed her laughter of
unbelief into the laughter of joy indescribable. This new creation will gather a
resounding chorus that will laugh alongside her at every mention of the boy's name.
This is a timeless roar of infinite proportions..........In a mere seven verses (the
symbolic number of perfection), the narrator allows us to plumb the depths of a
human heart overwhelmed by the faithfulness of God. The text evokes joy's deepest
depths, with five echoes of laughter, and celebrates that rare ecstasy in life when
sorrow and sighing flee away. C. S. Lewis termed this the inconsolable stab of joy,
a time when we are torn from the shadows and seem to float weightless to another

76. time and place.
Hagar and Ishmael Sent Away
8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held
a great feast.
1. It is strange, but one the most difficult things to determine is just how old Isaac
was when he was weaned. To be weaned means to be taken from the breast of the
mother and put on more solid food. It is a major step in growing up, for now you
are no longer just a baby, but a boy. The authorities are all over the map on just
when it was a common practice to make this transition. Jerome said that in his day
some said that children were weaned at the age of five, and others at the age of
twelve. This seems excessive to imagine a 12 year old still taking milk from his
mother. The Koran fixes it at two years of age. Gill writes, The Jewish writers are
not agreed about this matter. Jarchi and Ben Melech say that Isaac was weaned
twenty four months after his birth; a chronologer of theirs says it was in the
hundred and third year of Abraham, that is, when Isaac was three years old, which
agrees with the Apocrypha: ``But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel
tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity
upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years,
and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of
education.'' (2 Maccabees 7:27). It is likely then that Isaac was at least between 3
and 5 years of age.
2. Whatever his age, it was a time for proud Abraham to hold a feast of celebration
where all his family and friends could rejoice with him. A new baby is one thing
everyone loves to celebrate. One father put it this way, Some fellows can get away
with anything. There's one in our neighborhood who does. Morals don't mean a
thing to him. He's unmarried and lives openly with a woman he's crazy about, and
doesn't care what the neighbors say or think. He has no regard for truth or law. The
duties of the so-called good citizen are just so much bunk as far as he's concerned.
He doesn't vote at either the primaries or the general election. He never thinks of
paying a bill. He will not work a lick. So far as is known he has no intellectual or
cultural interests at all. He neglects his appearance terribly. He’s so indolent he'd let
the house burn down before he'd turn in an alarm. The telephone could ring off
itself to pieces and he wouldn't bother to answer it. Even on such a controversial
issue as the liquor question, nobody knows just where he stands; one minute he's
dry and the next minute he's wet. But we say this for him; in spite of all his faults he
comes from a darn good family. He's our new baby. Can you imagine the number
of pictures Abraham would have had if camera's had been invented. Pictures are
important to parents as this story reveals: After our priest performed a baptism at
Sunday Mass, one proud family spent a lot of time taking photographs. A month
later the priest was again performing baptisms when he noticed the same family at
the font. Didn't I baptize your child a few weeks ago? He asked the parents.
Yes, the mother responded, but the pictures didn't turn out.

77. 3. This was a time to celebrate the growth of the child into a more mature stage, and
so all of the relatives were called together just like we gather today for a birthday
party. Abraham was an old man, but he was so proud to be the father of this little
boy, and he did not just have a party, for the text says the held a great feast. It was
an all out celebration with all the good foods that his vast wealth could provide. He
had been waiting for 25 years to get this little boy, and now he is a lad who can be
independent of his mother. He was on his way to being a man, and the one who
would carry on the promise of God to make Abraham a great nation. Little Isaac
was more than a loved child; he was a symbol of all the great things to come that
God had promised to give to Abraham and his seed. This was reason to have the
biggest feast of their lives. othing was going to be allowed to mar this day above all
days, and that helps us understand what happens next
9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was
mocking,
1. It does not really matter just what the mocking was, nor how severe it was, for no
negative, however slight, could be tolerated toward little Isaac on this day of great
celebration in his honor. He was king for a day, and any who would not bow were to
be cast out of the kingdom where he reigned. Sarah's great joy was interrupted by
an equally great anger when she saw Ishmael treating her prize and joy with
disrespect, and it was the last straw for her. The mocking could have been laughing
in his face and just generally tormenting the kid, and making sport of him with a
scornful voice. It really irked Sarah, but she was forgetting that her laughter at
God's promise of a child was much the same thing, but God forgave her with a mild
rebuke. She might have done the same thing with Ishmael, but she was in no mood
to be forgiving. Robert Ferguson reviews some history that explains the fury of
Sarah. He writes, Hagar returns and for thirteen years Sarah watches as Hagar
raises Ishmael. For thirteen years she sees Abraham enjoy and revel in Ishmael
as his son. The furor and rage continue to boil. o matter how miserable
she tries to make Hagar's life she cannot get beyond the fact that Hagar
has borne Abraham a son and she has not. Can we imagine how that fact
affected Sarah? Can we comprehend her sense of worthlessness? Can we see
how she would have taken that out upon Hagar in as vindictive a manner as
possible?
2. obody knows for sure just what this mocking amounted to, nor how bad it was,
but here is one theory: Donald J. Gettys writes, But Isaac had an older brother,
Ishmael. Was Ishmael happy about this party? He was not too excited. He thought,
Did they hold a great big feast like this for me? The Bible doesn't record it. And
like the brother of the prodigal son, in Jesus' story in the ew Testament, Ishmael's
selfish spirit began to come up. He developed a jealous attitude that quickly
surfaced. Bitterness began to spill over, and probably Ishmael was about fifteen
years old. He was a teenager, a young lad. And he began to mock Isaac. He began to
deride him and criticize him. I'm the oldest, I deserve the best. I work hard around

78. here with the sheep. I worked hard with the tent. I've done my part as a son. And
look at how they treat my younger brother! They never did this for me. I'm the first
born and this little brat is getting more than I ever got. So often the first-born feels
slighted somehow when you begin to take pictures of the second-born. He said,
Look at how they are doting over him. It just isn't fair.
3. You notice that Sarah would not even use the name of Ishmael, but just called
him that son of Hagar the Egyptian. He was no son of hers, and on top of that he
was a foreigner, for he was born of an Egyptian mother. He had no place in her
family, and it was time to get rid of him. She had some very strong negative feelings
that had been bothering her for a long time, and they exploded when she saw
Ishmael doing something that just rubbed her the wrong way. Many enter into her
emotions and join her in casting Ishmael out of the family and even out of the
kingdom of God. Others say this is an over reaction by Sarah and see no reason to
picture Ishmael as some king of a monster here. So we arrive at another point of
division in how people interpret the role of Ishmael. It is one of the great
controversies of interpreters as to who most spoiled this great party. We will have to
look at the anti-Ishmael and pro-Ishmael views at this point.
I. The Anti-Ishmael View
A. The most radical author literally condemns Ishmael to hell for this mocking, and,
therefore makes it the unforgivable sin. I find none who go further than this. You
may find a tinge of prejudice in his comments, and such words may make it clear
why Arabs often hate Christians. He writes, Ishmael mocked at Isaac, and when he
did, he was mocking Christ. Resentment, jealousy, and hostility to the plan of God,
which centered in Isaac, all boiled over like a witch's brew in Ishmael's soul. He
wanted no part of anything that Isaac stood for in that family. So he mocked, and in
mocking threw away all hope of salvation for his soul.
B. R. Akiba taught: And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had
borne to Abraham, making sport. ow making sport refers to nothing other than
immorality, as in the verse The Hebrew servant whom you have brought unto us
came in to me to make sport of me [Genesis 39:17]. Thus this teaches that Sarah saw
Ishmael ravish maidens, seduce married women and dishonor them. R. Ishmael
taught: The term making sport refers to idolatry, as in the verse and rose up to
make sport [Exodus 32:6]. This teaches that Sarah saw Ishmael build altars, catch
locusts, and offer them as sacrifices [to an idol]. You could say that this might just
possibly be reading into the word more than is there, but it is their opinion on the
matter.
C. In order to justify Sarah in her radical demand the action of Ishmael had to be
made a great and wicked evil, and so some came up with the following theory: He
that spares the rod, hates his son [Proverbs 13:24]. The verse is to teach you that
when a man refrains from chastising his son, the son will fall into evil ways, so that
in the end the father will come to hate his son. Thus it happened with Ishmael,
whom his father loved so much that he did not chastise him; then, when Ishmael fell

79. into evil ways, Abraham came to hate him so much that he cast him out empty-handed
from his house. What had Ishmael done? When he was fifteen, he began to
bring idols from the marketplace, make sport with them, and worship them the way
he saw other people worship. When Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian
making sport... she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son... [Gen.
21:9-10], lest my son learn his ways. There and then, Abraham rose up early in the
morning, and took only bread and a bottle of water [Gen. 21:14]. The meager
provisions show that Abraham had come to hate Ishmael so intensely that he
decided to send him and his mother away empty-handed when he cast him out of his
house. And what was Ishmael's end? After Abraham had driven him out, Ishmael
sat at a crossroads and robbed travelers.
II. The Pro-Ishmael View
A. Ishmael and Isaac never became enemies, and there is no basis for suggesting
that Ishmael was a godless man. He was raised by Abraham to be a man who
worshiped his God. He was circumcised and was a part of the covenant. When
Abraham died Ishmael and Isaac were there as brothers to arrange for the funeral
and burial, as we see in Gen. 25. All of the nasty things said of him may be true of
many of his descendants, but there is no evidence they were true of him.
B. An unknown author writes, By this time, he was about 14 years old because the
Scripture says that Abraham was about 86 when he had Ishmael to Hagar. Sarah
sees Ishmael (14 years old) and Isaac (about 3 years old) playing and running and
the Scripture says that Sarah saw Ishmael mocking, teasing, and horsing around. As
a matter of fact, the Scripture says she saw this and what it really refers to is that
she cast a glance at this and then her reasoning or lack of reasoning started. Doesn't
that happen? You look at something and you don't just see that thing, you see the
future, where you think you see the future? Well, that's what happened to Sarah.
And in spite of all God's promises up to this point, in spite of all the affirmations
that God would bless them through Isaac, she says to Abraham, This Ishmael will
have no part in the inheritance. (Ishmael was the oldest and the oldest usually got
double portion of the inheritance, right?) This boy will not have anything to do
with my boy Isaac
C. Scott Hoezee has too paragraphs that are so good that I could not cut them down
without losing something, and so I quote them both:
But Sarah ends up spoiling the party. Who knows how many people were milling
around that day, sipping wine, and lingering over the various meats and cheeses
available at the buffet table? There were probably lots of other children around as
well, playing ball in the back yard perhaps. At some point from the midst of the
chatter of the adults and the delighted screams of the children at play, Sarah spies
something that causes her jaw to set, her fists to clench, and her blood to boil. Verse
9 informs us that Sarah saw Ishmael mocking Isaac. And before she knew what
she was doing, Sarah had rushed over to Abraham and, in front of everyone,
screamed out, Get rid of that slave woman's son and get rid of him now!
Suddenly the conversation ceased, stunned guests stopped chewing their cheese and
sipping their wine. Embarrassed at this public display of a private family argument,

80. some guests began edging toward the door. The party was over. The laughter dried
up. Sarah was upset and angry. Abraham was upset and angry with Sarah and was
depressed about what she'd just ordered him to do. Hagar herself had dropped her
serving platter and fled the room in tears. Even the children out back knew
something was up. The party was over. The laughter dried up. But in verse 9 we're
told that Ishmael was doing mizhaq. Because of its close tie to the word for
laughter, some translations of this, including the Septuagint (the Greek translation
of the Hebrew Old Testament) have rendered verse 9 to say that Sarah saw Ishmael
just playing with Isaac. In that translation, there is nothing bad going on, but
somehow just seeing the two boys together was enough to make Sarah worry that
Ishmael would some day try to horn in on Isaac's inheritance. But that translation
seems unlikely, and so commentators have concluded that we are supposed to read
something negative and derisive into Ishmael's behavior. Mocking may well be
the better translation after all. But if so, I would further suggest that because of the
close connection to the word laughter, probably what Ishmael was doing was
indeed laughing at Isaac but in a nasty, sneering way. This is the kind of a laugh
that comes out of a child's mouth right after saying something like, Look at little
ole' Isaac over there. a-na-na-na-na-na, poor wittle baby, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. It's a
mocking kind of laughter. Ishmael laughs at Laughter but he does it in such a way
as to end all true laughter, all true mirth and joy over Isaac's presence in the
family. If the following verse in any indication, Sarah did not find anything funny
about this laughter at her son laughter.
10 and she said to Abraham, Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that
slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.
1. Sarah was wearing the pants in that family now, and she was barking out the
orders. otice again, she did not use the names, but just called them the slave
woman and her son. Her concern was that Ishmael might share in the inheritance
with her son Isaac, and she wanted no such thing.
2. It is so hard to make judgments on how justified people are for their anger. God
agrees that Ishmael and Hagar should be sent away and only Isaac receives the
inheritance. That is why all of Abraham's other children were sent away. But it is
hard to think that her attitude here was the right attitude. One author expresses
what many are thinking as he writes, Sarah is obviously not at her best in chapter
21, but then neither is Abraham. Some have tried to applaud Sarah for her depth of
spiritual insight concerning the fact that Isaac would be the heir, not Ishmael.
Personally, I think that her primary motive was that of jealousy and a protective
instinct to see to it that her son got what was coming to him. Sarah, like every
Christian I have ever known, had moments she would just as soon forget entirely.
This is surely one of those times for her.
3. An unknown author puts Sarah down as radically as she put Ishmael down when
he writes, And something happened in Sarah's heart, too. She decided that Ishmael
would never be an heir; he would never share the benefits of her husband's vast
wealth (see Genesis 13:2). A seed was born in her heart, too, one of selfishness. Even

81. though Sarah and Abraham were multimillionaires (by today's standards) she did
not want Ishmael to end up with one red cent of the money. We might ask, Why
would it matter? She had so much. Why would it matter if Ishmael shared in the
fortune? It only mattered to Sarah. She hardened her heart toward the boy and his
mother, Hagar. Instead of opening her hand to them, she closed it. She instigated the
entire thing and then did not have the fortitude to live with what she had created.
And what a difference it has made down through the centuries! But she not only
decided to disinherit Ishmael, she told Abraham in no uncertain terms that he was
to get rid of the two of them. And when Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!
4. Maybe this author is even more harsh: “Sarah is depicted as viciously jealous of
Ishmael, an innocent child playing with his younger half brother, and demands that
Abraham toss Ishmael and his mother out into the world on their own. This easily
places Sarah in the role of the wicked step-mother in any given children’s story—
the sort of woman who might send Hansel and Gretel out into the woods to get lost,
for instance, or feed a poison apple to Snow White.” Brian Morgan writes, One
glance from a mother's eyes and Sarah interprets Ishmael's childish play to be a
threat to her son as Abraham's future heir. Filled with jealous rage, Sarah distances
herself by refusing to even pronounce the boy's name, demoting him from the status
of son to slave, and his mother, from wife to maid. Charged with the emotion of a
mother bear being robbed of her cubs, she demands that her husband intervene to
solve the situation. Her harsh disdain is clear as she orders Abraham to act with
brute force: Drive out this maid and her son! The verb garash (drive out)
carries with it the idea of force (cf. Exod 6:1). Ruthless motherhood goes to work in
defense of her boy.
11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.
1. In verse 10 Isaac is my son, says Sarah, and here Ishmael is his son,
referring to Abraham. You have two sons and they are loved on different levels by
each of the parents. Sarah wants her son to have it all, and Abraham is distressed
because his son is being forced out of the family. ote he is greatly distressed, and
that is because he has come to love Ishmael deeply. Sarah never made an effort to
become a mother to Ishmael, and she did not care if he ever came home again. This
division of love for children was one of the curses in polygamy. We see it so strongly
again in Isaac who loved Esau, while his wife Rebekah loved Jacob. If Godly people
have such a hard time loving their children equally, how can we expect the people of
the world to do so, and so there is no end to tension in families because of this
division of love. The result of it here is that a great party filled with rejoicing and
laughing people is suddenly turned into a time of anger and grief for the very two
parents who are celebrating their greatest joy. It is a terrible truth that life can go
from joy to grief in a very short time, and we see it is true even for God's chosen
people.
2. Abraham loved this firstborn son Ishmael, and the thought of pushing him out of
the family was cause for deep grief, but as some point out, it was inevitable that he
had to leave, as did all of his other son by Keturah, for Isaac alone was to inherit all

82. that he had. It took a showdown like this to make it happen, or Abraham would
never have come to the point of being able to do it. Sarah's anger was so severe that
he had no choice but to send him away even if God had no told him to do so.
3. An unknown author says it all about how reasonable it is that this was the
beginning of a warfare that seems never to end, and yet which has a solution in
Jesus Christ. He writes, What about Ishmael? What about all the good memories
of going fishing with Dad, working by his side, listening to the fireside stories before
bed time, adoring his father, hanging on his every word--emulating him. ow that
was all dashed to bits in a matter of minutes. All of his dreams were destroyed. All
of his love was torn from him. The man he had trusted the most was sending him
and his mother into Beer-sheba to die. Dark thoughts came into the mind and
emotions of this young teenager. I will never trust anyone again. I will harden my
heart so that I cannot ever be hurt again. I will kill anyone that I distrust. I will
become a wild man. Certainly very dark seeds were planted in his heart, in his
very soul, and they went into his bloodstream, into his blood, into his genes, and
would be passed from generation to generation. For neither Ishmael or his mother
died in the wasteland. God rescued them. But would you be jealous of an Isaac after
that? Would you want to destroy him for inheriting so much, when you received
worse than nothing? The only solution is for all to become true children of Abraham
by faith in Jesus Christ and experience peace with God and all of His children.
Christianity is the answer to the conflict of Jews and Arabs.
4. Scott Hoezee struggles with a question many ask, and his only answer is that God
had not other choice but to work with sinful human beings, and even his chosen
ones are just that. He writes, Some commentators have even wondered about God's
letting Sarah get away with her nasty directive to get rid of Hagar and Ishmael. Bad
enough Abraham didn't stand up to his wife, but how come even God didn't stand
up to her? That's maybe the wrong question to ask, and even those who do ask it
come up with no answers. Again, however, it may be no more than a sign that God's
grace must be active in and through human sinfulness because where else could it be
active? Where else is grace needed if not in the flotsam and jetsam of our sometimes
rather greasy lives?
12 But God said to him, Do not be so distressed about the boy and your
maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that
your offspring [b] will be reckoned.
1. Brian Morgan wrote, It is only by the grace of God that we are able to
maneuver through such pain. Fortunately, God intervenes to guide Abraham
through this sea of emotion. God has the same affections as Abraham for the boy
and his mother, and thus we might expect him to side with Abraham's anger, but he
does not. He identifies with Abraham's affections, but gives him rather surprising
counsel: Listen to the voice of your wife. This is the height of irony, since
Abraham got into this predicament in the first place because he listened to the
voice of his wife (16:2). On that occasion her motives were pure; she wanted to

83. fulfill the promise of a son for her husband. But despite her good motives, her plan
did not serve God's purposes. In this instance, however, rage and disdain taint her
motives, and yet God tells Abraham, Whatever Sarah says, obey (lit. hear) her
voice. The ways of God are beyond comprehension. The reason for God's directive
is that, despite Sarah's ungodly anger, his larger purpose will be served by the
separation of these two boys. Abraham need not fear for the boy's future. God will
care for him and bless him. Thus it is time for Abraham to let go of what he had
produced in his own strength. Ishmael must be sent off into the desert.
2. Another writes, “ow truthfully, I would have preferred that God intervene in a
different way, smacking down the arrogance of Sarah. As Gerhard von Rad
observes, this is “’the tense’ moment in the structure of the narrative, for the reader
has not expected that God would be on Sarah’s side, but rather on Abraham’s. But
precisely this is what the patriarchal stories like to show, that God pursues his great
historical purposes in, with, and under all the headstrong acts of men.”
3. Dr. Ritsch helps us understand that God can use even negative acts of people to
accomplish his purpose, because he knows how it will work out. He writes, But the
biblical story here is giving us a God’s eye view of history. This is important to
understand. It is not Abraham’s or Sarah’s idea that this fulfils some greater
purpose. Sarah is simply jealous and Abraham is offended. God is the one whose eye
is on the greater purpose, and who assures Abraham that everything will work out
all right. Only God can make the determination if such a terrible act may serve a
larger good. God has the unique ability to look backward on history. God can see
the end result, even control the end result. And so God can say that a terrible thing
now will have a good result. You know the saying: “Hindsight is 20/20?” Well, God
has that 20/20 hindsight, only God has it now. God sees the future from a backward
perspective.” Rev. Dr. Frederick F. Ritsch, III, Pastor
4. Another author writes, In fact, He instructs Abraham later on to listen to what
Sarah said because God is using Sarah as His instrument. This is not the first or the
last time in the book of Genesis that we will see the action of a human being, which
is wrong, stated to be part of the plan of God, which is right and good. Think of
Genesis 50:20. You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. And once again
even if Sarah is wrong in her desires here, her words are, according to Paul, the
very words of God expressing a distinctive destiny for Isaac and for his descendants
in the covenant of grace. And so we see that this distinction between Ishmael and
Isaac is more than just a family squabble, it’s a distinction between the natural and
the spiritual seeds. And did not God promise through Moses and did not God
promise through the record of Moses and in His words to Adam, that He would put
enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent? And we’re
seeing yet another incidence in the book of Genesis where God establishes enmity in
order to bless His people right here.
5. Another writes, ow let’s turn back then to Genesis 21. Sarah has asked
Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael and Abraham is deeply distressed. This is
perfectly understandable. Ishmael is probably seventeen years old now. We have

84. seen indications all along that Abraham loved this boy deeply. In fact, when God
came to Abraham to promise him the birth of Isaac, do you remember Abraham’s
response? Oh, that Ishmael might live before you. In effect, oh, that Ishmael might
be the heir of the covenant. Abraham loved this boy. Sarah was asking Abraham to
cast out his son and never see him again. That parting and the thought of that
parting must have been brutal to Abraham. You know, of all the scenes that
reduced me to a puddle in this last week in Littleton, Colorado, there was the scene
of that school teacher as he lay dying. And his students pulling out his wallet to
show him the picture of his girls. And his final words, Tell them that I love them.
And here Abraham must send out a boy that he loves and never see him again - into
the wilderness, into the desert heat, perhaps to die, never to be reunited. Do you feel
the cost of this parting to Abraham? However Sarah feels about Ishmael and Hagar
right now, Abraham loves that boy. And so Abraham is quite understandably
distressed. ot only does law prevent him from turning out Ishmael without a
provision, but also his love for his son breaks his heart at the thought of losing him.
And so God himself comes to Abraham and He says, and this is so beautiful,
Abraham, I will provide for your boy. I know it’s hard for you to understand what
Sarah is saying to you right now, but what Sarah is saying to you is part of my plan.
So I want you to listen to her and I just want you to know this. I will provide for
your boy. Because I love you, Abraham, I will make him a great nation. I will
protect him. And so you do what Sarah has asked you to do, however brutal it
seems, however heartbreaking it may be to you.
13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your
offspring.
1. God comforts Abraham with a renewal of his promise to make Ishmael into a
nation, and so there is no need to despair as if this loved boy of yours is being cast
out of God's plan like he is being cast out of your home. God is saying, Don't worry
Abraham, for no child of yours will go unblest. This is not the end of anything, but
the beginning of an independent life that will lead to a great future for this son of
yours.
2. Abraham was told As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make
him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and
I will make him a great nation (Genesis 17:20). The Ishmaelite tribes were later
joined by the Midianite and other Arab clans descended from Abraham's second
wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1-6). The Edomite tribes descended from Abraham's
grandson Esau were also included as Arabs (Genesis 36:1-43).
3. Scott Hozee has a note that needs to be read, for he points out that God only has
one side in the conflict of the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael, and that is the side
of Jesus Christ. He writes, Some commentators like to suggest that God's blessing
of Ishmael and his descendants shows that God's care extends wider than just
Israel. Striking a contemporary political note, some preachers like to equate Ishmael
with the Palestinians as a way to say that no one should think God is only on the side

85. of the Israelis. That's probably too neat a move on both sides: it is dicey to see
today's Israelis as the direct and sole descendants of Abraham and also dubious to
make all Palestinians Ishmael's children. Doing that ignores the ew Testament
theology that identifies the church--Jew and Gentile alike--as the new Israel and as
the truest descendants of Abraham and of the promises made to him.
14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave
them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She
went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.
1. Scott Hoezee continues his brilliant descriptions of what is happening. He writes,
So for a second time in the Abraham cycle of stories, Hagar is kicked out on her
ear, this time not with a baby in her womb but a young adolescent trotting after her
into the harsh wilderness wastes. Hagar is weeping. Abraham's old chin is quivering
because say what you want about Ishmael, he's still Abraham's boy and Abraham
loves him. He's helped to raise him, taught him how to hunt, how to play ball, how
to be a man. Maybe even young Isaac is crying, too. Perhaps Laughter also weeps.
Despite the teasing he'd endured the day of his party, Isaac may well have liked
Ishmael anyway--maybe he even loved his big brother. Sarah may well have been
the only dry-eyed one in the bunch as they watched Hagar and Ishmael's figures
grow smaller as they wandered ever farther out toward the desert horizon.
2. Being there was no bus or train to catch, it seems that Abraham, a multi-millionaire,
was being a little too conservative on the supplies he gave them to
survive in the desert. A skin of water, unless it was in the skin of a water buffalo,
would not really be adequate to keep them alive for very long. The text says that
Abraham sent them off early in the morning, and this was probably to get them on
their way before Sarah got up and screamed at him for wasting bread and water on
them. ot likely, for she probably got over her anger by now. It was just wise to get
an early start to go into the desert in the cool of the day. But the fact is, he got this
child because of Sarah, and now he has to lose him because of Sarah. She had some
radical mood swings that had her going from Take Hagar as your wife and thereby
get a son, to , Get rid of that slave woman and her son.
3. . One pastor expresses what many feel when they read this passage. Here is
where some get angry with Abraham. One pastor preached, “Talk about a
dysfunctional family. Abraham convinces himself that bread and a skin of water is
all Hagar and Ishmael deserve. Is this the same Abraham that is to become the
father of many nations (Genesis 17:35)? How can it be possible? Abraham cannot
bring himself to be the father of his own son, let alone of one nation. He essentially
becomes a dead-beat father. I know it may sound sacrilegious for me to pounce on
Abraham so much and perhaps some of you may be wondering why is kahu getting
so uluku or extremely upset. The Biblical text is there for us to take a good, long
hard look at the effect of Abraham’s parenting skills on Ishmael. When the water
Hagar received from Abraham was gone, she placed Ishmael under a bush. She goes
off some distance from him and prays to God, Let me not look upon his death.

86. We are told that immediately afterward, Ishmael lifts up his voice and weeps. What
a great trauma it must have been for Ishmael! That’s what makes me upset about
Abraham despite God’s admonition to him to listen to whatever Sarah tells him.”
Many are mystified as to how God could not only allow this, but also actually
approve of it. The only explanation is that God had a plan for this lad who needed a
miracle to survive. Sometimes a sad separation is an essential step to success.
4. On a more positive note another pastor wrote, Abraham arose early to send off
Hagar and Ishmael. This may evidence his resolve to carry out an unpleasant task,
as Kidner suggests.2 While it sounds far less spiritual, I wonder if Abraham did not
do so for other reasons. Surely an early start would be wise in the desert, since
travel should be done in the cool of the day. Also, an early departure would make it
easier to say their good-byes without the interference of Sarah. I think that
Abraham wanted to express his deep-rooted love for both Hagar and Ishmael
without a hostile audience.
15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes.
1. It is really bad news when you head into the desert in one verse and then in the
very next verse it says you are out of water. There is something wrong with this
picture. Hagar had been a part of Abraham and Sarah's family for almost 20 years.
She was the mother of Abraham's first-born son, whom he loved dearly. ow all of
a sudden she is dying of thirst in the desert along with her son, and all because this
teenager had mocked the new kid on the block in that family. If ever there was
family abuse and injustice, this is an example. It is outrageous that Abraham could
allow this to happen. We know God is going to come to the rescue, but he did not
know that was going to happen. He assumed Ishmael would survive, for that is the
only way God could keep his promise that he would be a great nation, but what
about Hagar? He had no promise about her, and so she could be dying out there as
his wife and mother of his child. It seems so heartless and cruel what Abraham and
Sarah have done.
16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought,
I cannot watch the boy die. And as she sat there nearby, she [c] began to sob.
1. Hagar had the promise also that this lad of hers was going to be a great nation,
but when one is dying of thirst and watching one's child die as well, the optimism
fades as to the future. It was all over as far as she was concerned, and her only
thought was to be far enough away so that she would not see his final gasps as he
died of thirst. There she sat weeping without hope.
17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven
and said to her, What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the
boy crying as he lies there.

87. 1. Twice in this verse we are told that God heard the boy crying. We can have no
idea of how loud and pathetic this crying was, but the implication is that Ishmael
was wailing in deepest despair that he would have to perish at such a young age. It
was a sight and sound so sad that God could not ignore it. In compassion he sent his
Son, the angel of the Lord, which is the pre-incarnate Christ, and he assures Hagar
that she need not fear, for God has heard the boy’s cry. This means that God will
not let him die. God does not say to Hagar that he heard her cry, but that he heard
the cry of her son. She is weeping too, but probably quietly so as not to add misery
to Ishmael who is dying. Ishmael on the other hand is loud and gets God's attention
that he quiet sobbing does not get. This crying was like a prayer, or was a prayer,
for God heard it and came in answer to it. Our depth of sorrow that makes us cry is
a form of prayer, for it is a cry to God for help. We can assume that Hagar was
praying, for she had been in the presence of Abraham for many years and was a
part of his worship arrangements for all of his people, but God does not say he
comes in answer to prayer, but in response to the crying. Crying sends a message
that can be more powerful than words of prayer.
2. It sounds strange that God's first question is What is the matter, Hagar? It is
obvious, of course, but God is not seeking information, but is assuring her that it
does not matter what is the matter, for she does not need to be afraid. He could also
mean, what is the matter with you, for I have promised you that your son will be the
father of a multitude, and so you do not need to fear no matter how bad things look.
When God says do not be afraid you can count on it that your problems will soon be
over. God is communicating to her things like, You have reason to feel rejected and
abandoned, but this is not the case from heaven's perspective. You and your son are
a part of my plan for the future, so don't give up even when circumstances seem
hopeless.
18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great
nation.
1. God is saying don't sit back here sobbing, but go take the boy by the hand for I
have big plans for him. You are weeping as if this is the end, but the fact is, this is
just the beginning of what will be a history of vast peoples that will play a major
role in the history of mankind. You help him up to get a drink, and I will build him
up to be a multitude.
2. Someone pointed out, Many times we look unfavorably on Hagar as the
bondwoman who was cast out of Abraham's family - this is partly due to Paul's
application of Hagar and Ishmael cast in the role of the fleshly. While that is a
proper application of spiritual matters, the fact remains that the Genesis casts the
whole experience of Hagar in a very poignant role - that of an impetuous, young
concubine who was looked after by Jehovah, the God who saw the need of this
single mother. Hagar, bondslave of Sarah and mistress of Abraham was all alone
with no rights as a mother - indeed, was eventually cast out of the household of

88. Abraham - Hagar's status was very tenuous as a single mother - being a single
mother without any outward means of security or support. But the LORD
intervened and her life was forever changed. Jehovah is truly the God of the single
mother.
19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled
the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.
1. We do not know if God by a miracle made a well there, or if there was one there
already and he just helped Hagar see what her tear clouded eyes missed. Something
tells me a miracle is most likely, for how could you be dying of thirst and not see a
well that was within eyesight?
2. Salvation by water is one of the ways God has worked all through history to save
lives. Here he comes to the rescue of a single parent who has lost everything she had
but her boy. It is a common problem in the world, and God has compassion for all
who have suffered similar losses. A drink of water saved this mother and son, and a
cup of cold water given in the name of Jesus has led many to the well that never
runs dry.
3. A Jewish tradition has this fascinating account: Ishmael himself cried unto God,
and his prayer and the merits of Abraham brought them help in their need, though
the angels appeared against Ishmael before God. They said, Wilt Thou cause a well
of water to spring up for him whose descendants will let Thy children of Israel
perish with thirst? But God replied, and said, What is Ishmael at this moment--
righteous or wicked? and when the angels called him righteous, God continued, I
treat man according to his deserts at each moment.
20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an
archer.
1. So many are negative about Ishmael and they doubt that he was a believer, and
some are quite sure he will not be in heaven because his people fought the children
of Isaac. This verse makes it clear that God was protecting this young man, and that
he had a plan for his life. There is no reason to doubt that he was a godly young man
who was taught by Abraham to be just that, and God honored him for his
righteousness. This is not a meaningless verse that can be cast aside like he was from
the house of Abraham, for it says that God walked with him as he grew up. God
does not just hang out with everyone like he did with Ishmael. If we give him the
respect God gave him, we will recognize he was a special person to God. God's love
is not limited to Isaac and his descendants just because they are the ones who are
chosen to bring forth the Savior of the world. That truly is the greatest honor, but it
is also an honor to have God walk with you in life as one with a less noble destiny.
God chose to befriend Ishmael, even though he was not chosen to produce the
bloodline to the Messiah.
2. Someone pointed out this valuable insight: We should be reminded that the right

89. things sometimes happen for the wrong reasons. I do not believe that Sarah was
shown in the best light in this chapter. I do not see a quiet and submissive spirit in
her confrontation with Abraham. evertheless, we must conclude from God’s
instructions to Abraham to obey his wife that the right thing to do was to put
Ishmael away, once and for all. Throughout the Bible we see that the right things
are often the result of the wrong reasons. For example, Joseph was sent to Egypt to
prepare the way for the salvation of the nation Israel, but he got there through the
treachery of his brothers, who thought they were getting rid of him by selling him
into slavery.
It was wrong, he is saying, for the way Ishmael was treated and cast out, but it was
good that he was for the sake of becoming independent and developing a successful
life on his own. He was not going to inherit the riches of Abraham, and so he had to
get away and do it on his own. God would be with him and so he would succeed, but
it would not have worked out had he stayed on with Abraham. It is a paradox, for it
was bad that he was kicked out, but also good that he was kicked out. It was a
terrible burden and a tremendous blessing. It was a mixture of good and bad, but
God takes that messed up mixture and turns it into a thing of beauty. It had to be so
hard to take the rejection by his father, but now he has a greater sense of the father
he has in heaven. He was to become a desert king, and this would never have
happened had he stayed with Abraham. He had to be separated from Abraham to
fulfill his destiny, but the way it happened was still sad.
3. To show that the boy did far more than survive, the narrator casts us forward
into his distant future. God will continue to be faithful to what he had promised. He
was with the boy, and as a result, the lad grew (as did Isaac, vs. 8). This experience
of being saved in the wilderness would shape his destiny. He would become an
archer. Just as God had saved him when he was a bowshot away from his mother in
the wilderness, so he became a skilled bowman in that harsh place of the wilderness.
Ishmael didn't just survive the desert, he conquered it.
21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from
Egypt.
1. The narrator concludes with the mention of Hagar as a single mother taking
responsibility to provide a wife for her son. This was a parent's final obligation
toward a child. So Hagar returned to her original home to acquire a wife for
Ishmael (as Abraham would later do for Isaac). ow that the boy is mature and
married, we sense that the concerns Abraham had for Ishmael have been completely
met in the provision of a gracious God -- and to a much greater degree than if had
Ishmael remained at home under Abraham's roof.
The Treaty at Beersheba
22 At that time Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his forces said to
Abraham, God is with you in everything you do.

90. 1. This is a sudden transition from Ishmael's desert life and his Egyptian wife. ow
we are back involved with king Abimelech who took Sarah into his harem, but was
delivered by God from death because he was not aware that Abraham deceived him.
He gave Sarah back and along with her a fortune in gifts to Abraham. The crisis
ended with Abimelech becoming a friend with Abraham, and offering him to take
any place he wanted in his country as a place to settle down and live.
2. This verse makes it clear that he had been keeping an eye on Abraham and the
way he succeeded in his managing his vast estate. He could see that God was
blessing him in all that he did. This is quite a compliment coming from a Philistine
king. Abimelech knew by experience what the God of Abraham could do if he was
displeased with you, and so he dreaded that the day would ever come when he
would have to face Abraham in battle. His God could end the fight in a moment by
miraculous power, and he wanted no part of that threat. He wanted to be on
Abraham's side in any conflict, for then he would have the God of Abraham on his
side too. Abraham came into the land thinking there was no fear of God there, but
now he sees there is plenty of the fear of God, and Abimelech wants to make sure he
never gets on the wrong side of God again. Once is enough for anyone.
3. You note that the commander of his forces is with him, and so this is a military
matter that we are dealing with here. The issue is, are we going to be military
friends or military enemies? He wanted to make sure that Abraham does not pull
another fast one on him and deceive him into some action that leads to God's
judgment again.
23 ow swear to me here before God that you will not deal falsely with me or my
children or my descendants. Show to me and the country where you are living as an
alien the same kindness I have shown to you.
1. Abimelech could see that Abraham was becoming more and more powerful every
day, and this made him realize that he could become an enemy and do him great
damage if he did. He was just playing it smart by making him a greater friend by
entering into a treaty with him. He wanted assurance that the good relationship he
had with Abraham would not change, either by him, or by his descendants. He had
been kind to Abraham, even though he was an alien, and he wanted Abraham to
treat him just as he was treated. Here we see the possibility of a believer entering
into an agreement with a non-believer for the sake of peace and harmony.
24 Abraham said, I swear it.
1. Can a child of God enter into a treaty with a pagan who worships idols? Why
not? A treaty is something two people or more are convinced is a good thing for
them. It is for protection from enemies outside the treaty. Our country has treaties
with all sorts of people who do not have the same democratic principles as we do.
Some are even dictators that we abhor, but we still want peace with them, and
agreements as to how we treat each other. It was to Abraham's benefit to have a

91. treaty with Abimelech, for he needed friends in that land where he was an alien.
25 Then Abraham complained to Abimelech about a well of water that Abimelech's
servants had seized.
1. Abraham took quick advantage of this peace treaty by complaining of an unkind
act on the part of Abimelech's servants. They had in neighborly fashion seized his
well, and this was a violation of the peace treaty.
2. He speaks directly to Abimelech about a problem that had arisen over a certain
well. And, to his credit once again, Abimelech responds honorably to this situation,
and appears to be as shocked and dismayed by what was happening as Abraham.
And Abraham must have seen Abimelech’s response and judged it to be genuine for
in the next verse we see him taking steps to address the problem and settle things
peacefully. Even though it would appear that it was Abimelech’s people that had
wrongly seized a well for themselves which Abraham felt belonged to him, for the
sake of peace Abraham goes the extra mile and “pays” for the well which was
already his and he does so by giving a gift of sheep and oxen to Abimelech.
26 But Abimelech said, I don't know who has done this. You did not tell me, and I
heard about it only today.
1. The king was upset by this charge against his servants, for he did not know about
it and he rebukes Abraham for not telling him about this matter sooner. He is just
hearing of it now, and it is disturbing for he has just appealed to Abraham to treat
him with kindness, and now he hears his own men have not treated Abraham with
kindness. It was embarrassing to him, for he comes pleading to be treated right, and
his men have mistreated Abraham.
27 So Abraham brought sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimelech, and the two
men made a treaty.
1. What did Abraham do when all came out into the open? Abraham rendered
good for bad. Remember back in verse twenty, when the two had met again after
many years, It was Abimelech that covered over Abraham's embarrassment, for
giving his wife Sarai to Abimelech, and saying she was his sister. It was Abimelech
that gave riches to Abraham, and said, let's put this embarrassment behind us. ow
it is Abraham that is doing likewise, and covering over Abimelech's fault. Abimelech
hasn't done any wrong, but it was his people. Peace is restored. Abraham makes a
payment to Abimelech. He recognizes that this is Abimelech’s territory and that
compensation must be paid for the use of certain facilities (compare the tithes paid
to Mechizedek (14.20). ‘And they made a treaty’. Terms of agreement are
hammered out.

92. 28 Abraham set apart seven ewe lambs from the flock,
1. Seven ewe lambs means that they are young female sheep.
2. The well is so important that Abraham wants it confirmed by a specific
ceremony. The ceremony does not necessarily mean that Abimelech does not know
the significance of the seven lambs. Indeed we are probably to recognize that he
does. There is no point in a ceremony if it is not understood. They are going through
the formal ceremony in a generally recognized procedure with stereotyped questions
and answers. Abraham sets aside the ewe lambs, Abimelech asks what they mean,
then Abraham confirms their significance.
So a solemn agreement is concluded within the larger covenant. It was an ancient
custom that the acceptance of a gift included recognition of the just claim of the
giver. The seven ewe lambs were probably intended to signify the whole price paid
by Abraham in verse 27, seven being the number of divine perfection and
completeness. Alternately they may have been the price paid for use of the specific
well. From now on both sides will recognize that the well has been dug by, and its
use officially guaranteed to, Abraham and his group.
29 and Abimelech asked Abraham, What is the meaning of these seven ewe lambs
you have set apart by themselves?
30 He replied, Accept these seven lambs from my hand as a witness that I dug this
well.
1. By accepting the seven ewe lambs, Abimelech gave recognition to Abraham that
he knew that the well was dug, and owned by Abraham. The well was known as
Beersheba which in the Hebrew means the well of the oath. It was here that the
oath between the two was made, and 1900 years later, it would be at this well that
Jesus drew the water for the woman, and called her attention to the fact that she
had been married to five men, and forgave the woman of her sins [John 4:6-30].
Jesus offered the woman water from the living fountain, that if she partakes of it,
she shall never thirst. She knew of the prophecies of the coming Messiah, and when
she saw Jesus and heard Him, she wanted to taste of the living water that only Jesus
Christ could offer.
31 So that place was called Beersheba, because the two men swore an oath there.
1. Genesis 21.14 refers to the wilderness of Beersheba. It could be that Abraham
takes the well-known name of the wilderness and applies it to the well because it is
appropriate. Alternately it may be that the wilderness originally had another name,
altered to Beersheba when Beersheba became well known, for the name Beersheba
is eventually applied to a city. (Genesis 26.33 refers to a city of Beersheba, whose
name appeared subsequently to that time, and that is the general meaning of
Beersheba later on). Beersheba, which is a kind of pun that can mean, “well of the

93. seven” or “well of the oath”.
32 After the treaty had been made at Beersheba, Abimelech and Phicol the
commander of his forces returned to the land of the Philistines.
33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called upon the
name of the LORD, the Eternal God.
1. It may be that the Philistines in Gerar worshipped El ‘Olam whom, because of
the significance of his name Abraham accepted as being Yahweh for he knew
Yahweh to be God from everlasting to everlasting (there was no concept of
‘eternity’. ‘Olam meant from time past to time future), compare El Elyon (14.22).
The Tamarisk tree was native to the area. It was to mark and possibly to provide
shelter over the well. Thus the thirsty passer by, needing water, would see the well
was there. ‘Called there on the name of Yahweh’. As priest of the tribe he originated
cult worship there. It became a shrine to the goodness of God, the central place of
worship for his family tribe.
2. Abraham plants a tamarisk tree there - which is s sign of permanence and
stability, a sign that Abraham is quite literally putting some “roots” down in that
place, settling down. It is at this point in the text where we are also told that, in
addition to planting this tree, Abraham “called on the name of the Lord, the
Everlasting God”. In other words, Abraham worshiped God in that place which, if
you remember from the earlier chapters of the Abraham story was a practice that
had characterized and defined his movements at the very beginning - setting up sites
for worship as he went along from place to place. And that is where the text leaves
us - with a picture of a more mature Abraham, a settled Abraham, a peaceful
Abraham who has a son, and who deals forthrightly with his neighbors, and who
trusts in the Lord’s promises and worships the Lord his God.
34 And Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time.
1. Here is proof that a man of God can live among a godless people in peace, and be
able to get along with them. The Philistines may not have been as evil as they did
eventually become so that they had to be wiped out, but they were certainly not the
best people for neighbors, and they were definitely idolaters.
‘In the land of the Philistines.’ It is clear that the area where they were was
acknowledged to be under the control of the Philistine group. This may not be the
name of the area but just an acknowledgement of the facts.
‘Many days.’ The idea of Abraham wandering continually around from place to
place is incorrect. Here ‘many days’ probably means a number of years. He was
there when Isaac was born. He was there when Isaac was a growing lad (chapter
22). Of course, the flocks and herds had to be moved about to find grazing, but this
was done from a permanent center.

94. Genesis 22
Abraham Tested *See Appendix A
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, Abraham!
Here I am, he replied.
1. An example of a simple, direct contradiction that does not involve figures or
numbers occurs in James 1:13, which says that God tempts no man, while Genesis
22:1 says God tempted Abraham. The standard answer to this apparent
contradiction is, “An understanding of the meaning of the word `tempt' will dispel
the seeming contradiction. This word is used in a good sense and in a bad sense.
When it's used in a good sense it means to test, to try, to prove. God tested
Abraham.... When the word `tempt' is used in a bad sense it means to entice a
person to do evil. God never tempts man to sin.” The goals of the two words are
complete opposites. The goal of temptation is to lead a person away from God and
his will. It is designed to persuade a person to defy God’s will. Testing, on the other
hand, is designed to bring one into conformity to God’s will. The goal of a test is to
see if God’s will is supreme in a person’s life so they will choose obedience to God
over any alternative. It would be folly for God to tempt anyone so that they would
do what he does not will or want. Meyer put it, “Satan tempts us that he may bring
out the evil that is in our hearts; God tries or tests us that He may bring out all the
good.”
2. Someone wrote, “You never know when God’s supreme test may come in your
life. Perhaps it will be at some momentous crossroads in your youth. Or maybe it
will be later, in the days of heavy responsibility, the prime of life. Or it could be in
the declining years when you are growing old. It just could be. That’s how it was
with Abraham.” Meyer stresses how out of the blue this test came upon Abraham. It
was such a radical change from the picture we have at the end of the last chapter.
He writes, “As we have seen, life was flowing smoothly with the patriarch, -- courted
by Abimelech; secure of his wells; gladdened with the presence of Isaac; the
everlasting God his friend. Ah, happy man, we might well have exclaimed, thou
hast entered upon thy land of Beulah; thy sun shall no more go down, nor thy moon
withdraw itself; before thee lie the sunlit years, in an unbroken chain of blessing.
But this was not to be. And just at that moment, like a bolt out of a clear sky, there
burst upon him the severest trial of his life. It is not often that the express trains of
heaven are announced by warning bell, or falling signal; they dash suddenly into the
station of the soul. It becomes us to be ever on the alert; for at such an hour and in

95. such a guise as we think not, the Son of Man comes.”
3. Some people like tests, for they reveal a reality that they are proud of. The test
shows they are smarter than most, for they get A's. The test reveals that they are
faster than all the other runners. It reveals they can run the greatest distance, or
they can lift the heaviest weight, or eat the most hot dogs in three minutes. There is
no end to tests that reveal someone is superior in some way to the majority of
people, and those who win such tests of knowledge, strength and endurance are
happy with the test. The majority who lose are not so happy, and in fact, they dread
the test that shows how far they are from the best. The test reveals the best, but the
rest feel that the text is a pest. So the majority of people do not like to be tested.
Unfortunately testing is a part of life that we cannot escape. It is not only a part of
education, but it is part of the plan of God to keep his people on their toes so they do
not fall for the clever temptations of the devil. God never tempts, for temptation is
an appeal to do what is evil and sinful, but God does test, which is an appeal to
choose what is good and right over what is evil and sinful. In other words, the
testing of God is just the opposite of Satan's tempting. A temptation is to do wrong,
but a test is to do right. It can get confusing because they can both be a part of the
same event. For example, If someone says `let us go after other gods,' which you
have not known, and `let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that
prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to know
whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
(Deuteronomy 13:3). We see that God allows the tempting, but does so not to tempt,
but to test their love. The tempting is the goal of the false prophets to lead Israel into
idolatry, but the testing is the goal of God to see if they love him as the only true
God. Tempting and testing are happening at the same time. This is what we see in
the testing of Abraham that follows. He is both tempted to do what is evil in killing
his son, and tested to see if he is willing to sacrifice what he loves most in obedience
to God.
4. Pastor Herb Koonce has some interesting things to say about tests that relate to
this chapter. I have modified it to make it shorter and just give the highlights. It can
be developed into an excellent message on this text. He writes, A FAITH THAT
CAOT BE TESTED - CAOT BE TRUSTED. He asks, HOW WOULD
YOU LIKE TO RIDE A PLAE THAT HAS EVER BEE FLOW/TESTED? A
women facing surgery was nervous and said, DOC, I'M ERVOUS THIS IS MY
1ST SURGERY. -- I KOW HOW YOU FEEL. THIS IS MIE TOO.
-devil - TEMPTS US TO DO WROG I ORDER TO STUMBLE.
-GOD - TEMPTS US TO DO RIGHT I ORDER TO STAD.
--ABRAHAM WAS I DAGER OF LOVIG THE SO MORE THA THE
FATHER.
---OF LOVIG THE GIFT MORE THA THE GIVER.
---OF LOVIG THE PROMISE MORE THA THE PROMISER.
* IF THERE IS AYTHIG YOU LOVE MORE THA GOD -
YOUWILL HEAR HIM SAY, TAKE THAT MIISTRY TO
MT. MORIAH - OFFER IT THERE.

96. --TAKE THAT TREASURE, ETC..'
* DO YOU HAVE FAITH EOUGH TO DO THAT?
FAITH IS TESTED BY THE DEPTH OF ITS DEVOTIO,
FAITH IS MEASURED BY THE HEIGHT OF ITS OBEDIECE,
FAITH IS TESTED BY THE LEGTH OF ITS SACRIFICE.
FAITH IS TESTED BY THE WIDEESS OF ITS COFIDECE. HEB.11:17
READ HEB. 11:17:DOES'T SAY HE DELIGHTED I IT, BUT WILLIGLY
DID IT.
--ABRAHAM WAS SACRIFICIG HIS JOY.
--ABRAHAM WAS SACRIFICIG HIS FUTURE (DESCEDETS
THRU SO; ALL ATIOS BLESSED THRU IS.)
--ABRAHAM WS SACRIFICIG HIS FAMILY.
--WHAT WOULD HE TELL SARAH?
--WHAT WOULD HE TELL ISAAC?
- `WHERE IS THE LAMB?'
--WHAT WOULD HE TELL OTHERS?
5. Rev. Bruce Goettsche gives us an idea of why God wants to test Abraham. The
reason for God's times of testing is to keep us focused. Even the best of us forget
where we are going. I think that was the danger with Abraham. He was so satisfied
with Isaac and the sweetness of knowing God's promise fulfilled, that he forgot that
the real goal was not Isaac, but the Lord. How common this is in our lives. We
experience the blessing of the Lord and become satisfied in the blessing instead of in
the one who is doing the blessing. When times are good we often find that our
spiritual life grows stale. Our prayer loses intensity, our Bible study becomes
sporadic, our worship become optional, and our giving becomes superficial. The
times of testing wake us up from our spiritual coma. God wants us to continue to
strive for holiness. He wants us to hunger for a relationship with Him and not just
for the blessings He gives. He wants us to seek His Well Done rather than the
applause of men. He wants us to seek holiness, not just comfort. He wants us to
pursue joy and not just a good time. God is not satisfied to have our gratitude . . . He
wants our love. So times of testing often come to get us back on track.
6. Chris Robinson has so excellent words to explain the reasons for God's testing:
Through this chapter, God shows his faithful love in two ways; one more obvious,
and one less so. Firstly, the less obvious. It may strike you as very peculiar that God
would put his beloved children up against such a test as this. Let me quickly
dispense with the peculiarity. Many years hence, when the Israelites are in the
wilderness, God frequently “tests” the people. For example, speaking of the manna
He will provide, God says “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the
people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them,
whether or not they will walk in My instruction.”ex16.4
Moses later reminds the people, “And you shall remember all the way which the

97. LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might
humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep
His commandments or not.”Dt8:2 But what was the purpose of this testing? Listen
again to Moses: “In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not
know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in
the end. Otherwise, you may say in your heart, ‘My power and the strength of my
hand made me this wealth.’”8:16
You see, God purposes to do His people good by testing them. Such testing brings us
to rely more and more upon Christ… realizing more and more that He has provided
for our every need. Such testing proves that our presumed non-negotiables are
really quite impotent to save us; only Christ will remain when the heavens and earth
perish. Isaac was Abraham’s last non-negotiable; God’s testing brought Abraham
to the point where he was willing to give up his son because he believed God would
provide. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews tells us, “By faith Abraham, when he was
tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only
begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding
that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received
him in a figurative sense.”
ow you see why James says, “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter
various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let
endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in
nothing.”1:2 Let us never forget that our High Priest, Jesus Christ Himself, was in
all points tested as we are, yet without sin.heb4.15 It was through the things which
He suffered that He grew in obedience.5.8 That is, the scope of His perfectly
fulfilling the law in our behalf grew, through the testing which He suffered. Testing
is one of God’s most glorious ways of loving us.
7. I believe that God did not so much test Abraham, as he taught Abraham. Prior
to Abraham it was quite common for the nomadic pre cursers to the Israelites to
sacrifice human beings to appease their gods. By asking Abraham for the sacrifice
of his son, and then at the last minute staying Abraham’s hand, God was letting the
pre-Israelites know that first he was a god of mercy, and secondly, they could honor
him through a substitution sacrifice, that they would no longer need to spill innocent
human blood to appease him, if indeed they ever needed to in the first place. In the
end, I think most of the OT must be viewed as an education period for humanity,
just as we teach our children sometimes through dramatic and overstated gestures
so did God teach early man object lessons about his desires for how they should
conduct themselves. Like a good father, God provided an object lesson to his
children that was dramatic enough to be eternally remembered, and universally
incorporated.
8. Kierkegaard wrote Fear And Trembling about this text, and he dealt with it as a
case of the teleological suspension of the ethical, that is, the suspension of the
moral law for the sake of a higher law. Kierkegaard cites Genesis, where Abraham
is commanded by God to kill his son Isaac. Although God must be obeyed, murder

98. is immoral (it is not technically against the Mosaic law since it had not yet been
delivered—but no matter, it is against our conscience). The ethical is thus suspended
for a higher goal (telos).
2 Then God said, Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to
the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the
mountains I will tell you about.
1. This is one of, if not the most, disturbing passages in the Bible. It has caused more
difficulty in trying to explain it than any other text. Some profess to understand it
perfectly, however. One author writes of jus such a person. Her name was Phyllis
and she was a mother of three teen-aged boys, 13,15, and 17. We had just completed
a Bible study on this 22nd chapter of Genesis when she said to me. You know I
could never understand how Abraham could have agreed to sacrifice his son Isaac;
until you mentioned that Isaac was probably a teenager at the time. ow, I
understand! In the following paragraphs I will quote what I think is the best
thinking in dealing with this difficult passage. There is much here because it takes a
lot of thinking to make sense of this command.
2. Rev. Susan M. Craig writes, And it was in just that setting, while at lunch one
day, that I mentioned to a longtime friend that I would soon be preaching on the
story of Abraham and Isaac, the story in which God commands Abraham to go and
offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Given the proclivity and reliability of my friend to voice
her opinions, I was curious as to her take on this story. In fact I thought that by
asking I was going to be giving my sermon preparation a head start. Well,
predictably she had an opinion - but not an opinion anywhere close to that which I
had been expecting. Without hesitation, she turned to me and said, “You know, that
is perhaps my least favorite story in the Bible. I say that because I have real trouble
liking, much less loving, a God who would ask a parent to do such a thing.” To say
the least, her comment was a real conversation stopper - but it has also served since
then as a real thought provoker.
She goes on to write, I don’t think I can imagine what it must have been like to be
inside Abraham’s skin. What did he say to Sarah as he was leaving? - anything?
And mustn’t he have died a thousand deaths on the way with Isaac, his beloved son,
as they spoke and traveled together to Moriah. Yet we should also remember,
Abraham knew that God had always been faithful to the promises made at his call.
For some crazy reason, this command to sacrifice Isaac and God’s promise of
Abraham fathering nations in the future didn’t add up. ot unlike Sarah’s
situation, things seemed impossible - and unthinkable. So Abraham went forward.
3. Pastor Craig's thoughts stimulated my thinking along the line of paradox, for the
ability to live with paradox was the key to Abraham's faith and motivation to move
forward in doing something he hated, yet felt compelled to do in obedience to God.
He was able to believe that God would keep his promise to make a great nation
through his son, and he was able to believe that God was asking him to kill this son,

99. and this is a paradoxical situation, for these two things are a contradiction to each
other. Yet both can be true, for God has spoken both. He could have let Isaac die
and then raise him from the dead just as Jesus let Lazarus die and then raise him
from the dead. But God could also stop him before he killed his son, which he did.
Abraham did not know which way God would both fulfill his promise of a
multitude, and take the life of his son by which he would have to fulfill that promise.
It was a paradox, but he believed the unbelievable, and that God could do the
impossible and bring the paradox to a meaningful conclusion one way or another,
and that is faith in the highest degree. It is when things don't make sense and you
still obey God that you reach the high point in the land of faith. The Bible and
theology are full of paradoxes that are often hard to figure out, but people who
believe the Word of God believe both sides of these mysteries because God has
clearly spoken both of them. For in-depth study of paradoxes in the Bible go to
http://glennpease.250free.com/html/free_books.html and look for Bible Paradoxes
and Paradoxes of Paul
4. F. B. Meyer also stresses Abraham's struggle with paradox: “othing else in the
circumference of his life could have been such a test as anything connected with the
heir of promise, the child of his old age, the laughter of his life. Isaac was the child
of promise. In Isaac shall thy seed be called. With reiterated emphasis this lad
had been indicated as the one essential link between the aged pair and the vast
posterity, which was promised them. And now the father was asked to sacrifice his
life. It was a tremendous test to his faith. How could God keep His word, and let
Isaac die? It was utterly inexplicable to human thought. If Isaac had been old
enough to have a son who could perpetuate the seed to future generations, the
difficulty would have been removed. But how could the childless Isaac die; and still
the promise stand of a posterity through him, innumerable as stars and sand? One
thought, however, as the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, filled the old man's mind,
GOD IS ABLE. He accounted that God was able to raise him up, even from the
dead (Hebrews 11:19). He felt sure that somehow God would keep His word. It was
not for him to reason how, but simply to obey. He had already seen Divine power
giving life where all was as good as dead; why should it not do it again? In any case
he must go straight on, doing as he was told, and calculating on the unexhausted
stores in the secret hand of God. Oh for faith like this! -- Simply to believe what God
says; assured that God will do just what He has promised; looking without alarm,
from circumstances that threaten to make the fulfillment impossible, to the bare
word of God's unswerving truthfulness.”
5. Moriah is identified in 2 Chronicles 3:1 as the place where God had halted the
plague upon Jerusalem and where subsequently Solomon had built the temple, the
first indication that what follows is, indeed, a picture of the sacrifice that Abraham's
seed -- not Isaac, but Jesus Christ -- would offer for the salvation of God's people.
Stedman gives us these facts: Mount Moriah is the very place where in later years
King David bought the threshing floor of Ornan as a place for the site of the temple,
(1 Chr 21:18). On that very place where Abraham offered Isaac, the temple of
Solomon was built, (2 Chr 3:1). Today there stands in that very place the Dome of
the Rock, a Moslem mosque, built over the great rock that formed the altar upon

100. which Abraham offered Isaac. It is from this rock that the Mohammedans believe
Mohammed and his horse ascended to heaven. So it is a very historic spot.
6. Paul Tucker wrote, Abraham didn’t understand that God was keeping him on
the cutting edge of his faith. God wasn’t interested in him killing his son. God
simply wanted Abraham to stay out of the box of his faith, even when he didn’t
understand. That simple act of faith by Abraham is what marked him as righteous
-- as one who could continue to be used by God to bring hope and life to the world.
Pink adds to this thought, The spiritual history of Abraham was marked by four
great crises, each of which involved the surrender of something which was naturally
dear to him. First, he was called on to separate himself from his native land and
kindred (Gen. 12:1); Second, he was called on to give up Lot (Gen. 13:1-18); Third,
he had to abandon his cherished plan about Ishmael (Gen. 17:17, 18); Fourth, God
bade him offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. The life of the believer is a series of
tests, for only by discipline can Christian character be developed. Frequently there
is one supreme test, in view of which all others are preparatory. So it was with
Abraham. He had been tested again and again, but never as here. God’s demand is,
Son, give Me thine heart (Prov. 23:26). It is not our intellect, our talents, our
money, but our heart, God asks for first.
7. Everyone has to struggle to make sense of this command of God, and one of the
best who deal with it is Ken Gehrels who writes, It's the sort of thing that makes
every sane parent shudder. A report comes over the radio of someone who has
mistreated, neglected, or murdered his or her own child. We are revolted by such
incidents and cannot even begin to comprehend how someone can do that to their
own flesh and blood. Then we come to Genesis 22. God calls out of the blue for
Abraham to engage in precisely that kind of an act. Shocking, heart stopping, a
revolting outrage. What on earth is happening in this bizarre passage of scripture?
Try to imagine what it must have been like for Abraham. Close your eyes and put
yourself in his shoes for a moment. Twice his wife had been ripped away from his
grasp; his nephew had separated from him; he had engaged in warfare to rescue Lot
when he was taken hostage, risking his own life in the process; famine had driven
him out of Canaan, the land God had promised to him; After many years of being
childless he gets a son, Ishmael, but because of family tensions he is forced to send
that precious boy away into the desert. All he had left was Isaac. But at least he had
Isaac and God's promise that through Isaac, Abraham's family would become a
source of blessing for the entire world.
ow, as he was in the twilight of life, growing old, it seemed as if he were finally
getting a few years of peace and contentment. Finally he would be able to relax a
little and enjoy life. But it wasn't to be. He no sooner is resting than he is, so to
speak, hammered again. It is not enough that God merely announces the death of
his precious and only remaining son, the son in whom his whole future is contained.
God also demands that Abraham be the executioner. God, as it were, had to take
Abraham, turn him upside down, and shake every last nickel of self-reliance and
self- determination and self-ambition out of his pockets. He is now out of tricks.
There are no resources left. The bank is broke. He has to literally tear Isaac out of

101. Abraham's grasp before he can give the little boy back again. And when he does,
things are never the same.
This is not, first of all, a story about Isaac's close call. It is not the story of a God
cruelly toying with one of his subjects. It is, in every way, the story of the death of
Abraham's reliance on his own wisdom and cunning and strength to make his way
forward in life. It is the story of the tempering of the faith of the Father of all
believers.
Abraham passes the test. We know Abraham got the message by the name he gave
to that place: The Lord will provide.
8. Perhaps Abraham had lately witnessed these rites; and as he did so, he had
thought of Isaac, and wondered if he could do the same with him; and marveled
why such a sacrifice had never been demanded at his hands. And it did not,
therefore, startle him when God said, Take now thy son, and offer him up. He
was to learn that whilst God demanded as much love as ever the heathen gave their
cruel and imaginary deities, yet Heaven would not permit of human sacrifices or of
offered sons. A Greater Sacrifice was to be made to put away sin. Abraham's
obedience was, therefore, allowed to go up to a certain point, and then peremptorily
stayed -- that in all future time men might know that God would not demand, or
permit, or accept human blood at their hands, much less the blood of a bright and
noble lad; and that in such things He could have no delight.
You can imagine how that boy was the apple of his eye, the darling of his affections.
All his heart strings were tangled up in the life of that precious Isaac.” Offer him!
Sacrifice him! Kill Isaac! Strangely, the narrative tells us nothing about what went
on in Abraham’s heart and mind in that moment. That’s a part of Scripture’s
wondrous restraint. It makes the scene all the more poignant for us. o one can
really imagine what this father went through. To obey that word was not only to
give up the boy upon whom his hopes were centered - that would have been
crushing enough. But to do it with his own hand, to offer him as a sacrifice, a burnt
offering of love and gratitude to God—that was far more painful. Has anyone else
ever been tested like that?”
9. I like the way this author describes what God is doing. Abraham believed
because, like he was used to doing earlier in the story, he could now control the
promise. Except now God came to him and said, I want it all back. I want you to
take this child that I gave you and I want you to give him back. God called
Abraham to go to a mountain he would show him, and offer up the child as a
sacrifice. Abraham had once before been called to go to a place where God would
show him. But that time it was for the purpose of embracing the promise. This time,
the unknown journey to which God had called him was for the purpose of letting go
of the promise. Abraham had been willing to do that so many times in the past on
his own terms because he could not see God’s possibilities. And now that he could
hold the possibilities in his hands, God called him to let it go. God simply would not
let Abraham live the promise on his own terms!

102. 10. Bob Deffinbaugh deals with this issue in a way that is hard to match, and so I
quote him at length. He writes, We are forced to the conclusion that the sacrifice of
Isaac could not have been wrong, whether only attempted or accomplished, because
God is incapable of evil (James 1:13ff; I John 1:5). Much more than this, it could not
be wrong to sacrifice an only son because God actually did sacrifice His only
begotten Son: All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us have turned to his
own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. But the Lord
was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a
guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good
pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand (Isaiah 53:6,10).
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16; cf. Matthew
26:39,42; Luke 22:22; John 3:17; Acts 2:23; II Corinthians 5:21; Revelation 13:8).
In this sense, God did not require Abraham to do anything that He Himself would
not do. Indeed, the command to Abraham was intended to foreshadow what He
would do centuries later on the cross of Calvary. Only by understanding the
typological significance of the “sacrifice of Isaac” can we grasp the fact that God’s
command was holy and just and pure. Abraham’s willingness to give up his only son
humanly illustrated the love of God for man, which caused Him to give His only
begotten Son. The agony of heart experienced by Abraham reflected the heart of the
Father at the suffering of His Son. The obedience of Isaac typified the submission of
the Son to the will of the Father (cf. Matthew 26:39,42).
God halted the sacrifice of Isaac for two reasons. First, such a sacrifice would have
no benefit for others. The lamb must be “without blemish,” without sin, innocent
(cf. Isaiah 53:9). This is the truth, which Micah implied (6:7). Second, Abraham’s
faith was amply evidenced by the fact that he was fully intending to carry out the
will of God. We have no question in our mind that had God not intervened, Isaac
would have been sacrificed. In attitude Isaac had already been sacrificed, so the act
was unnecessary.
A second difficulty pertains to the silence of Abraham. One of my friends put it
well: “How come Abraham interceded with God for Sodom, but not for his son
Isaac?” We must remember that the Scriptures are selective in what they report;
choosing to omit what is not essential to the development of the argument of the
passage (cf. John 20:30-31; 21:25). In this chapter of Genesis, for example, we know
that God was to indicate the particular place to “sacrifice” Isaac (verse 2) and that
Abraham went to this spot (verse 9), but we are not told when God revealed this to
him. I believe that Moses, under the superintending guidance of the Holy Spirit,
omitted Abraham’s initial reaction to God’s command in order to highlight his
ultimate response—obedience. Personally (although there is no Scripture to support
my conjecture), I believe that Abraham argued and pled with God for the life of his
son, but God chose not to record this point in Abraham’s life because it would have
had little to inspire us. I know that many of us would not want God to report our
first reactions to unpleasant situations either; it is our final response that matters
(cf. Matthew 21:28-31).

103. This helps me as I read the evaluation of Old Testament saints in the ew
Testament. Except for the words of Peter I would never have considered Lot to be a
righteous man (II Peter 2:7-8). In Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 Abraham is portrayed
as a man without failure or fault, yet the book of Genesis clearly reports these
weaknesses. The reason, I believe, is that the ew Testament writers are viewing
these saints as God does. Because of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross of
Calvary, the sins of the saints are not only forgiven but also forgotten. The wood,
hay, and stubble of sin are consumed, leaving only the gold, silver, and precious
stones (I Corinthians 3:10-15). The sins of the saints are not glossed over; they are
covered by the blood of Christ. When these sins are recorded, it is only for our
admonition and instruction (I Corinthians 10:1ff, especially verse 11).
11. Don Fortner writes, This is one of the great chapters of the Bible. Here, for the
first time, God shows us, in a vivid picture, the necessity of a human sacrifice for the
ransom of our souls. Because it was a man who brought sin into the world, sin must
be removed by a man. Because man had sinned, a man must suffer the wrath of God
and die. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. But the Man,
Christ Jesus, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the
right hand of God...For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are
sanctified (Heb. 10:4, 12, 14). The paradox is that human sacrifice was forbidden,
and yet it was required for our salvation. The difference is that Jesus laid down his
life voluntarily, and he was the only human ever to have lived that was a sinless
sacrifice and thus able to atone for the sins of the world. He was the one exception
that justified his human sacrifice, for it was the only way for God to have a plan of
salvation.
12.Pink wrote, Here it was that God first revealed the necessity for a human victim
to expiate sin, for as it was man that had sinned, it must be by man, and not by
sacrifice of beasts, that Divine justice would be satisfied. But just to show how
contrary this command is to all that the Bible says about human sacrifice Glenn
Miller has compiled this list of texts that condemn such a thing and reveal how God
hates it. The value of seeing all of this is, it makes you realize that God never had
any intention of letting it happen, but he had to know if Abraham was willing to go
this far in obedience to him. There was nothing greater that he could demand to test
him to the limit.
The Gen 22.12 passage on Abraham actually does OT make any such demand to
avoid human sacrifice. We tend to see that as some of the ITET of the passage,
but we have no textual clues to base that on.
Lev 18.21: Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you
must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. OTE: the victim in this
case is 'children'.
Lev 20.2-5: The LORD said to Moses, 2 Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any
alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death.
The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man

104. and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has
defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community
close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to
put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off
from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to
Molech. OTE: the victim in this case is 'children'.
2 Kings 23.10: He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so
no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech. OTE: the
victim in this case is a son or daughter.
Jer 32.35: They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice
their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my
mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin. OTE:
the victim in this case is son or daughter.
2 Kings 16.3: Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the
LORD his God. 3 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed
his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the LORD had driven
out before the Israelites. OTE: the victim in this case is his son.
2 Kings 17.31: The men from Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men from Cuthah
made ergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima; 31 the Avvites made ibhaz
and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to
Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. OTE: the victims in this
case are children.
2 Kings 21.6: In both courts of the temple of the LORD, he built altars to all the
starry hosts. 6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and
divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the
LORD, provoking him to anger. OTE: in this case the victim is the king's son.
Jer 7.31: They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to
burn their sons and daughters in the fire -- something I did not command, nor did it
enter my mind. OTE: the victims in this case are sons and daughters.
Jer 19.4: For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they
have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings
of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to
Baal -- something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. OTE:
the burning of the sons in the fire is referred to as 'filling the place with the blood of
the innocent'--again, the phrase for murder.
Deut 12.31: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in
worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They
even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. OTE: the

105. victims are sons and daughters.
Deut 18.10: `Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you
must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. OTE: the victims are
children.
2 Kings 23.10: He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so
no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech. OTE: the
victims were sons or daughters.
Ezek 20.31: When you offer your gifts -- the sacrifice of your sons in the fire -- you
continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire
of me, O house of Israel? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will not
let you inquire of me. OTE: the reference is to sons. Ezek 23.37: for they have
committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their
idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, as food for them.
OTE: the sacrifice of the children is linked to the 'blood on their hands' again.
Psalm 106.34: They did not destroy the peoples as the LORD had commanded them,
35 but they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs. 36 They
worshipped their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to demons. 38 They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons
and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was
desecrated by their blood.
OTE: The sacrifice is specifically related to the phrase 'innocent blood'--the
description used throughout the OT for murder.
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with
him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the
burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.
1. The text does not deal with the emotions of Abraham at all. It just reveals his
prompt obedience to what would make most men delay as long as possible. He did
not drag his feet on this terrible duty, but rose up early to be on his way. With two
servants, his son, and plenty of wood to cremate his son, he set out for the place of
execution. One author sees confusion in the order of his preparation that he thinks
reveals his emotional turmoil. He writes, Those who look very carefully and think
long and hard about the text of Holy Scripture have noticed that the order of
Abraham's actions is unusual. He saddled...took...and he cut wood... the sequence of
words in the Hebrew suggesting a chronological order even more than in English
translation. Certainly he would have been expected to cut the word first and then
saddle his donkey and collect his servants and son. It is suggested that this is a clue
into Abraham's state of mind: either he is so distraught he can't think straight, or he
is trying to keep everyone in the dark about the purpose of the journey until the last
possible moment, or he is postponing the most painful part of his preparations until
it can be put off no longer.
2. Another writes, For Abraham there was no argument, no stalling, or talking to

106. Sarah. He took the wood, the servants, and Isaac. He didn't even take a lamb in case
God would change His mind.
3. F. B. Meyer wrote, “It was in the visions of the night that the word of the Lord
must have come to him: and early the next morning the patriarch was on his way.
The night before, as he lay down, he had not the least idea of the mission on which
he would be started when the early beams of dawn had broken up the short Eastern
night. But he acted immediately. We might have excused him if he had dallied with
his duty; postponing it, procrastinating, lingering as long as possible. That, however,
was not the habit of this heroic soul, which had well acquired the habit of
instantaneity, one of the most priceless acquisitions for any soul ambitious of
saintliness. And Abraham rose up early in the morning (v.3). o other hand was
permitted to saddle the ass, or cleave the wood, or interfere with the promptness of
his action. He saddled his ass, and clave the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose
up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. This promptness was his
safeguard. While the herdsmen were beginning to stir, and the long lines of cattle
were being driven forth to their several grazing grounds, the old man was on his
way. I do not think he confided his secret to a single soul, not even to Sarah. Why
should he? The lad and he would enter that camp again, when the short but awful
journey was over. I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to
you.
4. George Whitefield wrote, The humility as well as the piety of the patriarch is
observable: he saddled his own ass (great men should be humble) and to show the
sincerity, though he took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, yet he
keeps his design as a secret from them all: nay, he does not so much as tell Sarah his
wife; for he knew not but she might be a snare unto him in this affair; and, as
Rebekah afterwards, on another occasion, advised Jacob to flee, so Sarah also might
persuade Isaac to hide himself; or the young men, had they known of it, might have
forced him away, as in after-ages the soldiers rescued Jonathan out of the hands of
Saul. But Abraham fought no such evasion, and therefore, like an Israelite indeed,
in whom there was no guile, he himself resolutely clave the wood for the burnt-offering,
rose up and went unto the place of which God had told him. In the second
verse God commanded him to offer up his son upon one of the mountains, which he
would tell him of. He commanded him to offer his son up, but would not then
directly tell him the place where: this was to keep him dependent and watching unto
prayer: for there is nothing like being kept waiting upon God; and, if we do,
assuredly God will reveal himself unto us yet further in his own time. Let us practice
what we know, follow providence so far as we can see already; and what we know
not, what we see not as yet, let us only be found in the way of duty, and the Lord will
reveal even that unto us. Abraham knew not directly where he was to offer up his
son; but he rises up and sets forward, and behold now God shows him: And he
went to the place of which God had told him. Let us go and do likewise.
4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.

107. 1. Meyer wrote, “What those three days of quiet traveling must have been to
Abraham, we can never know. It is always so much easier to act immediately and
precipitately, than to wait through long days, and even years; but it is in this process
of waiting upon God that souls are drawn out to a strength of purpose and nobility
of daring, which become their sacred inheritance for all after-time. And yet, despite
the patriarch's preoccupation with his own special sorrow, the necessity was laid
upon him to hide it under an appearance of resignation, and even gladsomeness; so
that neither his son nor his servants might guess the agony, which was gnawing at
his heart.
At last, on the third day, he saw from afar the goal of his journey, God had
informed him that He would tell him which of the mountains was the appointed spot
of the sacrifice: and now probably some sudden conviction seized upon his soul, that
an especial summit, which reared itself in the blue distance, was to be the scene of
that supreme act in which he should prove that to his soul God was chiefest and
best. Tradition, which seems well authenticated, has always associated that
mountain in the land of Moriah with the place on which, in after days, stood the
threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, and the site of Solomon's Temple; and
there is a wonderful appropriateness in the fact that this great act of obedience took
place on the very spot where hecatombs of victims and rivers of blood were to point
to that supreme Sacrifice which this prefigured.”
2. George Whitefield wrote, So that the place, of which God had told him, was no
less than three days journey distant from the place where God first appeared to him,
and commanded him to take his son. Was not this to try his faith, and to let him see
that what he did was not merely from a sudden pang of devotion, but a matter of
choice of deliberation? But who can tell what the aged patriarch felt during these
three days? Strong as he was in faith, I am persuaded his bowels often yearned over
his dear son Isaac. Methinks I see the good old man walking with his dear child in
his hand, and now and then looking upon him, loving him, and then turning aside to
weep. And perhaps, sometimes he stays a little behind to pour out his heart before
God, for he had no mortal to tell his case to. Then, methinks, I see him join his son
and servants again, and talking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of
God, as they walked by the way.
5 He said to his servants, Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over
there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.
1. otice how Abraham uses the plural we will come back to you. He does not know
how this is going to work out, but he is confident that somehow both he and his son
will return. God will do a miracle and raise him from the dead is one of the ways
this will happen is his conviction, as it is stated in Heb. 11:19 That is why he has the
faith to believe nobody will be left behind. Faith in the resurrection power of God
over death is a basic ew Testament belief, but we see it here also in the Old
Testament.

108. 2. Meyer wrote, “It is of the utmost importance that we should emphasize the words
of ASSURED COFIDECE, which Abraham addressed to his young men before
he left them. I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
This was something more than unconscious prophecy: it was the assurance of an
unwavering faith, that somehow or other God would interpose to spare his son; or
at least, if necessary, to raise him from the dead. In any case Abraham was sure that
Isaac and he would before long come again. It is this, which so largely removes the
difficulties that might otherwise obscure this act; and it remains to all time a most
striking proof of the tenacity with which faith can cling to the promises of God.
When once you have received a promise, cling to it as a sailor to a spar in the midst
of the boiling waters. God is bound to be as good as His word. And even though He
ask you to do the one thing that might seem to make deliverance impossible; yet if
you dare to do it, you will find not only that you shall obtain the promise, but that
you shall also receive some crowning and unexpected mark of His love.
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and
he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,
1. We cannot avoid thinking of the fact that Jesus was made to carry his own cross.
It is fascinating that the Genesis Rabbah, the Jewish commentary on Genesis,
comprised of materials finally collected some centuries after Christ, speaks of Isaac
with the wood on his back as like a condemned man carrying his cross. Further,
Abraham walked alongside his son carrying the knife and fire. Father and son
together. A point is made of them walking together, as the refrain is repeated in v. 8.
It was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer... Isaiah 53:10 Father
and son walking up to Calvary's hill.
2. Meyer wrote, “He caught his father's spirit. We do not know how old he was; he
was at least old enough to sustain the toil of a long march on foot, and strong
enough to carry up hill the faggots, laid upon his shoulders by his father. But he
gladly bent his youthful strength under the weight of the wood, just as through the
Via Dolorosa a greater than he carried His cross. Probably this was not the first
time that Abraham and Isaac had gone on such an errand; but it is beautiful to see
the evident interest the lad took in the proceedings as they went, both of them
together.
7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, Father?
Yes, my son? Abraham replied.
The fire and wood are here, Isaac said, but where is the lamb for the burnt
offering?
1. Here is the question of the day-where is the lamb? This had to tear the heart out
of Abraham as he struggles to hold back the tears and try to explain what has to be
done.
In one of the old Mysteries we have a scene that must have produced a powerful
effect, for it is impossible even now to read it coldly. Isaac becomes uneasy at the

109. nonappearance of the animal for sacrifice, and asks his father some embarrassing
questions. At first Abraham puts him off, but finally is forced to blurt out the truth.
A. Ah! Isaac, Isaac! I must kill thee!
I. Kill me, father? Alas! what have I done?
If I have trespassed against you aught,
With a rod you may make me full mild.
And with your sharp sword kill me not,
For surely, father, I am but a child.
A. I am full sorry, son, thy blood for to spill,
But truly, my child, I may not choose.
I. ow I would to God my mother were here on this hill!
She would kneel for me on both her knees to save my life.
And since my mother is not here,
I pray you, father, change your cheer,
And kill me not with your knife.
Then Abraham explains that it is God's will and Isaac, while he cannot understand
why God wishes him slain, submits.
I. Therefore do our Lord's bidding,
And when I am dead, then pray for me:
But, good father, tell ye my mother nothing,
Say that I am in another country dwelling.
2. W. B. Johnson wrote, Isaac broke the dreadful silence with this touching
inquiry, which Bishop Hall has observed must have gone to Abraham's heart as
deeply as the knife could possibly have gone to Isaac's. If any word or deed could
have broken down the father, it would have been this touching and pleading
question. Isaac probably had no misgivings to this point, but it seemed so strange
that his father had provided no offering. Could he have forgotten? What did it all
mean?
3. One author wrote, The unquestioning obedience that Isaac displayed when
prepared for sacrifice by his father was symptomatic of his character; as a man, he
seems to have lacked force and initiative. (What would have happened if Adam had
tried to sacrifice Cain?) Isaac was a dreamy, romantic person, who accepted the
wife his father provided for him, and then went under her thumb. He became a
pathetic, childish, spoiled old man, over-fond of food, like many old people; and was
easily bamboozled by his scoundrelly son Jacob. He was always in love with his wife,
as we know by an amusing passage in the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis. He lied to
Abimelech, like his father before him, and said that Rebekah was his sister. Some
time after, the good Abimelech looked out of a window and saw Isaac kissing
Rebekah in a manner unusual between brothers and sisters. So here again a lie
nearly brought disaster, where the truth would have been safer. The author's point
is that Isaac was a passive individual who let others determine his actions. He was
not submissive to all who had any authority over him, and so it was easier for him to
submit at this point, and not try to run or fight to avoid it.
8 Abraham answered, God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering,

110. my son. And the two of them went on together.
1. Abraham dodged the bullet here and avoided the truth that he was to sacrifice
him, but in trusting God to provide the lamb he was expressing the hope of the
world that God would provide a sacrifice that would make it unnecessary for men to
have to perish for their sins. God provides the Lamb in the person of his Son, the
Lord Jesus Christ, and because of that no person ever has to pay for their own sins
if they accept Jesus as their substitute sacrifice. Someone wrote, We have before us
in this text, only a portion of which we have so far read, one of the greatest stories in
the Bible. I use the word story advisedly, for I do not mean to suggest that we do
not also have here the purest history, an account of what actually happened. Surely
we do. But as a narrative, as a story, it is one of the most dramatic, memorable,
powerful, and moving in the entire Bible. And why not? It is, as every reader of the
Bible fully understands, an enacted depiction of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus
Christ for us and for our salvation.
2, W. B. Johnson wrote, The thought in Abraham's mind was that God had
provided the lamb in his son carrying the sacrificial wood, but his words received a
fulfillment that he did not anticipate. Many regard these words as having a still
deeper meaning, and pointing forward to the Lamb of God, slain for the sins of the
world. It is not probable that Abraham was conscious that he was speaking and
acting prophecy; for he did not know what the Spirit did signify through him; but at
the same time it is easy for us to see that these events typified the great tragedy that
was to be enacted at that very place about two thousand years later. 1. Isaac was the
promised seed, through whom the families of the earth were in time to be blessed by
receiving the Messiah. Christ was the promised seed that blessed the world. 2. Isaac
was the only son; Christ the only begotten Son of God. 3. From the time of the
command Isaac was dead in prospect to his father until the third day; Christ died,
was buried, and arose again on the third day. 4. Isaac carried the wood for his own
sacrifice; Christ carried his own cross. 5. Abraham declared, God will provide a
lamb; one was provided instead of Isaac, the only one so provided in Jewish
history; two thousand years later God provided The Lamb of God. 6. The place
where Isaac was bound on the altar was the very place where Christ was
condemned to suffer, and died for the sins of the world.
3. I regret loosing track of the author of the following lengthy quote, for if anyone
deserves credit for some wonderful words of wisdom, this author does. He covers
the whole test and gives us some excellent examples of submission and
relinquishment on the part of suffering saints. He wrote, ow, the nature of the
test is obvious, even if the reason for it is shrouded in mystery. God was asking
Abraham to kill his son for sacrifice -- a thing not done by the people of God, never
to be done by them, a thing that was known as a terrible evil, for it was a thing done
by the wicked peoples of the world of that day -- a thing, in other words, itself and
by its very nature repugnant to a righteous man. A thing the Holy God forbad and
would never ask of men! But, there is more. The son he is ordered to offer to God as
a burnt offering, is none other than Isaac, the promised heir, the child God had

111. promised him so many years before and finally, miraculously had given to him and
his wife Sarah. This is the son upon whom God himself had taught Abraham to pin
all of his hopes for the realization of the promise that God would make of Abraham
a great nation and that all the world would be blessed through him. So much so,
that in the previous chapter God required Abraham to send his other son, Ishmael,
away, a heartbreaking duty in its own right so far as Abraham was concerned. And
now this! Everything being taken from him! And, still more, this is the son of
Abraham's old age, whom God himself acknowledges Abraham loves more than life
itself. This is the son God tells him to kill! As Theodore Beza, Calvin's colleague and
successor -- who was a poet before he was a Christian theologian --, puts the thought
into Abraham's mind, in his dramatic poem devoted to this episode:
Because, O God, this is thy pleasure, it is sure
That it is right, and so I shall obey.
But in obeying shall I not make God
A liar, for he promised this to me,
That from my son Isaac there would come forth
A mighty nation who would fill this land?
With Isaac dead the covenant dies too!
ow, we think -- we cannot help but think -- that this is not so terrible a thing
because, of course, we know how the story ends. But Abraham did not. He had dealt
with God for many years and this was not the first time God had seemed
peremptory, even cruel, to Abraham. God had promised Abraham a son and then
for years there had been nothing but silence from heaven. And now God is ordering
Abraham to kill that same son. o, we have here in Abraham, a man who does not
yet know the end of the story, and to whom this news -- the narrative makes clear --
came as a body-blow.
What we have here, is what we have in many other places in Holy Scripture, viz. the
hiddenness of God, what Luther called Deus Absconditus, the hidden God. What
is meant by this is that God acts in ways that are not only mysterious to us but defy
our wisdom and our understanding -- ways that seem virtually to contradict what
we have been taught about God and his character and his ways. I do not say that
they do contradict the truth that has been revealed to us about God, only that we
cannot see how to bring that truth into harmony with what God is doing in our lives
or in the world.
The Bible is very candid about this reality. Ecclesiastes is a book of the Bible
devoted entirely to an exposition of it, but there are many passages in the Bible in
which we see believers wrestling with God's hiddenness, or in which it is confessed,
or even in which we find the saints complaining to God because of it and crying out
to him to show himself and reconcile his actions with what he has taught us to
believe of his character. In Holy Scripture there is nothing of that chatty certainty
about God's purposes that we find in modern preachers. o, his thoughts are far
above ours, a great deep we cannot sound, and his ways are, very often, simply past
finding out, no matter how much faith a man or woman has! God often asks of his
people very difficult things that are hard to understand given what we are taught of
his love and mercy and much happens in the world that is frankly very difficult to

112. square with the sovereignty of God. This is what it means to live by faith and why
faith is required. Because we must believe to be true what we cannot often
demonstrate even to ourselves with the evidence of our eyes.
Will Abraham accuse God of a fault, will he conclude that such a command does not
deserve to be obeyed, or will he, in humility and faith, conclude rather that in God's
hiddenness there must be unexplored and as yet unrecognized wisdom? That is
Abraham's test. It is a test of his faith in God.
This is all that he knew, but it was enough. He didn't know why he was being asked
to do the cruel thing God had commanded, but he knew the one who had asked it of
him. As we said, we do not know all that Abraham thought through these three
days, but v. 8 tells us what was, at least finally, at the bottom of his thoughts: God
himself will provide the lamb... It is not clear even here that Abraham knows what
will happen, how all of this will unfold, but it is clear that this good man is
entrusting the matter to God in the confidence that, as he says on another occasion,
the Judge of all the earth will do right.
You know, other ages have had it much worse than we have it today. Far more often
they stood weeping beside the graves of those it seemed God should not have
permitted to die, the graves in which they had buried so much of their hopes and
happiness. A few years ago I stood in Elmwood Cemetery in Columbia, S.C. beside
the grave of annie Witherspoon Thornwell, the daughter of John Henry
Thornwell, the prince of the Southern Presbyterian Church. annie had died at 20
years of age, just a few days short of the day on which she was to marry. She was
buried in her wedding dress, or, as her gravestone has it, She descended to the
grave adorned as a bride to meet the bridegroom. But her parents had faith
enough to know that if they could see her in heaven with Christ, they would neither
call her down to earth nor charge God with any fault in taking her so soon.
But I have a better illustration still. I gave it to a few of you who were then in the
church when I first used it in a sermon in April of 1983. But it occurred to me that
most of you were not here then and have not heard this story and I want you to
know it, because, in my judgment, it so beautifully expresses Abraham's state of
mind, his confidence in God in the midst of a terribly dark and impenetrable
mystery, grief, and disappointment -- just such a situation as the Bible tells us all to
expect in this life.
It concerns a hero of mine, Thomas Boston, the eighteenth century Scottish pastor,
author, and theologian, still more, a man of God. Read Boston's memoirs if you
would learn what it means to live a godly life. My private opinion is that Boston's
Memoirs is not only one of the greatest books I have ever read but also one of the
very finest and most valuable of all the Christian autobiographies. Rabbi Duncan
used to say that, if he could, he would sit at the feet of Jonathan Edwards to learn
what godliness was, and then at the feet of Thomas Boston to learn how to obtain it.
Boston's wife was not a woman of robust health -- indeed her later years were spent
under the spell of what an older writer kindly referred to as a racking disorder of
the intellect -- and every childbirth was for her not only an ordeal, but also a threat

113. to her life. In April of 1707, Boston records having prayed earnestly for his wife's
safety, as she was near to delivering a child. He says that while in prayer he was
given an impression that the child would be a boy and, at that moment, he promised
the Lord that if it were a boy and if God delivered it alive, he would name the child
Ebenezer, after the memorial to God's goodness that Samuel had set up in Israel. He
tells us later that on the 23rd of that month his wife safely delivered and his heart
leaped for joy, hearing it was a boy and, so, Ebenezer.
But, in the entry for September of that same year we read: It pleased the Lord, for
my further trial, to remove by death, on the 8th September, my son Ebenezer. He
goes on: I never had more confidence with God in any such case, than in that
child's being the Lord's. I had indeed more than ordinary, in giving him away to the
Lord, to be saved by the blood of Christ. But his death was exceeding afflicting to
me, and matter of sharp exercise. To bury his name, was indeed harder than to bury
his body...but I saw a necessity of allowing a latitude to [God's] sovereignty.
A year later, in August, Mrs. Boston delivered another son, which, Boston said,
After no small struggle with myself, I named Ebenezer. But in October of that
same year this son too fell ill with the measles. Boston records how he went out to
the barn and there prayed for his son. He writes: I renewed my covenant with
God, and did solemnly and explicitly covenant for Ebenezer, and in his name accept
of the covenant, and of Christ offered in the gospel; and gave him away to the Lord,
before angels, and the stones of that house as witnesses. I cried also for his life, that
Ebenezer might live before him, if it were his will. But when, after that exercise, I
came into the house, I found, that instead of being better, he was worse [and in a few
hours he was dead].
After the funeral of this his second Ebenezer, Boston wrote: I see most plainly
that...I must stoop, and be content to follow the Lord in an untrodden path... o
wonder, then, that C.S. Lewis should have the old devil Screwtape say to
Wormwood, his demon nephew: Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is
never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending to
do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him
seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys. For
what else is this but faith in its purest, most Christian form -- this faith of Abraham
and the Thornwells and Thomas Boston. This taking God at his word even when it
seems that that word is null and void -- what is that but the highest compliment that
a human being ever pays to the living God, the highest demonstration of our love for
him and our gratitude for the covenant he has made with us, the most persuasive
evidence possible that he has proved himself a faithful God to his people.
Or, as Beza has Abraham concluding: If then to borrow Isaac is thy will,
Wherefore should I complain at thy command?
For he is thine: he was received from thee;
And then when thou has taken him again
Rather wilt thou arouse him from the dead
Than that thy promise should not come to pass.
Yet, Lord, thou knowest that I am but man,

114. Incompetent to do or think what's good;
But thanks to thine unconquerable power
He who believes knows all is possible.
Away with flesh! Away with sentiment!
All human passions now withdraw yourselves:
othing is right for me, and nothing good, But what is pleasing to the Lord himself.
...
O heaven...and thou the land of promise...
Bear witness now that faithful Abraham
Has by God's grace such persevering faith
That notwithstanding every human thought
God never speaks a single word in vain.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar
there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the
altar, on top of the wood.
1. At this point the submission of Isaac is impressive, for he could have grabbed his
father and pushed him to the ground and avoided this binding. He was a thirty year
old facing a 130 year old man, and in a wrestling match he was bound to win. So
what we see here is not just the faith of Abraham, but the faith of Isaac on display
as well. He let himself be offered as a sacrifice, and in this way became a symbol of
the coming Messiah who would do the same in obedience to his Father, the Lord
God of Abraham.
2. F. B. Meyer wrote, They came to the place which God had told him of, and
Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order. Can you not see the old
man slowly gathering the stones; bringing them from the furthest distance possible;
placing them with a reverent and judicious precision; and binding the wood with as
much deliberation as possible? But at last everything is complete; and he turns to
break the fatal secret to the young lad who had stood wonderingly by. Inspiration
draws a veil over that last tender scene -- the father's announcement of his mission;
the broken sobs; the kisses, wet with tears; the instant submission of the son, who
was old enough and strong enough to rebel if he had had the mind. Then the
binding of that tender frame; which, indeed, needed no compulsion, because the
young heart had learned the secret of obedience and resignation. Finally, the lifting
him to lie upon the altar, on the wood. Here was a spectacle, which must have
arrested the attention of heaven. Here was a proof of how much mortal man will do
for the love of God. Here was an evidence of Childlike faith, which must have
thrilled the heart of the Eternal God, and moved Him in the very depths of His
being. Do you and I love God like this? Is He more to us than our nearest and
dearest? Suppose they stood on this side, and He on that side: would we go with
Him, though it cost us the loss of all? You think you would. Aye, it is a great thing to
say. The air upon this height is too rare to breathe with comfort. The one
explanation of it is to be found in the words of our Lord; He that loveth father or
mother, son or daughter, more than Me, is not worthy of Me (Matthew 10:37).

115. 3. Bruce Feiler in his book Abraham deals at length with the controversy revolving
around this verse due to the Islamic interpreters who in modern times have said that
the son being offered here is Ishmael and not Isaac. He shows that the Islamic
interpreters are divided on the issue themselves. He writes, The binding of
Abraham's favored son is the most celebrated episode in the patriarch's life. All
three religions hail it as the ultimate expression of Abraham's relationship with
God. But what the incident actually says, where it took place, even which son is
involved are matters of centuries-old dispute. All of this makes the binding the most
debated, the most misunderstood, and the most combustible event in the entire
Abraham's story.
The bulk of early interpreters examined the text and concluded that the son must
be Isaac. They cited the fact that the sacrifice occurs relatively early in the life of
Abraham, before he traveled to Mecca with Ishmael. Also, every time God promises
Abraham a son in the Koran, the son is named as Isaac. Therefore, when Abraham
prayed for a son at the start of the story, he would have been praying for Isaac.
Early Islamic interpreters added details to make Isaac even more appealing. The
writer al-Suddi says Isaac asked his father to tighten his bonds so he will not
squirm, to move the knife quickly, and to pull back his clothes so no blood will soil
them and grieve Sarah. Abraham kisses Isaac, and then throws him on his forehead
(and interesting Muslim addition, given that worshippers touch their foreheads to
the ground). Finally God intervenes.
The Isaac camp dominated in the early centuries of Islam, but in time it was
matched by advocates of Ishmael. For their hook, these interpreters relied on the
fact that God would not have asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac since God had
already promised Abraham and Sarah in the Koran that Isaac would have a son.
God, by definition, does not break promises. Also, one source of tension in the story
arises from the idea that Abraham is being asked to sacrifice his son when he would
seem to be too old to have another. This drama would apply only to the first son,
who is Ishmael. As Sheikh Abdul Rauf put it, There is no dispute among Jews,
Christians, and Muslins but the commandment was to his only son. And there's no
dispute that Ishmael was the oldest son.
10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
1. At this point one wonders if Abraham is doubting that the voice that told him to
do this was really that of God. I had to seem so far out of line with his concept of
God. F. B. Meyer wrote, “First of all, he was too familiar with God's voice to
mistake it. Too often had he listened to it to make a mistake in this solemn crisis.
And he was sure that God had some way of deliverance; which, though he might not
be able to forecast it, would secure the sparing of Isaac's life. Besides, he lived at a
time when such sacrifices as that to which he was called were very common; and he
had never been taught decisively that they were abhorrent to the mind of his
Almighty Friend. We must, in reading Scripture, remember that at first all God's
servants were more or less affected by the religious notions that were current in

116. their age; and we must not imagine that in all respects they were divested of the
misconceptions that resulted from the twilight revelation in which they lived, but
have since become dissipated before the meridian light of the Gospel, One of the
first principles of that old Canaanitish religion demanded that men should give their
firstborn for their transgression, the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. On
the altars of Moab, and Phoenicia, and Carthage; nay, even in the history of Israel
itself -- this almost irrepressible expression of human horror at sin, and desire to
propitiate God, found terrible expression. ot that fathers were less tender than
now, but because they had a keener sense of the terror of unforgiven sin; they
cowered before gods whom they knew not, and to whom they imputed a thirst for
blood and suffering; they counted no cost too great to appease the awful demands
which ignorance, and superstition, and a consciousness of sin, made upon them.
2. Meyer also wrote, “Abraham's act enables us better to understand the sacrifice
which God made to save us. The gentle submission of Isaac, laid upon the altar with
throat bare to the knife, gives us a better insight into Christ's obedience to death.
Isaac's restoration to life, as from the dead, and after having been three days dead
in his father's purpose, suggests the resurrection from Joseph's tomb. Yet the reality
surpasses the shadow. Isaac suffers with a clear apprehension of his father's
presence. Christ, bereft of the consciousness of His Father's love, complains of His
forsakenness. All was done that love could do to alleviate Isaac's anguish; but Christ
suffered the rudeness of coarse soldiery, and the upbraidings of Pharisee and
Scribe. Isaac was spared death; but Christ drank the bitter cup to its dregs.
3. Sacrifice is an important part of every Muslim's life. Every year during Eid,
millions of Muslims slaughter animals in commemoration of Ibrahim's offer of his
son's life at the command of God, who was substituted by a ram. It is told that
Mohammad was asked about the sacrifice. He answered: This is commemorative
sunnah of your father Ibrahim. The sacrifice of an animal on the occasion of Eid ul
adha is obligatory, and it is seen as a sin if it is not done. Abu Huraira reported that
Mohammed said: He who can afford but does not offer it, should not come near
our place of worship According to a booklet by Mohammad Iqbal Siddiqi, the
sacrifice signifies the sacrifice of the sacrificer himself, and becomes an outward
symbol of his readiness to lay down His life, if required, and to sacrifice all his
interests and desires in the cause of the truth. Islam denies, however, the fact that it
can serve as atonement for sin.
4. The Pastor of Faith Presbyterian Church explains a type and then shows how this
event is a type. He writes, A type in this sense is a person, thing, or event that
represents or symbolizes another, especially another person, thing, or event that is
still to come. For example, Israel's deliverance from Egypt, her wandering in the
wilderness for forty years, and her eventual entrance into the promised land is, in
the Bible and was for the ancient people of God a type, a symbolic representation of
the life of faith. A man or a woman is delivered by the grace and power of God from
bondage to his or her sin and death -- that is the Passover and the exodus --, makes a
pilgrimage through the desert of this world, and then, finally, enters heaven, the
promised land.

117. We have such a type before us in the account of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. The
symbolism is so obvious that no one who believes the Scripture to be the Word of
God has ever doubted that we have in this account of Abraham sacrificing Isaac an
enacted prophesy of the death of Jesus Christ, the true seed of Abraham. Think of
the precise parallels, almost all of which the Bible either explicitly or implicitly calls
our attention to at some point. The offering was to be Abraham's son, his own seed,
Isaac, the child of the promise; but, as it happened, it was Abraham's promised son,
his Son of all sons, Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham, as Paul calls him. But, that
Son, was not only Abraham's descendant, he was God's Son, God the Son. If God
asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for him, it was only because he was in due
time to sacrifice his own Son for Abraham. And, then, notice the place of the
sacrifice, Moriah, the Mount of God, the place where the Temple would eventually
be built and the sacrifices of the temple worship offered to God day and night, the
place, not far from which, the great sacrifice, of which all these other sacrifices were
but pictures and anticipations and prophecies would finally be offered.
11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, Abraham!
Abraham!
Here I am, he replied.
1. Meyer wrote, “The blade was raised high, flashing in the rays of the morning sun;
but it was not permitted to fall. With the temptation God also made a way of escape.
And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, 'Abraham!'
With what avidity would that much-tried soul seize at anything that offered the
chance of respite or of pause! And he said, his uplifted hand returning gladly to his
side, Here am I! Would that we could more constantly live in the spirit of that
response, so that God might constantly live in the spirit of that response, so that God
might always know where to find us; and so that we might be always ready to fulfill
His will.
2. George Whitefield wrote, And now, the fatal blow is going to be given. And
Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. But do you
not think he intended to turn away his head, when he gave the blow? ay, why may
we not suppose he sometimes drew his hand in, after it was stretched out, willing to
take another last farewell of his beloved Isaac, and desirous to defer it a little,
though resolved at last to strike home? Be that is it will, his arm is now stretched
out, the knife is in his hand, and he is about to put it to his dear son's throat. But
sing, O heavens! And rejoice, O earth! Man's extremity is God's opportunity: for
behold, just as the knife, in all probability, was near his throat, ver. 11, the angel of
the Lord, (or rather the Lord of angels, Jesus Christ, the angel of the everlasting
covenant) called unto him, (probably in a very audible manner) from heaven, and
said, Abraham, Abraham. (The word is doubled, to engage his attention; and
perhaps the suddenness of the call made him draw back his hand, just as he was
going to strike his son.) And Abraham said, here am I. And he said, Lay not thine
hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now know I that thou

118. fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Here
then it was that Abraham received his son Isaac from the dead in a figure. He was in
effect offered upon the altar, and God looked upon him as offered and given unto
him. ow it was that Abraham's faith, being tried, was found more precious than
gold purified seven times in the fire.
3. W. B. Johnson wrote, There is a significance in the change of terms to represent
the Deity. Thus far in the account of the trial of Abraham the word is God (Elohim),
but now it is Lord (Jehovah), the covenant name of the God of Israel. The Angel of
the Lord is the Angel of the Covenant, so often named, by many supposed to be
the Son of God. It is the Covenant Angel who stays the hand. The words,
Abraham! Abraham! repeated, imply rapid, imperious utterance, to stay in an
instant the hand that was about to descend. God, as [77] the true God, had a
sovereign right to demand all that Abraham had, yet Jehovah, as the Covenant God,
would not suffer his covenant to fail. These are the different aspects in which God
revealed himself to the patriarch in the history of redemption. God does not
contradict himself, but exhibits different aspects of the divine plan.
4. His hand was now laid upon the sacrificial knife, and raised to strike the fatal
blow. So far as his heart and his intent are concerned, he has shown the deed to be
virtually done. Paul shows that it was so regarded by God--By faith Abraham,
when he was tried, offered up Isaac. In the divine judgment the deed was done as
truly as if the knife had been plunged into the heart of Isaac. There is, therefore, no
such contradiction here as some critics pretend to find. God required the sacrifice,
the giving up, of Isaac, and the sacrifice was not withheld. Instead of raising him
from the dead, he arrested the hand in the act of slaying him.--Jacobus.
12 Do not lay a hand on the boy, he said. Do not do anything to him. ow I
know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your
only son.
1. Meyer wrote, “So long as men live in the world, they will turn to this story with
unwaning interest. There is only one scene in history, by which it is surpassed; that
where the Great Father gave His Isaac to a death from which there was no
deliverance. God and Abraham were friends in a common sorrow up to a certain
point; though the infinite love of God stepped in to stay the hand of Abraham at the
critical moment, sparing His friend what He would not spare Himself.”
“God had never wanted him or anyone else to offer a human sacrifice. But
remember, that had been a widespread custom in Abraham’s day. Many of his
contemporaries felt that the sacrifice of one’s first-born was the highest act of
religious worship. Abraham knew that. And so the thing that he was asked to do,
though it broke his heart, didn’t necessarily war against his conscience. But here
God showed to him and to all the world that He never required child sacrifice from
anyone. But He did want something from Abraham. He wanted him in spirit to take
the treasure of his life, renounce every claim upon it, and offer it up to God. And
that is what Abraham did on that night he wrestled with God under the stars, on

119. each grim step of the journey, and in all his preparations. Finally, in that mountain
clearing, the sacrifice of the heart was complete.” “There was the test. God had
been looking for something in Abraham and He found it. God had been searching
for a heart of faith: a faith that believes His promise when everything seems to make
it impossible, a faith that obeys Him when obedience is the hardest thing in the
world, a faith that knows deep down that nothing we surrender to the Lord is ever
really lost to us.”
The saints should never be dismay’d,
or sink in hopeless fear;
For when they least expect His aid,
The Savior will appear.
This Abraham found: he raised the knife;
God saw, and said, “Forbear!
Yon ram shall yield his meaner life;
Behold the victim there.”
Once David seem’d Saul’s certain prey;
But hark! the foe’s at hand;
Saul turns his arms another way,
To save the invaded land.
When Jonah sunk beneath the wave,
He thought to rise no more;
But God prepared a fish to save,
And bear him to the shore.
Blest proofs of power and grace divine,
That meet us in His Word!
May every deep-felt care of mine
Be trusted with the Lord.
Wait for His seasonable aid,
And though it tarry, wait;
The promise may be long delay’d,
But cannot come too late.
Olney Hymns, William Cowper
2. He quickly arose and traveled 3 days with Isaac until they reached the place of
sacrifice. I wonder what thoughts crowded his mind during that long journey. Did
he doubt God’s wisdom? Surely this question must have raced through his mind: If
Isaac, who was born as the result of a miracle, is the son of promise, why is God
asking me to slay him? The patriarch, Abraham, however, did not retreat, disobey,
or turn aside to avoid making this ultimate sacrifice. Instead, he gave his son back to
God. His yielded ness was regarded with these words of divine approval: “...now I
know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son
from Me”
3. This text deals with the major issue of relinquishment, which is a surrender to
God and letting him have all that is precious to you. It is dying to self and not
clinging to anything or anyone. You just yield your all to God, and give up all

120. struggles to hold on to what you want. When we reach this point we so please God
that he often gives us back that which we most treasure, and that is the case with
Abraham and Isaac. It is also the case with the greatest of all prayers of
relinquishment, ot my will, but thine be done. And God gave Jesus back the life
he sacrificed and relinquished in obedience to Him. He raised him from the dead
and gave him the power to save for eternity all who put their faith in him and his
sacrifice.
Pastor William Sangster went into a hospital room to visit a little girl who was
losing her sight. Fear seemed to grip the youngster as with nearly blind eyes she
turned her face toward the preacher. “Oh, Dr. Sangster, God is taking away my
sight.” God’s servant leaned over the trembling child and said tenderly, “Don’t let
Him take it; give it to Him.”
Dear friend, are you struggling with God’s will? Is some cherished plan or
possession or person being removed from your life? Don’t let Him take it; give it to
Him. - P.R.V.
Is your all on the altar of sacrifice laid?
Your heart does the Spirit control?
You can only be blest and have peace and sweet rest
As you yield Him your body and soul.
Hoffman
4. W. B. Johnson wrote, Sacrifice and offering, and burnt offering and sacrifice for
sin thou wouldest not, neither had pleasure in them: Lo, I come to do thy will, O
God. The Father of the Faithful, the great type of all the heroes of the Faith, had
demonstrated his supreme submission to the will of God. The divine purpose was
accomplished. It was no part of that purpose that a human sacrifice should be
offered, but was intended to show forth that there must be an unconditional,
unreserved submission to the divine will. I know that thou fearest God. Theodoret
very correctly says: God tried Abraham, not that he might learn what he knew
already, but that he might show to others with how great justice he loved the
patriarch. He wished also to show to all mankind just what kind of a character he
loved; one who has taken his own will and laid it as a sacrifice on the altar of God.
Origen notes that God commends Abraham that he did not withhold his son, his
only son from him, and that God did not withhold his Son, his only Son, from us,
but freely gave him up for us all.
5. S. David Ram gives us the unique Jewish perspective. I am not a Hebrew scholar
and so I do not know how accurate this next account is, but it is from a high Jewish
source, and it is one of their interpretations that eliminates the problem of God
saying something and not meaning it.
Rashi, the fundamental Torah commentator, quotes a Midrash which expresses
Abraham's state of mind during the episode. Abraham said to Hashem, 'I will lay
my thoughts before You. Yesterday You told me that through Isaac will offspring be
considered yours; then You said take your son (as a sacrifice); yet now You tell me,

121. do not stretch out your hand against the lad (meaning, Abraham could not
understand all of Hashem's requests. It seems that Hashem is either changing His
mind, or speaking idle words; and we know that neither can be true). Hashem then
answered him, 'I will not profane My covenant, nor alter that which has gone out of
My lips (Psalms 89:35). When I told you to take your son, I did not alter what had
gone out of My lips; (namely, that you would have descendents through Isaac). I did
not tell you to slay him, but to bring him up on the mountain. You have brought him
up, now bring him down'. (Rashi commenting on Genesis 22:12). Seemingly,
Hashem used a play on words to Abraham when He requested Abraham to bring up
Isaac. The Torah uses the word veha'alehu, which literally means bring him
up, but can also mean sacrifice him.
Rabbi Soloveitchik explains that when Hashem told Abraham to bring up
(veha'alehu) his son Isaac, at first glance, the word means to sacrifice his son.
However, when Hashem told Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac, it was not a
contradiction of His original statement, rather Hashem was defining what He meant
by veha'alehu. He did not mean to slaughter him as a sacrifice, rather to bring him
up as a sacrifice.
This scholar also helps us understand why we do not read of Abraham pleading
with God to change his mind. There is not prayer at all. He just goes to do what he
understands God's will to be with no resisting or bargaining. This author writes,
This great test was to fulfill the wishes of Hashem without a thought and without a
question. If Abraham were to have questioned Hashem's unusual request or prayed
for a retraction of this request, Abraham would have consequently failed the test.
In other words, Abraham had to go in perfect surrender with no questions asked in
order to pass his greatest test. He did just that, and that is why he is the great hero
of faith.
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [a] caught by its horns.
He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his
son.
1. Here was the substitute that God provided in his providence. It would appear
that it is the ram that represents Christ taking the place of Isaac, who then would be
representing you and me, and all mankind, who should be the ones being sacrificed
for their sins. He was the substitute for all men, and he died that others need not die
and suffer eternal damnation for being sinners.
2.Meyer wrote, “ear by the altar there was a thicket; and, as Abraham lifted up
his eyes and looked around, he beheld a ram caught there by its horns. othing
could be more opportune. He had wanted to show his gratitude, and the fullness of
his heart's devotion; and he gladly went and took the ram, and offered him up for a
burnt offering instead of his son. Here, surely, is the great doctrine of substitution;
and we are taught how life can only be preserved at the cost of life given. According
to one of the early Church writers, there is a yet deeper mystery latent here; viz.,
that whilst Isaac represents the Deity of Christ, the ram represents His human
nature, which became a sacrifice for the sins of the world. I am not sure that I would
altogether accept this interpretation; because it is the Deity of Christ working

122. through His humanity, which gives value to His sacrifice; but all through this
marvelous story there is an evident setting forth of the mysteries of Calvary.
3. In this account we not only see a test of Abraham, but we also see a picture of
our salvation and God's love. In the first half of the account we see in Abraham and
Isaac a picture of God the Father and God the Son. We see Him who did not spare
his own son, but gave him up for us all (Romans 8:32). But, the comparison
between Isaac and Jesus comes to an end when we come to our text. ow Isaac
pictures you and me. He can't save himself. His sacrificial death as a sinner would
be meaningless for anyone else, for no man can redeem the life of another (Psalm
49:7). In our text, the ram really serves as a picture of Christ. In one Hebrew word
which means instead of, in place of, we learn about our salvation. Jesus, in his life
and death, takes our place. His atonement is vicarious, or substitutionary. Our God
sees our need for a substitute, someone to take our place in life and in death,
someone whose life and death would count for everyone. Our God sees to it that a
substitute is provided in Jesus Christ.
14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said,
On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.
1. This was such a momentous event that it was given a special name and it became
a saying in the history of Israel. The truth is momentous for the rest of history for
all people, for it is the Gospel in essence. God so loved the world that he gave his
only Son. He provided a substitute that would take away the sin of the world and
make it possible for all people to be forgiven and accepted into the family of God
and thereby gain eternal life. Only God could make such a provision, and God did
just that in Jesus Christ. otice the future perspective in the words The Lord will
provide, and, On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided. These words are
pointing to some future event where the Lord will provide a Lamb once and for all
that will represent the hope of the world.
2. Some author put together a series of Scriptures that show the parallel between the
events here and those in the life of Jesus Christ. Some of the parallels may be
stretching the point, but there is interest in seeing the many points of contact
between the two events.
Jesus said to His disciples: Luke 24:44-47 ...These are My words which I spoke to
you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law
of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then He opened their
minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, Thus it is written, that
the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that
repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the
nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Where did the Scriptures prophesy that the Christ should suffer and rise again
from the dead the third day? I believe right here in Genesis 22. Where is it written
that this gospel message would be proclaimed beginning from Jerusalem? I

123. believe right here in Genesis 22. Jerusalem? That's gotta be miles away from this
place, right? o, read 2Chronicles 3:1... Then Solomon began to build the house of
the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah
Let's look at the facts of the story again:
Only son
The first thing that should've clued us in that there's something more going on here
is the fact that God says, Your only son. We all know that Abraham had a son
before Isaac. So God's giving us a hint - a hint that there's something deeper going
on here than just the story on the surface. What do we think of when we think of an
only son? Jesus.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son
And we're going to see that every single word in this story points to Jesus Christ.
Thirty-three
It's sad that many of us in the church are victims of the pictures we've been shown
and stories we've been told in Sunday School. Most of us picture Isaac as this poor
little 7 or 8-year-old child. And that's due in part to the use of the word, lad in
verse 5. But the word lad is nah-ar, which is translated in the Bible as not only
lad, but also attendant, servant, and young man. Which translation should we use?
Don't forget... he's marrying age at this point. Many scholars agree that Isaac was
somewhere in his early thirties - about 33. And Luke's gospel tells us... Luke 3:23
And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age. And
we know that from the time His ministry began until He was crucified was about 3
years. Interesting.
Three days
When God told Abraham to go sacrifice Isaac at a place where He would show him,
it took three days to get there. As far as Abraham was concerned, Isaac was dead
from the minute God commanded him to kill him. The book of Hebrews tells us this
very fact: Hebr. 11:19 He considered that God is able to raise men even from the
dead; from which he also received him back as a type.
So Isaac was dead to Abraham for three days, and Abraham received him back
from the dead after 3 days
The Donkey
It is interesting that a donkey was the transportation to the land of the sacrifice.
Jesus, too, rode a donkey to this very land of Jerusalem: Matt. 21:6-7 And the
disciples went and did just as Jesus had directed them, and brought the donkey and
the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat.
Two men

124. otice that there are two men going along with Isaac on the same journey of death.
The same thing happened when Jesus was crucified. The Bible tells us in John 19...
John 19:18 There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either
side, and Jesus in between.
Saw from a distance
The father in this story raised his eyes and saw the place where his son would be
sacrificed from a distance. God, too, foresaw this day - a day known before the
foundation of the world. A day prophesied in the genealogy of Adam - that the
blessed God Himself would come down teaching His death would bring the
despairing rest.
It is also interesting that Jesus said in John 8
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was
glad.
When Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place where his son would be
sacrificed, he saw the day of Christ.
Laid the wood on his back ext, it says in v.6 that the wood of the offering was laid
on Isaac, and they walked up the hill. John's gospel tells us John 19:17 They took
Jesus therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the
Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.
The fire and the knife
The wood was on the back of the son - his obedience was necessary. But in the hand
of the father were the fire and the knife. The fire of the burnt offering: the fire that
judges sin - that consuming fire of God; and the knife - the instrument that would
be used to spill the blood of the sacrifice - was in the hand of the Father.
God will provide Himself the Lamb
Isaac said, Um, Dad? I see the fire, and I see the wood. And I see that you've got
this big sharp knife... So where exactly is the lamb we're going to kill?
And Abraham answered one of the most insightful and prophetic statements in all
the Old Testament. The King James translates this most clearly, I believe: God will
provide Himself a Lamb. God will provide who? Himself. And truly, God did. He
sent His Son Jesus to be the Lamb of God. The Lamb that would be sacrificed to
take away the sin of the world.
Look also at the ram that was caught in the thicket. It was a substitutionary
sacrifice, a perfect male, whose head was surrounded and encircled by thorns!
The place Gen. 22:9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him.
God gave Abraham an exact location that this was to be acted out. An exact place on
Mt. Moriah. Like so many landmarks in history, a few thousand years later, Mt.
Moriah had a different name. It was known as Golgotha. And that same mountain
where Abraham said, God will provide Himself the Lamb was the same mountain
where Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, was sacrificed for you and for me.

125. I suggest to you that the exact location the altar was built is the exact location to the
foot that the cross was lifted up.
3. If, in fact, this is our entire faith in a magnificent picture, if this is the gospel of
the Lord Jesus Christ, if this is the difference between life and death and heaven
and hell for sinners such as we are and such as all men are, if this sacrifice is all that
stands between us and the wrath of God which we so much deserve, if this is the
open window through which we are given to see both the holiness and the tender
mercy of the living God, and if this -- Christ for us, Christ in our place, as the Lamb
of God -- is the fountain of all that is pure and good and beautiful in a Christian life,
then surely it is our duty -- as the Bible and all wise Christians through the ages tell
us it is -- to make his sacrifice for us the animating principle of our daily lives. It is
not enough to give it the center place in our Christian theology -- if it belongs there,
then it belongs as well -- for our theology is truth designed to be lived -- in the center
place of our hearts and minds every day.
McCheyne said in one of his sermons: Often the doctrine of Christ for me appears
common, well-known, having nothing new in it; and I am tempted to pass it by and
go to some scripture more [interesting]. This is the devil again -- a red-hot lie. Christ
for us is ever new, ever glorious. [In Bonar, p. 176; 'Personal Reformation I] When
I first read that, 20 years ago, I immediately wrote it down because it seemed to me
so perfectly to express and unmask my own tendency. I am always thinking that I
already know all about Christ and his sacrifice and that other subjects are now
more interesting to me. How wrong; how foolish! I need nothing so much as the
knowledge of Christ for me and I have hardly begun to explore the depths of that
truth. Or, hear Richard Hooker, in his immortal sermon on justification by faith
alone. Let it be counted folly, or phrenzy, or fury, or whatsoever, it is our wisdom
and our comfort. We care for no other knowledge in the world but this: that man
hath sinned and God hath suffered: that God hath made himself the sin of men, and
that men are made the righteousness of God.
Though troubles assail and dangers affright,
Though friends should all fall, and foes all unite;
Yet one thing secures us, whatever betide,
The Scripture assures us, the Lord will provide.
His call we obey, like Abrah'm of old,
ot knowing our way, but faith makes us bold;
For though we are strangers, we have a good guide,
And trust in all dangers, the Lord will provide.
15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time
1. Clearly God has been watching the whole scene step by step from the moment
Abraham left that early morning three days ago. God knew all that he suffered, and
all of the questions he struggled with all along the journey. God is just as happy

126. about how this has all turned out as Abraham is, for he delights to call down again
to declare just how delighted he is with the obedience of Abraham.
16 and said, I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done
this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
1. Before God promised Abraham to be a great nation, but now he promises himself
that he will do it, for he has just been satisfied that Abraham is fully committed to
be the man he wants him to be. He is truly in full surrender to the will of God, and
this makes God so pleased that he goes on to renew the promise he made before.
God is so sure of his choice now. He may have had some question about the full
loyalty of Abraham before, for there were times when he was ready to take control
of things and do it his way rather than God's way. ow God is satisfied that he is
fully willing to conform to his plan and do whatever he asks of him. What more
proof could he demand than the willingness to sacrifice his most beloved possession-his
only son?
17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the
sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the
cities of their enemies,
1. This is a promise of ultimate success in life. A vast people who will honor him for
the rest of time, and this promise has been fulfilled. The numbers are literally
astronomical, and it can be debated if this part of the promise has been fulfilled, for
nobody has ever counted the stars in the sky, or the sand on the seashore, and
compared it to all who have come from the seed of Abraham. If you are going to be
a literalist it is likely that this cannot be demonstrated to be true, even if you include
all of the spiritual seed of Abraham, which means all the believers of all time. The
best way to look at this is to see God is saying that his descendants will be vast, and
they will be powerful in taking over the Promised Land from their enemies.
2. There is a final understated irony at the conclusion of the Abraham story.
Abraham owned no land at all when Sarah died. He had to go to the Hittites and
pay an extravagant amount of money for a single cave in which to bury Sarah.
When Abraham died shortly after he had no great number of descendants, let alone
having descendants like the stars of the heaven or the sand of the seashore. When he
died he had one son at home, and owned one burial cave. So where were the great
promises? What had become of all the great things that God had promised
Abraham? Part of the dynamic of this whole story is that the faith journey of
Abraham doesn’t end in chapter 22 or even in chapter 25 with Abraham’s death.
Abraham’s faith was not for himself because the promise was not for Abraham. The
promise was for the children of Abraham. Part of Abraham’s faith journey was that
he came to a willingness to trust God for the future, not just his own future but for
God’s future. It would be a long time after Abraham, nearly 800 years, before his
descendants would ever own the land that he was promised. And it would be some

127. time after that before they would be a great nation.
18 and through your offspring [b] all nations on earth will be blessed, because you
have obeyed me.
1. This radical act of obedience leads to the radical promise repeated again that
through his offspring the whole world of people will be blessed. One act of
obedience by one man leads to all men having the potential of becoming a part of
God's eternal family. Abraham's family will make it possible for all to become
children of God, for his family will one day bring the Savior of the world into time,
and he will make this promise become a reality. Seen in this light, the test of
Abraham and his passing it was the most important event in the Old Testament, for
God’s entire plan for man hinged on his obedience to this radical command. We
have every reason to be proud to be children of Abraham, for he was the savior of
that seed that became the Savior of all people. This makes it clear also that there is
no higher virtue than obedience to God. Abraham had his weaknesses and faults,
but he was above all else a man of obedience, and that is why he is the hero of all
three of the great religions of the world.
2. George Whitefield wrote, With what comfort may we suppose the good old man
and his son went down from the mount, and returned unto the young men! With
what joy may we imagine he went home, and related all that had passed to Sarah!
And above all, with what triumph is he now exulting in the paradise of God, and
adoring rich, free, distinguishing, electing, everlasting love, which alone made him
to differ from the rest of mankind, and rendered him worthy of that title which he
will have so long as the sun and the moon endure, The Father of the faithful!
19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba.
And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.
ahor's Sons
20 Some time later Abraham was told, Milcah is also a mother; she has borne sons
to your brother ahor:
21 Uz the firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel (the father of Aram),
1. Abraham and Sarah laughed at the birth of Isaac, but here are a couple of babies
that had to make everyone who heard of it laugh. They are called Uz and Buz. ow
I know that maybe this was not funny sounding to the parents, but it sounds funny
in the English language. People would think the parents were being cruel today who
would send them off to school reporting they were Uz and Buz. The torment these
boys would suffer from the other children would be criminal, and the parents could
be changed with child abuse for such cruel naming. It would be on the same order
as the following story:

128. Bubba's sister is pregnant and is in a bad car accident.
She falls into a deep coma. After nearly six months, she awakens and sees that she is
no longer pregnant. Frantically, she asks the doctor about her baby.
The doctor replies, Ma'am, you had twins - a boy and a girl. The babies are fine.
Your brother came in and named them.
The woman thinks to herself, Oh, no! ot Bubba; he's an idiot!
Expecting the worst, she asks the doctor, Well, what's the girl's name?
Denise, the doctor answers.
The new mother says, Wow! That's a beautiful name! I guess I was wrong about
my brother. I really like the name Denise.
Then she asks the doctor, What's the boy's name?
The doctor replies, Denephew.
22 Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph and Bethuel.
23 Bethuel became the father of Rebekah. Milcah bore these eight sons to
Abraham's brother ahor.
1. This brother of Abraham by the name of ahor provided a sort of home base for
Abraham. That is why he sent his servant back to their home in order to find a wife
for Isaac, and he found Rebekah there among his relatives. This kept the whole
family in the bloodline to the Messiah.
24 His concubine, whose name was Reumah, also had sons: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash
and Maacah.
APPEDIX
A. Twelve Tests of Abraham
Abraham’s faith was tested at least twelve specific times. Some of them were not
what we might call big tests, but together they establish a picture of Abraham as a
person whose faith was genuine. After the last of these, God said, “ow I know that
you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son”
(Genesis 22:12).
Each of Abraham’s tests can have applications for us:
Genesis 12:1-7
Test: Abraham left Ur and Haran for an unknown destination at God’s direction.
Application: Do I trust God with my future? Is his will part of my decision making?
Genesis 13:8-13
Test: Abraham directed a peaceful separation from Lot and settled at the oaks of
Mamre.
Application: Do I trust God with my interests even when I seem to be receiving an

129. unfair settlement?
Genesis 14:13-18
Test: Abraham rescued Lot from the five kings.
Application: Does my faithfulness to others bear witness to my trust in God’s
faithfulness?
Genesis 14:17-24
Test: Abraham gave a tithe of loot to the godly king of Salem, Melchizedek, and
refused the gift of the king of Sodom.
Application: Am I watchful in my dealings with people that I give proper honor to
God and refuse to receive honor that belongs to him?
Genesis 15:1-6
Test: Abraham trusted God’s promise that he would have a son.
Application: How often do I consciously reaffirm my trust in God’s promises?
Genesis 15:7-11
Test: Abraham received the Promised Land by faith, though the fulfillment would
not come for many generations.
Application: How have I demonstrated my continued trust in God during those
times when I have been required to wait?
Genesis 17:9-27
Test: At God’s command, Abraham circumcised every male in his family.
Application: In what occasions in my life have I acted simply in obedience to God,
and not because I understood the significance of what I was doing?
Genesis 18:1-8
Test: Abraham welcomed strangers, who turned out to be angels.
Application: When was the last time I practiced hospitality?
Genesis 18:22-33
Test: Abraham prayed for Sodom.
Application: Am I eager to see people punished, or do I care for people in spite of
their sinfulness?
Genesis 20:1-17
Test: Abraham admitted to wrongdoing and took the actions needed to set things
right.
Application: When I sin, is my tendency to cover up, or confess? Do I practice the
truth that an apology must sometimes be accompanied by restitution?
Genesis 21:22-34
Test: Abraham negotiated a treaty with Abimelech concerning a well.
Application: Can people depend on my words and promises?
Genesis 22:1-12
Test: Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac.
Application: In what ways has my life demonstrated that I will not allow anything to
come before God?
Source unknown

130. Genesis 23
1. Sarah lived to be a hundred and twenty-seven years old.
1. Sarah is the only woman in the Bible whose age is given, and hers is given twice-the
birth of Isaac at 90 and she died at 127. Isaac was 37 at her time of death.
Abraham lived to be 175. Biographies always end at the grave, and if there were no
hope of life beyond this there would never be a biography with a happy ending.
Stedman wrote, By this time the little family of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac had
moved back from Beer-Sheba to Hebron, under the oak of Mamre, where they had
first lived when they came into the land of Canaan -- rather like going back to their
honeymoon cottage -- and here Sarah died. In one respect this was a wonderful
place to die. As the place names indicate, it is in the place of fatness of soul and
richness of fellowship with the Lord that Sarah, this woman of beauty and faith,
dies.
2. Here is the end of one of the most amazing marriages in the Bible. They had some
problems in their marriage, but it was still one of the most successful that we have
on record. They worked their way through their problems and did not let anything
cause them to lose faith in God's promises. Someone wrote, What made their
marriage special? Their marriage was special because it was a holy marriage. Their
marriage was special also because it was a happy marriage. Their marriage is
special in that God used their marriage as an example for our marriages. God used
them as an example in I Pet.3:5-7: For this is the way the holy women of the past
who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive
to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her
master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. 7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat
them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of
life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. Sarah was a model wife and
Abraham a model husband.
3. Before you begin to imitate this model husband, however, it is wise to start slow
and give a warning to your wife. I read about a man that went home with a friend
and noticed that as soon as he walked in the door he kissed his wife and told her
how beautiful she was. After dinner, he kissed her again and told what a good meal
it was. It so impressed the fellow that he decided to do the same with his wife. When
he walked in the door, he threw his arms around his wife and kissed her
passionately and told her how pretty she was. She burst into tears. “What’s
wrong?” “Oh, it’s been a terrible day. First, Johnny sprained his ankle, then
washing machine broke and flooded the basement, then dog drug out the neighbors
trash and they are upset, and now you come in drunk.”

131. 2 She died at Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan, and Abraham
went to mourn for Sarah and to weep over her.
1. Mourning and weeping caused by the death of a loved mate are universal, and
God's people do not escape it. They had lived together, learned together, laughed
together and loved together. You do not lose that kind of relationship without tears.
Even Jesus could not escape it, and so he wept at the tomb of Lazarus, a close and
precious friend. Grief must be expressed or it does not go away, and so emotional
health demands that we weep, and also weep with those who weep. Stedman pointed
out, It is remarkable that this is the only time we are ever told that Abraham wept.
He had been through so many bitter disappointments and heartaches in his life: He
was disappointed when Lot left him (13:5-12). He was heartbroken when he sent
Ishmael away (21:9-14). He was devastated when he had to offer Isaac (22:1-10). But
the only time the Scriptures reveal that he wept was when Sarah died. This reveals
the depth of his grief and love for this woman. Criswell adds, She was the love of
his life, and together they had the greatest laughs in life of any couple in all of
Scripture.
In college, most students in psychology may have come across the classic study on
stress called The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. This table of about 12 stress
killers reveals how life event affects us on a scale of 100 point. The lowest would be
Christmas, 12 points. The five most difficult things to adjust to, three are at 45-50
points-- retirement, fired at work, and marriage. The second hardest thing to take is
divorce, 73 points. And the worst is death of a spouse, 100 points.
2. Scott Hoezee points out how following the call off God does not mean there is no
hard parts in the journey. He writes, Princeton professor Donald Juel once made
the comment that on the surface of things, when God calls a person out of the blue
the way he once called Abraham, it looks like the greatest thing in the world.
Getting singled out by God Almighty himself for something quite special in the
grand scheme of cosmic salvation looks as wonderful as suddenly finding out you
won the lottery or something. But it doesn't take too long in Genesis before we sense
that even a millennia or two before Jesus came to this earth, the truth of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer's famous line was already evident: When Christ calls a person, he bids
that person to come and die. The cost of discipleship is being asked to live by faith in
a world where most everything you can see with your eyes seems calculated to cast
that very faith into the most dire of doubt.
3. Vance Havner’s wife died at 2:15 am Sunday morning and he preached that
Sunday morning. He said in his sermon that morning just hours after his wife’s
death: “It is sort of overwhelming if you try to figure that out, when you have lost
your standby, humanly speaking. But then, I haven’t lost her because I know where
she is. You haven’t lost anything when you know where it is...So don’t you ever say,
when your dear one goes, ‘I’ve lost her,’ or, ‘I’ve lost him.’ If you are in the Lord
and he or she was in the Lord, you know where they are. We’re only apart until He
comes. There is great comfort in knowing where your loved one is, and that you
will be with them forever, but the loss is real, and you cannot fool yourself into

132. denying it. You have lost something by the loss of their presence. You have not lost
them, but the loss of their presence is why we weep and go through grief, and you
will not get through it well if you deny your loss. Havner said this only hours after
his wife died, and while still in the state of denial. We have no record of what he said
about it a month or two after living without her.
4. Calvin tries to set some kind of limit to the grief that believers will express. He
wrote, If Abraham came to his dead wife, in order to produce excessive weeping,
and to pierce his heart afresh with new wounds, his example is not to be approved.
But if he both privately wept over the death of his wife, so far as humanity
prescribed, exercising self-government in doing it; and also voluntarily mourned
over the common curse of mankind; there is no fault in either of these. For to feel no
sadness at the contemplation of death, is rather barbarism and stupor than fortitude
of mind. evertheless, as Abraham was a man, it might be, that his grief was
excessive. And yet, what Moses soon after subjoins, that he rose up from his dead, is
spoken in praise of his moderation; whence Ambrose prudently infers, that we are
taught by this example, how perversely they act, who occupy themselves too much in
mourning for the dead. ow, if Abraham at that time, assigned a limit to his grief;
and put a restraint on his feelings, when the doctrine of the resurrection was yet
obscure; they are without excuse, who, at this day, give the reins to impatience, since
the most abundant consolation is supplied to us in the resurrection of Christ.
You have to agree with Calvin on this, and yet at the same time recognize that
people differ greatly in how they grieve, and it is very difficult to judge to what
degree one is excessive. Some do not grieve enough, and they suffer for it. They
think any sign of emotion is a denial of the hope of the resurrection and so they
refrain from weeping. They try to be strong and suppress their emotions, and this
ends up being harmful. The bottom line is, each person must grieve in a way that
expresses the depth of their sorrow, and not try to conform to any man made scale
of what is right. Paul said we are not to grieve as those who have no hope, and that
means with wild hopeless screams of despair, but this does not forbid a lot of crying
with plenty of tears.
5. Someone wrote, Some of you may remember the movie Shadowlands. It is the
story of C.S. Lewis' relationship with Joy Davidman. They fell in love, got married
and soon after she died of cancer. This is a man who went through some big time
loss. He writes, To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will
certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it
intact you must give your heart to no one. ot even an animal. Wrap it carefully
round with hobbies and little luxuries, avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in
the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless,
airless, it will change. It will not be broken. It will become unbreakable.
Impenetrable. Irredeemable. The only place outside heaven where you can be
perfectly safe from all the dangers of love is hell. If you ever read the testimony of
Lewis after his wife died you would suspect that he was excessive in his grief, for he
considered it the worst pain possible, and he hit bottom; went into deep depression,
and even doubted God's love. He loved his wife too deeply, and the result is that he
grieved too deeply, according to some.

133. 6. Bruce Getz writes the following about grief, People grieve in different ways and
go through different stages. Some people get angry with God, at circumstances, at
the relationship they wish they'd had. Some go numb and don't feel anything for a
while. For some people grief brings on feelings of regret or guilt. Some go through
prolonged periods of depression. Most people eventually get to the stage of
acceptance and hope. [Here's the key, remember this...] But grief takes time. So
give yourself time. Give other people time -- time to mourn.
7. Tears are a treasure according to old Jewish thinkers. After Adam and Eve had
been banished from the Garden of Eden, God saw that they were penitent and took
their fall very much to heart. And as He is a Compassionate Father He said to them
gently: Unfortunate children! I have punished you for your sin and have driven you
out of the Garden of Eden where you were living without care and in great well-being.
ow you are about to enter into a world of sorrow and trouble the like of
which staggers the imagination. However, I want you to know my benevolence and
My love for you will never end. I know that you will meet with a lot of tribulation in
the world and that it will embitter your lives. For that reason I give to you of my
heavenly treasure this priceless pearl. Look! It is a tear! And when grief overtakes
you and your heart aches so that you are not able to endure it, and great anguish
grips your soul, then there will fall from your eyes this tiny tear. Your burden will
grow lighter then. (A Treasury if Jewish Folklore 452, athan Ausubel ew York:
Crown Publishers, 1948)
8. F. B. Meyer wrote, There are some who chide tears as unmanly, unsubmissive,
unchristian. They would comfort us with chill and pious stoicism, bidding us meet
the most agitating passages of our history with rigid and tearless countenance. With
such the spirit of the Gospel, and of the Bible, has little sympathy. We have no
sympathy with a morbid sentimentality; but we may well question whether the man
who cannot weep can really love; for sorrow is love, widowed and bereaved -- and
where that is present, its most natural expression is in tears. Religion does not come
to make us unnatural and inhuman, but to purify and ennoble all those natural
emotions with which our manifold nature is endowed. Jesus wept. Peter wept. The
Ephesians converts wept on the neck of the Apostle whose face they thought they
were never to see again. Christ stands by each mourner, saying, Weep, my child;
weep, for I have wept.
9. Max Lucado has a wonderful piece on tears,Those tiny drops of humanity. Those
round, wet balls of fluid that tumble from our eyes, creep down our cheeks, and
splash on the floor of our hearts. They are always present at such times. They
should be, that's their job. They are miniature messengers; on call twenty-four
hours a day to substitute for crippled words. The drip, drop, and pour from the
corner of our souls, carrying with them the deepest emotions we possess. They
tumble down our faces with announcements that range from the most blissful joy to
the darkest despair. The principle is simple; when words are most empty, tears are
most apt. A tearstain on a letter says much more than the sum of all its words. A
tear falling on a casket says what a spoken farewell never could. What summons a

134. mother's compassion and concern more quickly than a tear on a child's cheek?
What gives more support than a sympathetic tear on the face of a friend? When
words are hard, tears speak clearly. (O WODER THEY CALL HIM THE
SAVIOR, Lucado p. 106)
3 Then Abraham rose from beside his dead wife and spoke to the Hittites. [1] He
said,
1. After death comes burial, and Abraham had not pre-planned what to do when
this happened. ow there is no choice, and he has to make a deal with the owners of
the land to have a burial spot for his family. The Hittites were among the people
who were in control of the Promised Land, and who would be those who were
conquered and pushed out when Abraham's seed came out of Egypt and took over
this land as God promised they would. Right now, however, they were in control
and Abraham had to deal with them to purchase a piece of their property.
Sometimes in life you have to make deals with people who are not your kind of
people, and who are not godly, but you have no choice because they have what you
need.
2. Calvin sees the custom of burial as a universal practice and a witness to the hope
of resurrection of the body. He wrote, How religiously this has been observed in all
ages, and among all people, is well known. Ceremonies have indeed been different,
and men have endeavored to outdo each other in various superstitions; meanwhile,
to bury the dead has been common to all. And this practice has not arisen either
from foolish curiosity, or from the desire of fruitless consolation, or from
superstition, but from the natural sense with which God has imbued the minds of
men; a sense he has never suffered to perish, in order that men might be witnesses to
themselves of a future life. It is also incredible that they, who have disseminated
certain outrageous expressions in contempt of sepulture, could have spoken from
the heart. Truly it behaves us, with magnanimity, so far to disregard the rites of
sepulture, -- as we would riches and honors, and the other conveniences of life, --
that we should bear with equanimity to be deprived of them; yet it cannot be denied
that religion carries along with it the care of burial. And certainly (as I have said) it
has been divinely engraven on the minds of all people, from the beginning, that they
should bury the dead; whence also they have ever regarded sepulchers as sacred. It
has not, I confess, always entered into the minds of heathens that souls survived
death, and that the hope of a resurrection remained even for their bodies; nor have
they been accustomed to exercise themselves in a pious meditation of this kind,
whenever they had laid their dead in the grave; but this inconsideration of theirs
does not disprove the fact; that they had such a representation of a future life placed
before their eyes, as left them inexcusable. Abraham however, seeing he has the
hope of a resurrection deeply fixed in his heart, sedulously cherished, as was meet,
its visible symbol.
He did not desire to have a foot of earth whereon to fix his tent; he only took care
about his grave: and he especially wished to have his own domestic tomb in that

135. land, which had been promised him for an inheritance, for the purpose of bearing
testimony to posterity, that the promise of God was not extinguished either by his
own death, or by that of his family; but that it then rather began to flourish; and
that they who were deprived of the light of the sun, and of the vital air, yet always
remained joint-partakers of the promised inheritance. For while they themselves
were silent and speechless, the sepulcher cried aloud, that death formed no obstacle
to their entering on the possession of it.
4 I am an alien and a stranger among you. Sell me some property for a burial site
here so I can bury my dead.
1. All agree that this chapter is something of a mystery in that it is mostly about the
purchase of a burial plot. It seems like such a trivial matter to be devoting so much
space to it. It is more about buying than dying. Chris Robinson writes, God tells us
explicitly through Isaiah (55:9) that His ways higher than our ways, and His
thoughts than our thoughts. But He also demonstrates it throughout Scripture.
Gen23 is a perfect example of that. If you or I had written this chapter, what would
we have said? If we had 20 verses to write, as Moses did, undoubtedly we would
have written 17 verses on the death, mourning, and burial of Sarah. Then we would
have given 3 verses to cover the purchase of the cave for a tomb. But God’s ways are
higher than ours, and His thoughts than our thoughts. He had Moses write 3 verses
on the death, mourning, and burial of Sarah… and 17 verses on Abraham
purchasing a cave for a tomb! A good many authors ask the same question about
this chapter. There were hundreds of things that went on that were not told, so
why spend so much time describing this tedious process of trying to buy a burial site
for Sarah? I mean, we have two verses for the death of Sarah. We had two verses
for the birth of the promised seed—Isaac. Many of the most significant things we
have looked at have had just two or three verses. And here we have this lengthy,
monotonous discussion about a burial site.
2. Stedman wrote, Sarah’s death brought Abraham to a point of decision. The
practical matter was: “Where shall I bury Sarah?” The principal issue, however,
was this: “Where shall I be buried?” Most often when a burial plot is purchased for
the first partner another is bought alongside for the surviving partner, and
frequently a whole family plot is secured simultaneously. When Abraham decided
upon the burial place for Sarah, he also determined the place of his burial and of his
descendants.
Abraham thus approached the Hittites to purchase a burial plot for himself and his
family. How strange it must have been for Abraham to petition the Hittites for a
burial place in light of the often repeated promise of God:
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants
I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river
Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the
Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite
and the Jebusite’ (Genesis 15:18-21).
Abraham was compelled to buy a portion of the land God had promised to give him

136. and his descendants. Furthermore, he was to purchase the land from a people that
God was going to give into his hand. How ironic that Abraham should humbly bow
before these people and petition them for a piece of ground.
3. Up until now he was content to be a stranger in a foreign land and own nothing,
but now he is desperate to own a tomb. The first piece of the Holy Land possessed
by Abraham was a tomb. It has become one of the best bargains in history in real
estate transactions. This is the first mention of a burial sight in the Bible. Abraham
won a place there by getting along with these pagans and not by force. Christians
too have to win the respect of unbelievers. Abraham was a man of peace, and he was
able to be humble and get along well with his pagan neighbors. He was not a proud
and arrogant man who gave them the impression that he was better than them.
Someone wrote, Abraham could have come in with an arrogant swagger making
demands. He could come as one demanding honor. But he comes humbly. He bows
down to the Hittites. He plays according to their rules; he treats them with respect
and dignity. He does not trade on God’s promises before them. Abraham shows how
people who live according to promises are to live in the midst of people who do not
know God from a hole in the ground. Even if we know that God is the sovereign
Lord of history, we still must treat the people who do not know God with respect
and dignity. It’s never a lesser position, but one of unimaginable power. obody’s
talking about the Hittites anymore. But we’re still talking about Abraham.
4. Meyer wrote, Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons
of Heth, saying, I am a stranger and a sojourner with you; give me a possession of a
burying-place with you (23:3-4). See how sorrow reveals the heart. When all is
going well, we wrap up our secrets; but when sorrow rends the veil, the ARCAA of
the inner temple are laid bare! To look at Abraham as the great and wealthy
patriarch, the emir, the chieftain of a mighty clan, we cannot guess his secret
thoughts. He has been in the land for sixty-two years; and surely by this time he
must have lost his first feelings of loneliness. He is probably as settled and
naturalized as any of the princes round. So you might think, until he is widowed of
his beloved Sarah! Then, amidst his grief, you hear the real man speaking his most
secret thought: I am a stranger and a sojourner with you.
These are very remarkable words; and they were never forgotten by his children.
Speaking of the land of promise, God said, through Moses, to the people, The land
shall not be sold for ever; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. When
David and his people made splendid preparations to build the Temple, as their
spokesman he said, Who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to
offer so willingly? For all things come of Thee, for we are strangers before Thee and
sojourners, as were all our fathers. Our days on the earth are as a shadow, and
there is none abiding. And, further, in one of his matchless Psalms, he pleads,
Hear my prayer, O Lord! Hold not Thy peace at my tears; for I am a stranger with
Thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were. (Psalm 39:12) So deeply had those
words of Abraham sunk in the national mind, that the Apostle inscribes them over
the cemetery where the great and the good of the Jewish nation lie entombed:
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar

137. off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them; and confessed that they were
strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Hebrews 11:13).
5 The Hittites replied to Abraham,
1. It is assumed that there was a spokesman for the Hittites to respond to Abraham,
for they could not all reply. We see that they were a friendly people to him and
treated him with the dignity he deserved as a prosperous neighbor who lived in
peace with them.
6 Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the
choicest of our tombs. one of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead.
1. You may ask, Well, why didn't Abraham take them up on the offer of some free
land? Abraham knew the customs of the land. The Hittites could not, with the
cultural emphasis on face-saving, come out and demand a lot of money from a man
who was mourning the death of his wife. So, they offered to let Abraham bury his
wife at no charge, but Abraham knew this was cultural politeness.
2. The literal Hebrew there is “You are a prince with a God.” They knew
Abraham. They knew who he was. They knew what he was about. And they enter
into this bartering process that sounds so foreign to us. But to people of the near
East, it was the common process by which they would sell a piece of property. It
opens with this seemingly generous offer; but it is really the beginning of a very
shrewd business process. The offer is, “Abraham, take anything you want—it’s
yours.” The process always sounded very polite, and that’s the way it was supposed
to open. But if Abraham would have said, “That’s a very generous offer; I’ll take
it,” he would have had no ethics. He would have ripped them off, in our language. It
was understood that the first offer was very polite: “you can have anything you
want.” And he was to then give his response…and back and forth it would go. So
that’s what they did.
It’s also important to notice that Abraham made sure this was all done in a public
forum. This was their version of signing a contract. Since it was verbal, it was very
important to have witnesses, because that is what would hold you to the deal
generations later. So the text is very clear and very careful to show that everybody
was there and they heard this.
3. Deffinbaugh wrote, If Abraham wished the use of a burial place, anyone would
gladly loan him the best they had. However, a borrowed grave was not acceptable to
Abraham. There is really nothing wrong with a borrowed grave; our Lord was
buried in one you recall (Matthew 27:60), but our Lord only needed His grave for
three days, whereas Abraham needed his site for posterity (Genesis 25:9; 50:13).
othing less than a permanent possession would satisfy Abraham.
4. Stedman wrote, Abraham's pagan friends do have, however, a genuine sense of

138. respect and honor for the man of faith. Thou art a prince among us, they say.
Although we recognize that you are different and perhaps this caused many
questions in our hearts at first, yet we know that you are a man of great honor.
They pay respectful deference to him, and are quite willing that he have the land.
I think this is very instructive, though the difference that being a Christian makes
may create a feeling of estrangement and even dislike in people's hearts for awhile,
it always results at last in the highest respect and honor from those same people.
Young people, who are under so much pressure to conform, especially need to hear
this. The world is constantly trying to squeeze us into its own mold, and we don't
like to be different. Yet the one thing that Christ demands of us is that in the
essentials of our lives and attitudes we be different. There are many areas in which
we don't need to be different and may even be offensive by being unnecessarily
different. But there are other areas where we must not conform. When Abraham
first came into the land he was a pilgrim and a stranger, and they must have looked
upon him as a wandering nomad. It may have taken him a long time to win their
respect, but here at the end, all these pagan friends gather around and say to him,
Thou art a prince, a mighty prince among us. You can have anything you want.
We respect your integrity, your heart, even though you are still a stranger and a
sojourner.
7 Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of the land, the Hittites.
1. Abraham shows them the highest respect as he bows before them. This is not a
bow of worship as if he was making them his idol, but the bow of honoring them as
good neighbors. He is the one seeking their help in acquiring a burial site, and so he
is highly respectful of them.
2. Calvin wrote, But lest any one should be surprised that Abraham acted so
suppliantly, and so submissively, we must be aware that it was done from common
custom and use. For it is well known that the Orientals were immoderate in their
use of ceremonies. If we compare the Greeks or Italians with ourselves, we are more
sparing in the use of them than they. But Aristotle, in speaking of the Asiatics and
other barbarians notes this fault, that they abound too much in adorations.
Wherefore we must not measure the honor which Abraham paid to the princes of
the land by our customs.
8 He said to them, If you are willing to let me bury my dead, then listen to me and
intercede with Ephron son of Zohar on my behalf
1. Abraham is appealing to the city leaders to be the go between and get Ephron to
do business with him.
9 so he will sell me the cave of Machpelah, which belongs to him and is at the end
of his field. Ask him to sell it to me for the full price as a burial site among you.

139. 1. Cave of Machpelah-the word means double and refers to the fact that it was a
double cave. It was a good size cave, for this became the tomb of Abraham and
Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah. o other place in the world has so
many famous Bible people buried. They are all right now alive with God for He is
the God of the living and not the dead-Matt. 22:23-33. This is the most sacred grave
in the world, for Jews, Christians and Moslems hold it sacred.
2. Stedman wrote, Yet, I think the supreme lesson here is to show us the thorough
independence of the man of faith. Abraham will not consent to own one foot of
ground without paying for it. He courteously insists on taking nothing from the
world, though he is ready to take everything from God. He shows a great
independence here; he will not allow the world to make him rich in any degree. God
had promised him this land, and no stratagem of the enemy, no temporary
expedient, will satisfy his heart. It must come from God, and until it does, he insists
on paying for this segment of it even though they offer it to him. At the end of his
career, although he owned the land by promise, the only part he actually possessed
was the field and a cave where he buried his wife. This is a picture of the man of
faith.
10 Ephron the Hittite was sitting among his people and he replied to Abraham in
the hearing of all the Hittites who had come to the gate of his city.
1. Business and legal transactions took place at the city gate, for this made them
public rather than private transactions. In addition to showing us Abraham's fine
example in doing business, this passage is a fascinating historical account of the
ancient customs of doing business. Business was usually carried out at the city gate
(see vs.10), where the city elders sat. o contracts or lawyers were needed, just the
witness of the people. Business was conducted precisely and professionally. The
exact price, and exact scope of the land to be purchased was precisely specified
publicly, so that any disputes would be easily settled because of the many witnesses
to the deal. Business was so much easier then than it is now!
11 o, my lord, he said. Listen to me; I give you the field, and I give you the
cave that is in it. I give it to you in the presence of my people. Bury your dead.
1. Brian Morgan writes, As the legal negotiations continue, Ephron uses the
occasion to place himself in the public eye as a model of generosity. He needs no
community pressure to let go of his cave, and therefore rises to speak before the
community acts. Surprisingly, he refuses any financial remuneration. He is willing
to let the burial site go for free. In full view of the entire community, three times he
says, I give, I give, I give. And that's not all. So moved does he appear to be by
Abraham's plight, he not only offers him the cave, but throws in the entire field as
well. Could there be any doubt about this man's generosity?
But is Ephron really generous or is he caught in the throes of public pressure? Is his

140. offer of the field really a gift or just a political maneuver to elicit an exorbitant offer
from Abraham? One commentator argues: The object of the offer and of the
excessive politeness as a whole is to put the other party on the defensive...By offering
more than was requested, he [the seller] would indirectly command a higher
price.[5] ow that Ephron has countered Abraham's request with an offer even
more generous than he originally requested, Abraham enters into the third and final
round of negotiations.
12 Again Abraham bowed down before the people of the land
1. Abraham was showing his humility in bowing again, and in so doing assure them
that he respects them and their customs, and that he will cooperate with them.
13 and he said to Ephron in their hearing, Listen to me, if you will. I will pay the
price of the field. Accept it from me so I can bury my dead there.
1. Someone wrote, Obviously, this passage is not telling Christians how to do
business! Why would Abraham make such a bad deal? For one reason and one
reason only: because he had faith for the future. He firmly believed his descendants
would own it all one day so he was willing to invest quite heavily in this portion of
the land, by faith. He was determined to pay any price for Sarah to be buried in
Canaan, because he really believed God's promises. The way we spend our money is
certainly one indicator of the health of our faith!
2. Another gives us this insight: When David was commanded by the Lord to build
an altar on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, Ornan tried to give it to David
- the threshing floor, as well as the oxen for the offering. 1Chr. 21:24 But King
David said to Ornan, o, but I will surely buy {it} for the full price; for I will not
take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing.
There are times when we should be looking for the best deal possible. But there are
other times that we need to forget the finances and disregard the dollars. There are
times that great sacrifice is called for. Abraham would not give Sarah a grave that
cost him nothing. David would not give the Lord a sacrifice that cost him nothing.
3. Brian Morgan writes, Taking them up on their generous offer, he singles out the
tomb of his choice, the cave of Machpelah, owned by Ephron, to bury his dead.
Abraham then makes sure that what follows is done in a public and official manner.
He pays careful attention to exact legal procedures, appealing to the community to
act as his agent to subpoena Ephron, and to remain present as appropriate
witnesses, just as today one would use a judge and county recorder.
Once the legal scene is set, Abraham, using his keen negotiating skills, places three
bargaining chips on the table. First, he notes that this cave is at the end of the
field, suggesting that its acquisition should pose no threat to Ephron's business
activities. Second, he announces that he is not interested in a grant. Rather, he is

141. willing to pay full market value for the field, and refuses to negotiate for a cheaper
price. This will preclude any future possibility that the community will feel they had
been taken advantage of and contest the site. And third, he reiterates his original
request that this is to be an irrevocable sale of real property, not a grant to rent the
air space of a tomb. Abraham trumps their feigned generosity, countering their
reluctance to sell with an offer of cold cash.
14 Ephron answered Abraham, 15 Listen to me, my lord; the land is worth four
hundred shekels [5] of silver, but what is that between me and you? Bury your
dead.
1. Someone wrote, One must appreciate the beauty of the near-eastern culture to
enjoy this final act of negotiation. Ephron was nobody’s fool. He persists in his offer
to give Abraham the land free of charge, but he also places a value on the “gift” that
is offered. This accomplishes two things: it names the price, yet in a very generous
way, and it makes it almost impossible for Abraham to bargain over the price. If
Ephron is so generous as to offer to give the land to Abraham, how could Abraham
be so small as to dicker over the price? Abraham paid the price, and both men went
away with what they had hoped for.
2. Another author reports, This way of speaking can still be found in the ear East
today. In Damascus, when a purchaser makes a lower offer than can be accepted, he
is answered: 'What, is it a matter of money between us? Take it for nothing, friend,
as a present from me; don't feel under any kind of constraint! Of course, nothing
of the kind literally is meant at all. Some years ago a traveler reported this
happening to him in Hebron itself. In our excursions we had noticed a fine gray
horse belonging to the Quarantine inspector. Mr. Blaine, my fellow traveler, had
appeared to wish to buy the animal. It now made its appearance in our tents. We
inquired the price, and our astonishment may be conceived, when the...Turk offered
us the animal as a present. Mr. Blaine declared that he by no means intended to take
it as a present, when the Turk replied: 'What then are [25 pounds sterling] to
thee?' [In Wenham, p. 129]
3. Another unknown author gives us the best report on this transaction: Four
hundred shekels was an absolutely outrageous price for a piece of ground. I mean, it
was way out of the ballpark. But he knew Abraham was a pilgrim, and he had no
bargaining power. He knew Abraham was wealthy. He knew Abraham’s wife was
dead, and he really didn’t have many options. So he throws out this outrageous
price. Typically, what would be done is that Abraham, then, would come back with
a counter offer, and back and forth they would go until they would settle. But he
throws out this “dream price” and Abraham pulls out his checkbook and signs the
check. That’s it.
Abraham, by faith, believed that the land upon which they were standing would one
day be theirs, because God promised. It would have been very easy to take Sarah

142. back to Ur and have her buried there; she had plenty of family back there. But by
faith he wanted her buried in what would become their land, and so he would spare
no earthly expense to make sure that happened. In a sense, you can almost imagine
Ephron’s eyes bugging out as Abraham writes him the check. He probably would
have bragged to all his friends and family what Abraham paid for that goofy piece
of land. But in the process, it would be sealed for generations to come that that land
belonged to Abraham because he bought it. That deal would have been remembered
for a long time by those witnesses.
Abraham was absolutely determined by faith to bury Sarah in the middle of what
would be their land one day. Sarah died, having never realized it, and he would die
without ever having realized that promise. He would be buried in that cave…Isaac
would be buried in that cave…Rebekah would be buried in that cave…Jacob would
be buried in that cave…Leah would be buried in that cave. Only, by that time, it
would be their land—their possession. And that burial site would be right in the
heart of the land of promise. It is interesting to notice that in the last few verses
there is a great emphasis on the fact that this land now belonged to Abraham. It was
just this little piece of ground, but it was deeded over to him. It was his possession
and, for the first time, he owned a little piece of the land of promise.
4. Donald Aellen writes, Well, the fact of the matter is that it’s a lot. It’s a seller’s
market, and Abraham paid well over what the land was worth. Ephron the Hittite is
laughing all the way to the bank. The irony, of course, is that Abraham got stiffed
buying a piece of land that was already promised to him and his descendants by
God. Abraham is paying an inflated price for land that is rightfully going to belong
to his family one day. So what about those promises? The family of promise has
suffered the death of Sarah, the matriarch. ext chapter, Abraham is going to die
too. God, who promised Abraham all the land he has been living on for the past
decades, has not yet acted to give Abraham the land. So what does that say about
the promise? All Abraham has is a burial plot that he had to buy. Some promise. Is
the promise as dead as Sarah? Where is the future promised by God?
5. Brian Morgan writes, What do we discern from Ephron's words, generosity or
greed? First, to inflate the value of the gift, Ephron changes the word field
(sadeh) to land ('erets), intimating, by way of a term that also means 'country,'
that Abraham is free to imagine he is getting more than a field with a burial cave for
his money.[6] Second, Ephron insists Abraham should think nothing of his
generosity. But in his insistence that the gift should mean nothing between equals,
he slips in the price, a mere four hundred shekels. It is a strange donor who will
put a price-tag on his gift; how much stranger to meet one who jacks up the figure
in explaining why he gives it away.
What are a few hundred shekels between friends? To feel the full weight of that
amount, we might reflect that a thousand years later, David paid Araunah the
Jebusite fifty shekels for the site of the Jerusalem Temple, including cattle for
sacrifice (2 Sam 24:24). What are a few shekels among equals? That which Ephron
says is a mere pittance is actually a king's ransom (Alter). The figure comes as a
staggering blow to Abraham. He is in no position to negotiate, since he has already

143. legally vowed to pay full price. So what appears to be nothing is in fact
everything, for this sum alone will make the difference between clinching and
calling off the deal.
16 Abraham agreed to Ephron's terms and weighed out for him the price he had
named in the hearing of the Hittites: four hundred shekels of silver, according to the
weight current among the merchants.
1. Abraham was the first Jew, but was not interested in jewing him down and
getting a better bargain. He just paid the asking price. He was in no mood to
haggle for his wife needed to be buried quickly.
2. Brian Morgan paints a negative picture from this scene. Amazingly, Abraham
doesn't flinch or protest. He simply empties his pockets of all his cash right then and
there. The niceties are dispensed with. o more words are needed. The only sound
heard is the sound of cold cash (shekels) weighed (shakal) on the scale. Ephron gets
the full price, not a down payment, and in cold cash, commercial standard. We are
left with a bad taste. This closing scene makes all the previous gestures of politeness
and generosity sickening. Here is a community taking advantage of a man at his
weakest moment, all the for the sake of profit.
3. Do you realize what Abraham is doing? He lays claim to a part of the Promised
Land as if it were already the homeland of his family. In burying Sarah in the
Promised Land, Abraham takes a down payment, a deposit, on the blessing God had
promised him. God has given Abraham the faith to act as if the Promised Land
already was home. This helps to explain why Abraham did not accept the generous
sounding offer of the Hittites to simply give the field to Abraham. In that time
and culture, to accept the field as a gift meant that Ephron's heirs could have
reclaimed the land after Ephron's death – but Abraham, out of faith, viewed the
land as being his permanent possession.
4. Deffinbaugh writes, By determining that Sarah, and later he and his
descendants, would be buried in Canaan, Abraham “staked his claim” in the land
which God had promised. The land where he would be buried was to be the
homeland of his descendants. The place that God had promised him was the place
where he must be buried. Jeremiah expressed a similar faith when he purchased the
field of Anathoth (Jeremiah 32:6ff). While God was to judge His people for their
sins by driving them out of the Promised Land, so He would bring them back when
they repented. The purchase of the field of Anathoth evidenced Jeremiah’s
conviction that God would do as He had promised (Jeremiah 32:9-15).
17 So Ephron's field in Machpelah near Mamre--both the field and the cave in it,
and all the trees within the borders of the field--was deeded
1. Morgan writes, After the cash is delivered, the title to the property is deeded

144. over to Abraham. otice how precise and legal is the description of the property,
down to the number of trees. (Trees were considered property improvements in
ancient ear Eastern contracts). The entire proceeding is carried out in full view of
the community to show that Abraham's claim on the land is irrevocable. Everyone's
signature is notarized. In the end, both parties get exactly what they want. Ephron
gets his cash, and Abraham acquires real property to honor his wife. ow that
the patriarch has successfully negotiated his way through the greedy financial
markets of his day, he returns home to bury his wife.
2. Deffinbaugh has an excellent insight and practical application to Christians based
on the implications of Abraham now owning part of Canaan. He writes,
Abraham’s purchase not only exemplified his hope for a better country, a heavenly
one (Hebrews 11:16), it also involved him more deeply in the present world in which
he lived as a stranger and sojourner. Sojourners didn’t own property, but now
Abraham did, of necessity. Strangers and sojourners do not have as great an
involvement or obligation as do citizens and property owners. Abraham’s purchase
gave him a “dual citizenship,” so to speak. Let me suggest how this was so.
We are told that according to Hittite law Abraham would not have been obligated to
the king had he only purchased the cave at Machpelah rather than the field and the
cave. By acquiring property as he did, Abraham thus deepened his commitment of
faith in God but also extended his worldly obligations. I think this is significant. In
his first epistle Peter instructs Christians on their attitude and conduct toward this
present world in light of the fact that we are strangers and pilgrims: Beloved, I urge
you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the
soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which
they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they
observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves for the Lord’s
sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to
governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those
who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the
ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a
covering for evil, but use it as bond slaves of God. Honor all men; love the
brotherhood, fear God, honor the king (I Peter 2:11-17).
Christians are citizens in two worlds, not just one. While our inheritance is in
heaven, “imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away” (I Peter 1:4), we have
obligations in this present world. We must submit to earthly authorities and
institutions (I Peter 2:11ff). We must also obey the laws of the land and pay our
taxes (Romans 13:1-7). Christians have often been accused of being “so heavenly
minded, they are of no earthly good.” If I understand the Bible correctly, our
heavenly mind is what makes us useful in the present. Abraham lived in the present
in the light of the future. His future inheritance did not lessen his present
obligations; it established his priorities. The fact that he would inherit the land of
Canaan and “possess the gates of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17) did not mean he
would be kept from purchasing property and bowing before constituted authority
(cf. 23:7,12) and this at the very gates of those whom God would later put under his
authority (15:20).

145. 18 to Abraham as his property in the presence of all the Hittites who had come to
the gate of the city.
1. This land was to stay in the hands of Abraham's family forever, and all the
community of Hittites were there to witness this transaction. There would never be
any basis to contest his ownership. He had made an investment in the future of his
descendants by this purchase of property in the Promised Land.
19 Afterward Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave in the field of Machpelah
near Mamre (which is at Hebron) in the land of Canaan.
1. Sarah was the first person of God's people to be buried in the Promised Land. In
addition to Sarah Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah would also be buried
at this sight. Josephus says all the sons of Jacob except Joseph were also buried
there. The cave in the field of Machpelah near Mamre, which is at Hebron, is about
twenty miles south of Jerusalem. Today Hebron is a town of 130,000 Palestinians
and 500 Jewish settlers. The cave is guarded by security forces from Jews,
Christians and Moslems. Some years ago a Jewish man entered the cave and with an
automatic weapon killed 29 Moslems while they were worshipping God. Moslems
then began to kill other Jews who had nothing to do with it. This violence led to
strict security there.
2. Brian Morgan writes, Henceforth, every Jew who came to Machpelah would be
brought face to face with the testimony of Abraham's faith. Abraham Joshua
Heschel says: Much of what the Bible demands can be comprised in one word:
Remember.
How successful was Abraham in causing future generations to remember? Sarna
writes: After the Western Wall in Jerusalem, it has remained throughout history
the most sacred monument of the Jewish people.[11] Even well into the Christian
era, this cave still speaks. The fourth century Latin poet Prudentius (ca 348-405),
seized by the faith of Abraham, wrote these words: The Tomb of Sarah
Abraham bought a field, in which to lay the bones
Of his wife, because on earth a stranger tarries:
Righteousness and faith: This price for him was inexpressible,
A cave, a place of rest created to hold her holy ashes. (Translated, from the Latin,
by Steve DePangher)
I am reminded of another Jew, Joseph, who was shaped by this act of remembering.
Like Abraham, his world had just grown dark and he was swallowed in grief. But
he would not permit his soul to weep until he made a needed acquisition. The cost
was more than financial, however. He already owned the tomb. What he needed was
the body, that of an executed revolutionary hated by the Jews and mocked by the
Romans. If the negotiations went wrong it could cost him his life. But by faith he
gathered up his courage and requested from Pilate for the body of Jesus. Joseph laid
that body in his own tomb, and from that holy place we remember the day when
forgiveness became our gift and heaven our home.

146. 20 So the field and the cave in it were deeded to Abraham by the Hittites as a
burial site.
1. Abraham now has a deed to part of the Promised Land. It is not much, but it is a
sort of down payment on a land that will eventually belong to his people. Future
generations saw it as a privilege to be buried in this cave.. So, for instance, when
Jacob was on his deathbed he asked for his body to be taken to the Promised Land
to also be buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 49:29-32; 50:12-14).
2. The compound, located in the ancient city of Hebron, is venerated by Jews,
Christians, and Muslims whose traditions maintain that the site is the burial place
of four Biblical couples: (1) Adam and Eve; (2) Abraham and Sarah; (3) Isaac and
Rebekah; (4) Jacob and Leah. According to Midrashic sources it also contains the
head of Esau, and to Islamic sources, is also the tomb of Joseph.
The Cave of Machpelah is the world's most ancient Jewish site and the second
holiest place for the Jewish people, after Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The cave and
the adjoining field were purchased—at full market price—by Abraham some 3700
years ago. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah are all later buried in
the same Cave of Machpelah. These are considered the patriarchs and matriarchs of
the Jewish people. The only one who is missing is Rachel, who was buried near
Bethlehem where she died in childbirth.
The double cave, a mystery of thousands of years, was uncovered several years ago
beneath the massive building, revealing artifacts from the Early Israelite Period
(some 30 centuries ago). The structure was built during the Second Temple Period
(about two thousand years ago) by Herod, King of Judea, providing a place for
gatherings and Jewish prayers at the graves of the Patriarchs.
This uniquely impressive building is the only one that stands intact and still fulfills
its original function after thousands of years. Foreign conquerors and invaders used
the site for their own purposes, depending on their religious orientation: the
Byzantines and Crusaders transformed it into a church and the Muslims rendered it
a mosque. About 700 years ago, the Muslim Mamelukes conquered Hebron,
declared the structure a mosque and forbade entry to Jews, who were not allowed
past the seventh step on a staircase outside the building.
Upon the liberation of Hebron in 1967, the Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces,
the late Major-General Rabbi Shlomo Goren, was the first Jew to enter the Cave of
Machpelah. Since then, Jews have been struggling to regain their prayer rights at
the site, still run by the Muslim Waqf (Religious Trust) that took control during the
Arab conquest. Many restrictions are imposed on Jewish prayers and customs at the
Tomb of the Patriarchs despite the site's significance, primacy and sanctity in
Jewish heritage and history.

147. Over 300,000 people visit Ma'arat HaMachpelah annually. The structure is divided
into three rooms: Ohel Avraham, Ohel Yitzhak, and Ohel Ya'akov. Presently Jews
have no access to Ohel Yitzhak, the largest room, with the exception of 10 days a
year.
Source: Jewish Community of Hebron and other historical sources.
Genesis 24
ITRODUCTIO
Genesis chapter 24 is the longest chapter in Genesis containing 67 verses. It is the
longest single episode except for the flood that occupies 75 verses. It is the story of a
father and a son, a servant and a master, and a groom and a bride. The main
characters are Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah and the unnamed servant of Abraham.
Abraham is 140-years old and his son Isaac is 40. It is time for Abraham to find a
bride and time for Isaac to take a bride. The story ends with the unnamed servant
bringing Isaac a bride it was love at first sight.
A man on a plane sat down next to a beautiful young lady. She was the most
gorgeous woman he had ever seen. It was love at first sight. He struck up a
conversation with her, “Are you married?” “o,” she said. “Are you engaged?”
“o.” “Are you dating anyone?” “o.” “Why isn’t a beautiful woman like you not
dating?” She replied, “I am looking for a man with certain qualities. He asked,
What kind of qualities are you looking for in a man? She replied, I like native
American Indians. I love their skin color and high cheekbones. I also like Jewish
men. Jewish men seem so brilliant and are financially successful. But I also like the
good ole boys from the south, their southern drawl and the way they treat a woman.
By the way, what’s your name?” He answered, “My name is Geronimo Berstein, but
my friends call me Bubba.”
1 Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed
him in every way.
1. Abraham was around 140 years old, and his son Isaac was 40. Abraham would go
on living until he was 175, but he was old 35 years before he died, and so he knew
what it was to live a long time as an old man. He, no doubt, could tell many stories
of aches and pains that come with a body that is getting old. The text says he was
blessed in every way, and this may mean that his health was so good that he did not
suffer the same problems that most old folks do. It may be an exaggeration,

148. however, to say he was blessed in every way, for he had no grandchildren yet, and
that was an essential blessing if he was to be the father of a multitude. Many parents
are waiting for the day they get the news that a grandchild is on the way. Abraham
has waited 40 years, and he has only one son, who for some reason has not even
found a steady girl, let alone gotten married. He had to wait 25 years to get this one
son, and now it is 40 more and still no grandson. Most married at 30 or younger,
and so he is a decade behind. This great nation God promised Abraham is really
getting a slow start, and it is remaining steady with a population of one. So finally
Abraham takes action to get the ball rolling on a bride for Isaac, and a grandson for
himself.
2 He said to the chief [1] servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he
had, Put your hand under my thigh.
1. This verse makes plain the way language changes due to the passage of time and
culture. Is an important leader in our nation said to one of his assistants, Put your
hand under my thigh, he would soon be in the news as a pervert, and be the center
of a scandal. There is no sexual connection at all with the words of Abraham to his
chief servant. We are dealing here with a custom, rite, or oath, which gives
assurance that the orders of the master will be carried out to the letter. Abraham
did not want circumstances to alter his goal, and so his servant had to swear to do
just what he sent him to do, and not let anything or anyone persuade him to waver
from his assignment. It was an oath he would make to God, and so it would involve
betrayal of God himself, and not just Abraham to defy his promise and disobey it.
He would be a traitor to his master and his Lord by double-crossing Abraham and
getting a wife from the Canaanites for his son. The whole point of this is to stress
just how serious Abraham is about the bride of Isaac coming from his relatives and
not from the local people. One author wrote, The privacy of the thigh made the
oath all the more solemn. Jacob made Joseph swear in the same way that he would
take his bones back to Canaan for burial (47:29). It is a practice akin to placing
one's hand on a Bible when one swears an oath.
2. Most agree that it is likely that this chief servant was Eliezer of Damascus, for
Abraham declared in 15:2 that he would be his heir. It says, And Abram said, ‘O
Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is
Eliezer of Damascus? He was the chief servant if he was going to inherit
everything, and so though it is not stated that this servant was Eliezer, it is a logical
assumption. And if it is true, it is all the more wonderful how effective he was in
bringing back just the kind of wife Abraham wanted for his son. This man who
might have inherited Abraham's fortune was doing all that was possible to
guarantee that he would never get it, by making sure that Isaac would, and that is
just what did happen. It can be assumed this man was greatly honored by Abraham
and Isaac and was rewarded with abundance. One author said, The devotion of
this servant to his master and to his master’s God is one of the highlights of the
chapter. His piety, prayer life, and practical wisdom set a high standard for the
believer in any age. Another adds, ...he is faithfully seeking the welfare of the one

149. who displaced him as Abraham's heir. Like John the Baptist, he is as much as
saying, let me decrease and let him increase. He stands out as one of the great
minor characters of the Old Testament.
3. Calvin was convinced that he was uncertain about the origin and meaning of this
strange request of Abraham, but he shares some of the speculations of others. He
wrote, It is sufficiently obvious that this was a solemn form of swearing; but
whether Abraham had first introduced it, or whether he had received it from his
fathers, is unknown. The greater part of Jewish writers declare that Abraham was
the author of it; because, in their opinion, this ceremony is of the same force as if his
servant had sworn by the sanctity of the divine covenant, since circumcision was in
that part of his person. But Christian writers conceive that the hand was placed
under the thigh in honor of the blessed seed. Yet it may be that these earliest fathers
had something
different in view; and there are those among the Jews who assert that it was a token
of subjection, when the servant was sworn on the thigh of his master. The more
plausible opinion is, that the ancients in this manner swore by Christ; but because I
do not willingly follow uncertain conjectures, I leave the question undecided.
3 I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that
you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among
whom I am living,
1. Abraham had a good relationship with the Canaanites among whom he lived
with, but he did not want his son to marry one of their daughters. They were idol
worshipers, and he knew the power of a woman to lead her husband into idolatry.
He assumed that he could die before his son found a wife, and so he had his servant
swear he would not take the easy route and find him a local bride. The Bible is clear
on the dangers. Deuteronomy 7:3-4: Do not intermarry with them. Do not give
your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn
your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord's anger will
burn against you and quickly destroy you.1 Kings 11:4: As Solomon grew old, his
wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the
Lord his God... And this was the wisest man who ever lived, save one. Young
people don't tell us that marrying an unbeliever will not have that effect on you
when it brought down even a man as wise as Solomon!
2. Abraham had no idea that he would live for another 35 years, for he was well
advanced in years the text says, and so he felt he could be near to the end of his life.
It was time to make sure that his son had a wife to carry on the family name and
begin the fulfillment of a great nation coming from his seed. He was like God the
Father who wanted to get a bride for his Son the Lord Jesus, and so he sent the Holy
Spirit into the world to persuade people to become that bride. Abraham sends his
most trusted servant back to the old world of his family to get a bride for his son
Isaac. The surprising thing is that he waited this long. He was to be the father of a
great nation, and yet he waits until his son is 40 before he seeks a mate for him. It

150. makes you wonder if Isaac was a slow learner and did not mature as fast as others.
The fact is that he is the least exciting of the patriarchs, and does no praiseworthy
deeds to speak of, and has the less space devoted to his life than any other. The way
Spurgeon writes of him would suggest he was too shy to try and get a wife for
himself. Spurgeon says, Isaac was now forty years old, and had shown no sign of
marrying. He was of a quiet, gentle spirit, and needed a more active spirit to urge
him on. The death of Sarah had deprived him of the solace of his life, which he had
found in his mother, and had, no doubt, made him desire tender companionship.
Who knows how long he would have remained single had not his father hired a
servant to go find him a mate?
3. One pastor used this passage to make a strong point to youth and their parents to
take serious the dangers of marrying someone who is not a believer. He wrote,
Think about what a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever means. One is
going to heaven the other is going to hell; one loves God the other hates him; one
loves his Word and law and seeks to live by them in all things, the other cares
nothing for such things. o wonder this should be such a sinister situation for
children growing up in the home, children who already have within them a tendency
to unbelief and disobedience that one of their own parents is enforcing in the most
powerful way possible -- as a parent in the home. It is one thing to fine oneself in
such a marriage, but to ask for it, to seek it, to choose it is an act of high treason to
the covenant of God. But, what it is also, is an act of betrayal of your children --
even your children yet to be born, and their children and their children's children.
This is no private sin. This is the most public sin imaginable. You are killing your
children and your descendants. By marrying a child of the Devil you are choosing
the Devil for your father-in-law and for your children's grandfather, when in the
covenant God has made you could have had and they could have had the God of
Abraham instead.
4. Dave Merck wonders about the aggressiveness of Abraham, and the passiveness
of Isaac in this whole issue of getting a wife. What he says on this matter suggests
that Abraham was eager to have a new wife himself, but he did not want to take that
step before he got his promised son married. Merck writes, When we take into
account the fact that the entire chapter of Gen. 24 has to do with obtaining a wife
for a single, 40-year old Isaac, and then read the chapter with the eyes of a 20th C.
American, we are caused to raise the question, Where is Isaac? We don't see him
doing anything, it appears, until the very end of the chapter when Rebekah is, as it
were, delivered at his doorstep by the servant of Abraham. And when we look back
at the beginning of chapter 24, who is it that we find taking the initiative in the
matter of finding a wife for Isaac? It was the relatively new widower, Daddy
Abraham.
Could it be that the recent loss of his beloved wife, Sarah, and the pain of his
renewed, and even more acutely felt singleness, had made Father Abraham more
sensitive than ever before to the problem of his son's continued singleness.
Immediately following chapter 24, in 25:1, we find the account of Abraham
marrying another wife, so this need was obviously one acutely felt by this very

151. elderly, approximately 140 year old patriarch. But notice, Abraham did not merely
stop with being sensitive to the problem and struggles of singleness for his son. He
took concrete steps to alleviate the problem. He sent off his most trusted servant to
obtain a wife for Isaac from a source where he had reason to believe he would find
the most sympathy and willingness to help -- his larger family.
5. Merck makes a very practical point of this story by motivating parents to help
singles find a mate. He writes, This is true in general regarding all of our children.
All parents should as much as possible and legitimate take a significant role in the
marriage of their children. This should be done in giving them counsel, usually in
giving (or not giving) permission to marry, and in other involvement in the marriage
arrangements. Parents especially should do what they can to bring their single,
marriageable children into contact with other singles whom they may legitimately
marry. This in a real, howbeit unusual, way was what Abraham was doing here
since there were no proper marriage prospects for Isaac where they lived.
Abraham established a patter for all Jewish fathers to come by this deed for his son.
Later on the rabbis said, When a man got to heaven, God would ask him four
questions to determine whether he had faithfully carried out his parental
responsibilities toward his son. The questions are: First, did you provide your son
with an inheritance? Second, did you teach him a skill? Third, did you teach him
the Torah? And finally, did you provide for him a wife? These were the four gifts
that every father was to grant his son.
4 but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac.
1. Abraham wanted him to make an oath that he would make a 500 mile trip to get a
wife from his own family back in Haran. This shows that there was true faith in the
true God among his relatives, even though there is also some idolatry mixed with
their faith. It was the only place on earth that Abraham knew of where a wife of
true faith could be found. Abraham calls it his country because Mesopotamia is
where he was born and raised, and where he found his wife Sarah. The family
moved out of Ur with him and settled in Haran. He lived there for a while himself,
and his brother and his growing family were still there and that is where he wanted
his son to find his bride. In our day we prefer to look for a mate outside the family
of relatives, but in the ancient world it was a preference to find a mate within the
circle of relatives. Spurgeon wrote, Therefore, with great anxiety, which is
indicated by his making his servant swear an oath of a most solemn kind, he gave
him the commission to go to the old family abode in Mesopotamia, and seek for
Isaac a bride from thence. Although that family was not all that could be desired,
yet it was the best he knew of; and as some heavenly light lingered there, he hoped
to find in that place the best wife for his son
2. Adrian Rogers preached a sermon called The Romance of Redemption in which
he sees the finding of a bride for Isaac a romantic story illustrating the work of the
Holy Spirit finding a bride for Jesus. He said to his congregation, ow, folks, I'm
going to say something reverently but it will startle you. Jesus Christ is incomplete

152. without his church. Jesus Christ is incomplete without his church. I am incomplete
without Joyce. Joyce fulfills me. Joyce completes me. It is not by happen-stance
that we call our husbands, our wives the other half or the better half. And uh, the
bible teaches that that uh, a, a wife or a husband is to complete their mate. ow, the
Lord Jesus Christ, I say it reverently, but I believe I say it scripturally, the Lord
Jesus Christ is not yet complete in this sense without his bride. I think we can all
agree that the story of salvation could never be complete without the picture we
have in the book of Revelation with the Bride and Jesus at the Marriage Supper of
the Lamb. The whole plan of redemption is really a romance story, and it is the love
story of all love stories, and like the best of them, it has a happy ending.
5 The servant asked him, What if the woman is unwilling to come back with me to
this land? Shall I then take your son back to the country you came from?
1. This servant has lived long enough to know that the best laid plans do not always
work out as expected, and so he wonders what he should do if plan A does not pan
out. His suggestion of plan B being to take Isaac back with him was not acceptable
to Abraham. He insisted that his son never be taken out of the Promised Land, for
there was a risk that he would not come back, but settle outside this special land.
Abraham was not willing to take this risk, and so he insisted that Isaac never be
taken to his homeland to find a wife.
2. It is hard to believe that a woman would not want to marry a man as rich as
Isaac, with an inheritance that would make him even richer. But to add to that he
was a promised child who would bear a son himself who would be the seed of the 12
tribes of Israel, and the history of these sons would lead to the Messiah who would
bless the whole world and give eternal life to multitudes. This woman could be the
mother of this great line that leads to eternal values beyond the dreams of any other
women. But the fact is, she may be unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to
leave her home and go to a land she does not know and to a man she does not know.
She would not grasp the full implications of her destiny, and so might choose to miss
the greatest opportunity of her life. It is always a possibility that people will turn
down the offers that God makes to them. Many do turn it down when they hear the
Gospel that offers forgiveness and eternal joy in heaven. They choose to stay put in
their lives that will end in death for the sake of just avoiding all change that they do
not understand.
6 Make sure that you do not take my son back there, Abraham said.
1. Isaac never left the Promised Land, because Abraham did everything necessary to
make sure he never had to. Those who make too big an issue out of the analogy of
Rebekah being the church and bride of Isaac, who is like Christ, often do not see
how the analogy breaks down here, for Christ did not stay in heaven, but came into
the world to seek his bride. Analogies that are not based on direct words of

153. Scripture, but are those made up by clever men, are often very weak in the details,
and this is a prime example. There are parallels, but there is also major weakness in
the analogy, and so it is not a God given analogy that is to be stated as what the
Scripture is actually teaching by this story. Isaac never left his home to go looking
for his bride, but Jesus did leave heaven to go, and not only look for his bride, but
die for her.
2. Abraham knew that if Isaac went to Mesopotamia, he would most likely have
never come back to the promised land, and his offspring would have undoubtedly
fallen under the influence of the heathenism in Mesopotamia. Abraham did not
want Isaac wandering from the Promised Land. Abraham surely remembered how
he himself stumbled every time he wandered away from the Promised Land toward
Egypt, into the world (see Gen. 12:10ff; Gen. 20).
7 The LORD, the God of heaven, who brought me out of my father's household
and my native land and who spoke to me and promised me on oath, saying, `To your
offspring [2] I will give this land'--he will send his angel before you so that you can
get a wife for my son from there.
1. Abraham was completely confident that the Lord God of heaven would guide him
to find a wife for his son. God promised him offspring, and this could not happen
without a wife, and so God had to guide him to a suitable wife in order to keep his
promise. How he knew about the role of the angel is not stated, but somehow God
had communicated that he would give angelic guidance, which we see was clearly
the case in the amazing details of how he found Rebekah.
8 If the woman is unwilling to come back with you, then you will be released from
this oath of mine. Only do not take my son back there.
1. Abraham is confident the angel will lead him to the right woman and that she will
come, but just in case she is unwilling, because God will not force her to obey his
leading, he releases his servant from any obligation to keep the oath. You do not
have to do what even the leading of God's angel cannot accomplish, but don't let
that lead you to take my son back there in a human attempt to succeed where the
angel fails. Basically, Abraham is saying, there is no back up plan, for I have
complete confidence that you will succeed by the help of God's angel, and if that
plan fails, there is no other plan. So don't worry about what if, for it has to work out
in the way God wills.
9 So the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and swore an
oath to him concerning this matter.
1. The servant was willing to make this solemn oath now that he knew he was not
responsible to bring back the right mate for Isaac if she chooses not to go along with
the leading of God's angel. He could not swear to bring her back in this way if she

154. refused to come, and so he needed the assurance that Abraham gave him that he
was not under obligation in a case where he had no control. ow that he knew he
was free to respect her right to say no, he was ready to enter into the agreement and
swear to bring back the girl God would lead him to find.
10 Then the servant took ten of his master's camels and left, taking with him all
kinds of good things from his master. He set out for Aram aharaim and made his
way to the town of ahor.
1. He had a ten camel caravan loaded with all kinds of gifts that were needed to
make sure there was cooperation on the part of the family he would have to bargain
with to get a mate to come back with him. Girls were not cheap, and parents would
expect a good size dowry to risk sending their daughter so far away.
2. Morgan writes, Large gifts were customary for betrothal negotiations of that
day, but a dowry of ten camels was exceptional. It speaks not only Abraham's great
wealth and generosity, but also of his commitment to finding the proper marriage
partner for his son. So this small convoy heads off to Haran (the city of ahor) in
northern Mesopotamia. The arduous journey of over four hundred and fifty miles is
hardly mentioned. Some say it was 500 miles away, and others 400, so he takes the
middle road and says 450. By camel this is a long trip any way you look at it.
11 He had the camels kneel down near the well outside the town; it was toward
evening, the time the women go out to draw water.
1. We do not know if this servant had ever gone out to find anybody a wife before
this, but he has the smarts to know that the best place to find an ideal girl for a mate
was at the well on the edge of town. And he also knew that the time to be there is
toward evening, for this is when the women come to the well for their daily supply of
water. In other words, you have to know where the fish are biting to be a good
fisherman, and you have to know where the girls are gathered to be a good mate
finder. He did not have to pray about these things, for they were a matter of
common sense, and it was just a logical place to go at a logical time. God does not
have to give us all the answers, for many things are obvious, and we are to do our
part and follow the way that any reasonable person would take. The success of this
mission called for the cooperation of human intelligence and divine guidance. He did
his part to get to the right place, and he has done what human reason can do. ow
he knows he cannot go another step without the guidance of God, and so he goes to
prayer.
2. Gill comments, Which these creatures are used to do when they are loaded and
unloaded, and also when they take rest, and it was for the sake of the latter they
were now made to kneel. It seems that this is what is not natural to them, but what
they are learned to do: it is said (r),as soon as a camel is born they tie his four feet
under his belly, put a carpet over his back, and stones upon the borders of it, that he

155. may not be able to rise for twenty days together; thus they teach him the habit of
bending his knees to rest himself, or when he is to be loaded or unloaded this was
done.
3. Gill also writes, Rauwolff (s) says, that near Haran, now called Orpha,there is
a plentiful well still to this day (1575), called Abraham's well, the water of which
hath a more whitish troubledness than others. I have (says he) drank of it several
times, out of the conduit that runs from thence into the middle the great camp, and
it hath a peculiar pleasantness, and a pleasant sweetness in its taste.''
12 Then he prayed, O LORD, God of my master Abraham, give me success today,
and show kindness to my master Abraham.
1. One author speculates on how a younger servant may have dealt with this task he
was assigned, and he writes, A younger servant would probably have gone about
this task in a very different manner. I can imagine him coming into town,
advertising the fact that he worked for a very wealthy foreigner with a handsome,
eligible son who was to be his only heir. His intention to find a bride would have
been publicized, and only one lucky girl was to be chosen. To select such a bride the
servant might have held a “Miss Mesopotamia” contest. Only those who were the
most beautiful and talented would be allowed to enter, and the winner would
become the wife of Isaac. How different was the methodology of this godly servant.
When his small caravan came to the “city of ahor,” he immediately sought the will
and guidance of God in prayer.
2. The task was almost impossible for any man to achieve, for trying to find a girl
willing to travel back to a land so far away, and so primitive compared to the city
life she was used to, was highly unlikely of success. This servant knew the odds were
against him, and that is why he did not depend on human reason and planning. He
knew he needed divine guidance, and so he went to prayer immediately. He did not
waste days in trying some man made scheme to find the right girls of God's choice.
He went directly to God and sought the guidance only he could give.
3. Here is prayer for the providential guidance of God, which is probably the prayer
that should be most common in the life of the believer. Asking God’s help to find
His best should be our daily prayer. Here we have an example of a marriage that
was made in heaven, and this mate was chosen by God. To make this a universal
rule is without biblical basis. Isaac was himself a special child chosen for the
bloodline to the Messiah. ot all children are so chosen, and so not all have God
selected mates anymore than God selects all to be the chosen line.
13 See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are
coming out to draw water.
1. He talks to God as one who is looking on his life and actions. He gives God a

156. picture of what is happening around him as the daughters come for their daily
water. This servant has an intimacy with God that makes God his constant
companion, and he keeps God informed about his every move. God honors the man
who maintains this kind of intimate relationship with him, for it means he really
believes God is present in all of life, and that he cares about helping his children
achieve success in those goals that are a part of his overall plan. He is looking to find
a daughter who will play a major role in keeping the line going to the Messiah, and
he knows God wants this as much as Abraham does, and so he keeps God informed
concerning every detail.
2. Here is a man of God in the right place at the right time, and yet it could be
misinterpreted as a negative thing if one did not know his mission. If you saw some
stranger standing by the town well eyeing all the girls coming for water you might
be suspicious of his motive and be anxious to see him move on. There would be no
way to know he was seeking the guidance of God
14 May it be that when I say to a girl, `Please let down your jar that I may have a
drink,' and she says, `Drink, and I'll water your camels too'--let her be the one you
have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown
kindness to my master.
1. This is really specific prayer requests, and seldom will anyone be able to repeat
anything quite as marvelous as this, for he asked that the future encounter with a
girl have specific acts and words be produced in her in response to his request. He
found the ideal mate for Isaac by means of prayer. It should be that prayer plays a
vital role in the finding of any believer's mate, but let us note also that even the
perfect mate can sometimes be a pain. Later in life Rebekah deceived her husband
and helped Jacob get the blessing he meant to give to Esau. The right woman can
still do a man wrong, but if she is convinced it is the will of God to go against her
husband, then she is to be forgiven, for God does. The servant knew that any girl
who would be willing to give his camels water was one who would go the second mile
in pleasing her man, and that is just the kind of woman Isaac needed.
2. Boice writes, How could the servant determine quickly which of the girls that
would soon be arriving would have the qualities necessary for Isaac? It would be
necessary for him to make the first approach toward conversation, and the obvious
thing would be for him to ask her for a drink of water from her pitcher. However,
almost any girl, out of common courtesy, would agree to such a request as that, so
that act alone would not be sufficient. If, however, she would then, on her own
initiative, offer to help in some further way, going a second mile as it were, this
would definitely be a good sign. Perhaps the most severe test would be whether she
was willing not only to give him some water, and perhaps even his attendants, but
also his ten camels. Surely, if she would do this, without grumbling, it would go far
toward proving that she was the kind of wife Abraham was seeking for his son.
Drawing enough water to satisfy the thirst of ten large and tired camels would be a
hard and wearisome task, to say the least. He couldn't really ask a girl to do such a

157. thing. evertheless, if she would do it voluntarily, it would be a strong indication
that she was the right one. [Boice, GEESIS Vol. 2 p. 719, 720]
3. The problem with making this a prayer that you try to make as your model for
guidance is that it leads to making your own plan and then asking God to bless it. It
makes you the planner, and God is the servant that fulfills your dream. It is very
close to the genie who comes out of the bottle and gives you three wishes that he will
fulfill for you. This is also very much like putting out the fleece like Gideon did, and
these types of prayers are for real, but they are also risky and counting on them can
be a road to disaster. Just because God worked in specific lives in an unusual way
does not mean that he has established a pattern by which he is going to work in
every life. To assume that you can choose which girl or boy you should marry by
praying, If this is your choice Lord, let them offer to buy me a diet coke instead of
a 7-up, you are being presumptuous, and risking making a very unwise choice
based on very insufficient information. This account shows the providence of God in
leading this servant to find the right girl for Isaac, but there is no promise given that
this is how God will lead all of his people to find a mate. Abraham was old and
could not make the trip, and he desperately needed God's special guidance for his
servant to succeed in this quest for the right girl. The servant did not have the time
to search the whole town and interview all available marriageable girls. He would
not know how to choose if he had the time or the know how to interview them.
Those circumstances do not happen in the lives of most people looking for a mate,
and so this is not a general pattern for the way God works.
4. Calvin wrote, But the method which he uses seems scarcely consistent
with the true rule of prayer. For, first, we know that no one prays
aright unless he subjects his own wishes to God. Wherefore there is
nothing more unsuitable than to prescribe anything, at our own will, to
God. Where, then, it may be asked, is the religion of the servant, who,
according to his own pleasure, imposes a law upon God? Secondly, there
ought to be nothing ambiguous in our prayers; and absolute certainty is
to be sought for only in the Word of God. ow, since the servant
prescribes to God what answer shall be given, he appears culpably to
depart from the suitable modesty of prayer; for although no promise had
been given him, he nevertheless desires to be made fully certain
respecting the whole affair. God, however, in hearkening to his wish,
proves, by the event, that it was acceptable to himself. Therefore we
must know, that although a special promise had not been made at the
moment, yet the servant was not praying rashly, nor according to the
lust of the flesh, but by the secret impulse of the Spirit.
5. Another author points out the close relationship this man had with God that is
revealed in his prayer life. He writes, We have three such prayers of this good man
in this narrative. The prayer he prayed at the well in v. 12 which he mentions again
in v. 42 -- he had arrived at the well and was committing the opportunity to God.
The prayer of thanksgiving and worship after Rebecca behaved as she did at the
well, mentioned in v. 26 and again in v. 48. And, finally, the prayer of v. 52, the

158. thanksgiving he gave to God in the presence of Rebecca's family, between their
granting approval to the marriage and his bringing out the gifts to seal the
agreement. God was so much a Presence to this good man, God's nearness so real
and so constantly a matter of his thought and reflection, that it was the most natural
thing for him to turn his concerns and needs, even those of the moment, over to the
Almighty, and to honor his God for every happy development even in front of
others. The living God was too near to him for him to imagine that God was not
always and in everything the one with whom he had to do and the knowledge of
God's nearness was such a pleasure to Abraham's servant that it was natural for
him to see his life in terms of this being with God, walking with God, and his
communion and conversation with a present and interested heavenly Father.
15 Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder.
She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milcah, who was the wife of Abraham's
brother ahor.
1. Here again we see the extremely unusual nature of God's involvement in the
answer to this prayer. The servant was not even done asking for guidance, and the
answer was there in front of him. He is still pleading for the right girl to appear, and
she has already appeared. This is one step up from instant, and it is pre-instant. It is
the response before the request is finished. Isa. 65:24 reveals God's sense of humor
in doing this sort of thing. It says, It shall come to pass that before they call, I will
answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. It would be like your little
boy kneeling beside his bed praying for that baseball glove he wants for Christmas,
and you hearing of it quickly grab the glove you bought and slipping it on the bed
before his face and watching as he finished his prayer and looks up. You delight
with him as he sees the very thing he longs for laying there even before he finished
his praying for it. He is thrilled and you are too, for your desire is to fulfill the
dream. That is what God is doing here, for he delights to meet the need of this
servant quickly.
2. Gill writes, a daughter of Bethuel, which Bethuel was the eighth and last son of
Milcah, and who was the daughter of Haran and the wife of ahor, both brothers to
Abraham: this is the genealogy of Rebekah, and for the sake of her is the account of
ahor's family given, Gen_22:20.
16 The girl was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever lain with her. She went
down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.
1. The beauty of Rebekah is stressed because that is a major factor in the
attractiveness of the sexes. It says she was very beautiful, and that means she was a
knockout. She had the kind of beauty that appealed to all men. There are many
different kinds of beauty, and some men find one woman beautiful that other men

159. do not see that way. There are women who have a beauty that all men agree is
beautiful, however, and that was the kind Rebekah had. When he brings her back
to Isaac he is going to want to see a girl who is attractive. The servant would be
failing to do his job if he did not find beauty in the girl he brought back. It was, of
course, a requirement that she had not lain with another man, for she was to be the
mother of the seed that would lead to the Messiah, and so not contaminated by any
outside influence.
17 The servant hurried to meet her and said, Please give me a little water from
your jar.
1. Rebekah was such an energetic girl doing her work so fast that he had to run to
catch up with her, or she could be off for home before he had a chance to see if she
might be the one. Sometimes we need to act fast or we lose the opportunity to do the
thing that leads to success. Had this servant not been alert and ready to run to meet
her, he could have missed the very one he came to find. Haste does not always mean
waste, and in some cases, as here, it means success. All he wanted was a sip of her
water, for he had already gotten his drink after his long journey, but he wanted to
test her willingness to share.
18 Drink, my lord, she said, and quickly lowered the jar to her hands and gave
him a drink.
1. ote, there is no hesitation, but she quickly lowers her jar to give him what he
requests. It is a key ingredient in this whole story that everything happens with
speed. God answers his prayer before he is even finished, and so God sets the pace.
This is followed by the servant hurrying to catch her, and then she being quick to
give him a drink. In verse 20 we see her quickly pouring her water into the trough
and then running back for more water. In verse 28 we see her making a dash for
home to share what has happened, and then in verse 29 Laban is rushing out to the
spring to meet this stranger. This whole story is in rapid motion for God is working
in top speed to get this mission accomplished. It is one of the paradox's of Scripture
that God sometimes works so slow that it drives us crazy, but at other times so fast
that it also drives us crazy. We hate to wait, and we also hate to be under stress in
having to move too fast, but one or the other are quite common when you are
seeking to do the will of God.
19 After she had given him a drink, she said, I'll draw water for your camels too,
until they have finished drinking.
1. Chuck Smith gives us a picture of what is happening here, with some details, as he
writes, And she said, Drink, my lord: And she hurried, and let down her pitcher
upon her hand, and she gave him a drink. And when she had done giving him a
drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they are through

160. drinking. And she hurried, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again
to the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. And the man wondering at
her held his peace (Gen 24:18-21), But don't you know his heart was pounding at
this point? Man, Lord, that's fast! She's so beautiful! As he watched her he thought,
Oh, could this possibly be it? And he just was holding his peace. He was wanting
to burst out, but he held back. And so, the next question, As the camels were
through drinking, he took a golden [it says] earring [literally, it's a nose ring] of a
half-shekel weight (Gen 24:22), ow, a half-shekel weight would be about a quarter
of an ounce. A shekel is about a half an ounce. So about a quarter-ounce little nose
ring and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold [or about five
ounces of gold]; And he said, whose daughter are you? (Gen 24:22-23) Question
number two. This is gonna be the clincher. Who's your father? Whose daughter are
you? I pray thee: let's see, is there room in your father's house for us to dwell? And
she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, which she bore to
ahor. And she said moreover unto him, we have both straw and food enough, and
room to lodge in. And the man bowed down his head, and he worshipped the LORD
(Gen 24:23-26). Man, hit it right off the bat. She's one of Abraham's relatives, and,
you know, can it be? I'm sure that his heart was just really filled with excitement
and anticipation. And he worshipped the Lord.
2. Michael S Piazza wrote, It would have been easy enough to have offered the
servant a sip of water and simply gone on about her business. He didn't ask her to
water his camels. He didn't offer to make it worth her while. He didn't threaten her
or cajole her. Rebekah offered to give more than was asked of her because of the
kind of person she was. She had gold in her soul and she wasn't satisfied letting it be
buried there. The generosity and passion with which she lived allowed the gold that
was within her to shine through. Thousands of years before Jesus taught about
going the second mile. Rebekah was already exemplifying a Christ-like spirit of
generosity. She was willing to do more than was required or reasonably expected.
That “more than” trait is so rare that it makes winners stand out in any area of life.
She gave 101%. Rebekah didn't water the camels because of what was in it for her,
but because of what was within her. She was a person who lived with generosity and
great passion.
3. Maclaren wrote, “ There was no miracle, no supernatural voice, no pillar of cloud
or fire, no hovering glory round the head of the village maiden. All the indications
were perfectly natural and trivial. A thousand girls had gone to the wells that day
all about Haran and done the very same things that Rebekah did. But the devout
man who had prayed for guidance, and was sure that he was getting it, was guided
by her most simple, commonplace act; and that is how we are usually to be guided.
God leaves a great deal to our common sense. His way of speaking to common sense
is by very common things. If any of us fancy that some glow at the heart, some
sudden flash as of inspiration, is the test of a divine commandment, we have yet to
learn the full meaning of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. For that Incarnation,
amongst all its other mighty influences, hallowed the commonest things of life and
turned them into ministers of God’s purposes. So remember, God’s guidance may
come to you through so insignificant a girl as Rebekah. It may come to you through

161. as commonplace an incident as tipping the water of a spring out of an earthen pot
into a stone trough. onetheless is it God’s guidance; and what we want is the eye to
see it. He will guide us by very common indications of His providence.
20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough, ran back to the well to draw
more water, and drew enough for all his camels.
1. There are all kinds of conjectures about just how many gallons of water this took,
and how much energy it took to get the job done. All we know is, she was willing to
do a major task to express loving kindness to a stranger. It was above and beyond
what anyone could expect, and that is what made her stand out as an obvious choice
of God for Isaac. He needed a strong woman, for he appears not to be very strong
himself. She had to bring enough water to quench the thirst of ten camels, and that
would take a good number of trips.
2. We need to keep in mind that this servant had other men with him also, and they
appear not to lift a hand to help this young girl in doing this hard labor on their
behalf. It is not a pleasant picture of the males involved. They stand by and watch
this beautiful young girl haul jar after jar to water their camels and do not
volunteer to help. This was female work and they were not going to embarrass
themselves by giving her a hand. otice, she ran back to the well, and as she was
running back and forth to get enough water for all 10 camels they sat and watched.
Even this godly servant of Abraham did not step in and carry at least one jar, and
so we see the sexism of the day where men would not do what it was a woman's
place to do. There is still a lot of this that goes on in the world today.
21 Without saying a word, the man watched her closely to learn whether or not the
LORD had made his journey successful.
1. Clarke wrote, The man, wondering at her, and he was so lost in wonder and
astonishment at her simplicity, innocence, and benevolence, that he permitted this
delicate female to draw water for ten camels, without ever attempting to afford her
any kind of assistance! I know not which to admire most, the benevolence and
condescension of Rebekah, or the cold and apparently stupid indifference of the
servant of Abraham. Surely they are both of an uncommon cast.
2. Calvin does not excuse his laziness and indifference to her hard labor, but he does
give him a break for his wavering faith here. He wrote, And the man, wondering at
her, held his peace. This wondering of Abraham's servant, shows that he had some
doubt in his mind. He is silently inquiring within himself, whether God would
render his journey prosperous. Has he, then, no confidence concerning that divine
direction, of which he had received the sign or pledge? I answer, that
faith is never so absolutely perfect in the saints as to prevent the
occurrence of many doubts. There is, therefore, no absurdity in

162. supposing that the servant of Abraham, though committing himself
generally to the providence of God, yet wavers, and is agitated, amidst
a multiplicity of conflicting thoughts. Again, faith, although it
pacifies and calms the minds of the pious, so that they patiently wait
for God, still does not exonerate them from all care; because it is
necessary that patience itself should be exercised, by anxious
expectation, until the Lord fulfill what he has promised. But though
this hesitation of Abraham's servant was not free from fault, inasmuch
as it flowed from infirmity of faith; it is vet, on this account,
excusable, because he did not turn his eyes in another direction, but
only sought from the event a confirmation of his faith, that he might
perceive God to be present with him.
22 When the camels had finished drinking, the man took out a gold nose ring
weighing a beka [4] and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels. [5]
1. This is the first and most mentioned ring in the Bible. In verse 30 it was this nose
ring that caught Laban's attention, and in verse 47 the servant says he put the ring
in her nose. This does sound improper for a stranger to do to a young girl, even if
there were other people all around the well, but it does not seem out of place to
Moses as he tells of it. The ring was a common piece of jewelry for both men and
women. Joseph had a ring fit for a king. Gen. 41:42 says, Then Pharaoh took his
signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in robes of
fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. Expensive jewelry was a sign of
royalty, or of high society, just as it is today. It was an honor to wear the ring of the
king, and it was the highest reward that could be bestowed. Esther 8:2 says, The
king took off his signet ring, which he had reclaimed from Haman, and presented it
to Mordecai. And Esther appointed him over Haman's estate.
2. The ring was also a means of encouragment as we read in Job 42:11. All his
brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with
him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD
had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver [ Hebrew him a
kesitah ; a kesitah was a unit of money of unknown weight and value. ] and a gold
ring. We see it again in the story of the Prodigal's return in Luke 15:22, But the
father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring
on his finger and sandals on his feet. But a problem arises when the gold ring leads
people to discriminate and treat the man with such a ring in a way that he does not
treat the ring less man. This was the problem James deals with in James 2:2
following when he writes, Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold
ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in.
3. It is the reality of abuse that leads to this text becoming an issue of controversy.
Up to this point the servant of Abraham seems to be without flaw, but now that he
draws out of his pocket a gold nose ring he sinks in the estimation of those who are
opposed to female jewelry. Calvin expresses the deep concern of those with this

163. hang-up as he writes, The man took a golden earring. His adorning the damsel
with precious ornaments is a token of his confidence. For since it is evident by many
proofs that he was an honest and careful servant, he would not throw away without
discretion the treasures of his master. He knows, therefore, that these gifts will not
be ill bestowed; or, at least, relying on the goodness of God, he gives them, in faith,
as an earnest of future marriage. But it may be asked, Whether God approves
ornaments of this kind, which pertain not so much to neatness as to pomp? I
answer, that the things related in Scripture are not always proper to be imitated.
Whatever the Lord commands in general terms is to be accounted as an inflexible
rule of conduct; but to rely on particular examples is not only dangerous, but even
foolish and absurd.
ow we know how highly displeasing to God is not only pomp and ambition in
adorning the body, but all kind of luxury. In order to free the heart from inward
cupidity, he condemns that immoderate and superfluous splendor, which contains
within itself many allurements to vice. Where, indeed, is pure sincerity
of heart found under splendid ornaments? Certainly all acknowledge this
virtue to be rare. It is not, however, for us expressly to forbid every
kind of ornament; yet because whatever exceeds the frugal use of such
things is tarnished with some degree of vanity; and more especially,
because the cupidity of women is, on this point, insatiable; not only
must moderation, but even abstinence, be cultivated as far as possible.
Further, ambition silently creeps in, so that the somewhat excessive
adorning of the person soon breaks out into disorder. With respect to
the earrings and bracelets of Rebekah, as I do not doubt that they were
those in use among the rich, so the uprightness of the age allowed them
to be sparingly and frugally used; and yet I do not excuse the fault.
This example, however, neither helps us, nor alleviates our guilt, if,
by such means, we excite and continually inflame those depraved lusts
which, even when all incentives are removed, it is excessively difficult
to restrain. The women who desire to shine in gold, seek in Rebekah a
pretext for their corruption. Why, therefore, do they not, in like
manner, conform to the same austere kind of life and rustic labour to
which she applied herself? But, as I have just said, they are deceived
who imagine that the examples of the saints can sanction them in
opposition to the common law of God. Should any one object that it is
abhorrent to the modesty of a virtuous and chaste maiden to receive
earrings and bracelets from a man who was a stranger, and whom she had
never before seen. In the first place, it may be, that Moses passes over
much conversation held on both sides, by which it is probable she was
induced to venture on the reception of them. It may also be, that he
relates first what was last in order. For it follows soon afterwards in
the context, that the servant of Abraham inquired whose daughter she
was. We must also take into account the simplicity of that age. Whence
does it arise that it was not disreputable for a maid to go alone out of
the city, unless that then the morals of mankind did not require so
severe a guard for the preservation of modesty? Indeed, it appears from

164. the context, that the ornaments were not given her for a dishonourable
purpose; but a portions is offered to the parents to facilitate the
contract for marriage. Interpreters are not agreed respecting the value
of the presents. Moses estimates the earrings at half a shekel, and the
bracelets at ten shekels. Jerome, instead of half a shekel, reads two
shekels. I conceive the genuine sense to be, that the bracelets were
worth ten shekels, and the frontal ornament or earrings worth half that
sum, or five shekels. For since nothing is added after the word bekah,
it has reference to the greater number. Otherwise here is no suitable
proportion between the bracelets and the ornaments for the head.
Moreover, if we take the shekel for four Attic drachms, the value is
trifling; therefore I think the weight of gold is indicated, which makes
the sum much greater than the piece of money called a shekel.
4. There is no escaping the facts of God's Word that God is not opposed to the
beauty of jewelry even though it can be abused. The misuse of something is not to
eliminate the proper use of it. In the following quote from Ezek. 16 we can read on
beyond this quote and see that Israel did go on to abuse the jewelry God gave her,
and she suffered judgment because of it, but the fact remains, God blest her with
this jewely, and it was a precious thing in his sight or he never would have done it.
Jewelry is not in itself a problem with God, but only the abuse of it. Ezek. 16:9-14 is
all the proof anyone needs who believes in God's own words. It says, I bathed you
with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. 10 I clothed
you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine
linen and covered you with costly garments. 11 I adorned you with jewelry: I put
bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, 12 and I put a ring on
your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. 13 So you
were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric
and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became
very beautiful and rose to be a queen. 14 And your fame spread among the nations
on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty
perfect, declares the Sovereign LORD.
5. There is a great deal to study if you really want to get into the subject of jewelry
in the Bible. Clarke gives some guidelines as to the various kinds and places to read
of them. He writes, In different parts of the sacred writings there are allusions to
ornaments of various kinds still in use in different Asiatic countries. They are of
seven different sorts. 1. for the forehead; 2. for the nose; 3. for the ears; 4. for the
arms; 5. for the fingers; 6. for the neck and breast; 7. for the ankles. See ver. 22, 47;
also Ezek. xvi. 12; Prov. xi. 22; Isa. iii. 21; chap. xxxv. 4; Exod. xxxii. 2, 3; Job xlii.
11; Judg. viii. 24. The principal female ornaments are enumerated in the third
chapter of Isaiah, which are very nearly the same that are in use in Persia and India
to the present time.
23 Then he asked, Whose daughter are you? Please tell me, is there room in your
father's house for us to spend the night?

165. 1. By these questions he would be able to know quickly if she was the one, for he
would learn of her family and if she was from that of Abraham's relatives. He would
also know by the size of the house if it was a prosperous family, and this would also
be a clue as to the likelihood of her being the proper mate for Isaac.
24 She answered him, I am the daughter of Bethuel, the son that Milcah bore to
ahor.
1. Gill comments, Which Milcah was the daughter of Haran, Abraham's elder
brother, and, as thought by many, sister to Sarah, Abraham's wife, see Gen_11:29,
which she bare unto ahor; Abraham's brother; so that her father was ahor's son,
not by his concubine Reumah, but by his lawful wife Milcah, which sets Rebekah's
descent in a true light, see Gen_22:20; whether she told her own name is not certain,
it may be, since the servant bade it, Gen_24:45.
25 And she added, We have plenty of straw and fodder, as well as room for you to
spend the night.
1. She answered both questions to his delight, for he heard just what he wanted to
hear. She was from the right family and was a girl used to the better things of life,
which was the kind of girl Isaac needed.
26 Then the man bowed down and worshiped the LORD,
1. To worship, to praise, and to give thanks to God for his guidance are all much the
same, for they are all acknowledging God as the author of all your blessings.
2. He had experienced the fulfillment of two precious promises in the Old and ew
Testaments. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own
understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
(Prov. 3:5-6, KJV) Again, hear this word of James in the ew Testament, If any of
you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth
not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5, KJV).
27 saying, Praise be to the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who has not
abandoned his kindness and faithfulness to my master. As for me, the LORD has led
me on the journey to the house of my master's relatives.
1. He is overwhelmed with joy and gratitude for this marvelous demonstration of
the providence of God leading him in a way that was just short of a miracle. God
had led him right to the house of Abraham's relatives. It was like the star of

166. Bethlehem that led the wise men right to the house where the child Jesus was with
Mary and Joseph. This is very specific diving guidance where there is no doubt that
God is directly involved. This leads me to disagree with those who say all that
happens is God's directing the steps of all people. If this was the case then this
wondrous leading of God is no different than that of all of us in our everyday
journey in life. For something to be spectacular, as this providence in leading him to
the very girl and family he needed to find, then other events need to be less
providential and open to human folly and mistakes. There is no point in praying,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, if in fact, all that happens is God's
will. This servant had the right spirit and the right commitment to find God's
choice, and the result is, he had the special providence of God working for him.
Once you say everything that happens is the will of God, you take away the wonder
of this special working of God in this servant’s life. It is special because it does not
happen all the time.
2. Maclaren could not write of this story what he did, if it was just commonplace
and routine in life. He wrote, There is no more beautiful page, even amongst the
many lovely ones in these ancient stories, than this domestic idyll of the mission of
the faithful servant from far Canaan across the desert. The homely test by which he
would determine that the maiden should be pointed out to him, the glimpse of old-world
ways at the well, the gracious courtesy of the fair damsel, and the simple
devoutness of the speaker, who recognizes in what to others were trivial
commonplaces God’s guidance to the end which He had appointed, his recognition
of the divine hand moving beneath all the nothings and littlenesses of daily life—
may teach us much.
28 The girl ran and told her mother's household about these things.
1. Clearly she was an energetic young woman, for after her running back and forth
to give water to the whole caravan she is again running home to tell her family
about what has happened.
2. Clarke writes, Her mother's house] Some have conjectured from this that her
father Bethuel was dead; and the person called Bethuel, ver. 50, was a younger
brother. This is possible, but the mother's house might be mentioned were even the
father alive; for in Asiatic countries the women have apartments entirely separate
from those of the men, in which their little children and grown-up daughters reside
with them. This was probably the case here, though it is very likely that Bethuel was
dead, as the whole business appears to be conducted by Rebekah's brothers.
29 ow Rebekah had a brother named Laban, and he hurried out to the man at
the spring.
1. This brother of Rebekah named Laban plays a major role in the life of Jacob
later on, but we see a hint of his material mindedness here in the way he looks on the

167. gifts of this stranger to his sister. Wikipedia gives us a brief look at his future role.
Laban first appears in the story in Genesis 24:29-60, where he is impressed by the
gold jewelry given to his sister on behalf of Isaac, and plays a key part in arranging
their marriage. Much later, Laban promises his younger daughter Rachel to Jacob
(Rebekah's son) in return for seven years' service, only to trick him into marrying
his elder daughter Leah instead. Jacob then serves another seven years in exchange
for the right to also marry his choice, Rachel, see Genesis 29. Laban's flocks and
fortunes increase under Jacob's skilled care, but there is much further trickery
between them. Six years after his promised service has ended, Jacob, having
prospered largely by proving more cunning than his father-in-law, finally leaves.
Laban pursues him, but they eventually part on good terms, see Genesis 31.
30 As soon as he had seen the nose ring, and the bracelets on his sister's arms, and
had heard Rebekah tell what the man said to her, he went out to the man and found
him standing by the camels near the spring.
1. Laban has a nose for making a profit, and when he saw the nose ring he smelled a
potential for cash in his pocket. He was not going to wait for the man to come to
him, but he hurried out to the man. He did not want to let him get away, for he
appeared to be willing to pay for anything he received.
2. Scott Hoezee writes, Her father, Bethuel and brother Laban take one look at the
small fortune in gold the girl is wearing and suddenly become very interested in this
stranger at the spring! Commentators note that it is quite probable that this family
had not heard of the God Yahweh. Abraham, after all, had been gone for decades
with no known contact with his extended family. But no sooner does the family see
the trinkets with which Rebekah has been showered and they get very religious very
quickly! Verse 30 says that the first thing Laban noticed was all the gold--his eyes
sparkled at the wealth of it all. Rebekah then mentions what the stranger had said,
including his song of praise to some God named Yahweh. Laban then replies,
Yahweh, did you say? Well, then, praise Yahweh! Invite this fellow into the
house! After all, when opportunity knocks, you open the door!
31 Come, you who are blessed by the LORD, he said. Why are you standing
out here? I have prepared the house and a place for the camels.
1. Laban gives this stranger the royal treatment by complimenting him as blest of
the Lord, and then urging him to come to his house, which he has prepared for him
and his camels. He had just run out of the house, and so you know he did not do a
thing to prepare the house for guests. The women were back there hurrying up the
house cleaning to get ready for him, but he takes the credit, as many men do for the
hard work their wives do in preparing for guests.
32 So the man went to the house, and the camels were unloaded. Straw and fodder

168. were brought for the camels, and water for him and his men to wash their feet.
1. This was a major effort to get all prepared, for he had ten camels that needed to
be unloaded and then fed. The number of men with him is not noted, but it was
several and they had to be washed up to join the family for a meal. It was indeed a
great act of hospitality to take on this labor for strangers.
33 Then food was set before him, but he said, I will not eat until I have told you
what I have to say. Then tell us, [Laban] said.
1. The response of the family is interesting, for not the father, but the brother,
speaks first. We may conclude then, that Laban has the stronger position and a
definite function in the family equal to that of the father. Afterward, it was Laban
and the girl’s mother who received gifts. The uzu tablets throw light on the
arrangement. What is seen in Rebekah’s household is a fratriarchy or the exercise
of family authority in Hurrian society by which one son has jurisdiction over his
brothers and sisters. So Laban with his mother decides to put the matter of prompt
departure up to Rebekah (v. 58). This independence of action is also reflected in the
uzu documents concerning the wife of one Hurazzi who said, ‘With my consent my
brother Akkuleni gave me as wife to Hurazzi.’ This parallels the biblical incident as
to circumstances of the question to the bride, the decision by Laban to ask her, and
her answer. (Stigers, Genesis, p. 201.)
2. Clarke wrote, I will not eat until I have told] In Hindoostan it is not unusual for
a Brahmin to enter a house and sit down, and when meat is offered, refuse to eat till
he has obtained the object of his errand. Here is a servant who had his master's
interest more at heart than his own. He refuses to take even necessary refreshment
till he knows whether he is likely to accomplish the object of his journey. Did not
our blessed Lord allude to the conduct of Abraham's servant, John iv. x24: My meat
is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work?
34 So he said, I am Abraham's servant.
1. ow for a rerun of all we have already read and commented on. This is not
necessary for us, but it was for that family that had no idea of what the history was
that brought this man into their lives and home. They needed to know all of these
facts and details in order to make a decision about their daughter going with this
man.
2. The only author I found dealing with the why of all this repetition was Scott
Hoezee, and I quote a large portion of his message, for he gives us a better
understanding of why this repetition is here. He writes, This evening for the sake
of time, I skipped over the shank of Genesis 24, partly because once Abraham's
servant settles down for dinner with Rebekah's family, he thoroughly recounts the
exact same story we read in the first 27 verses of this chapter. In fact, large portions

169. of the servant's speech are nearly word-for-word repetitions of what we already
read. The narrative pace here is leisurely. In fact, this is the single longest narrative
in the Book of Genesis. Why do you think that is?
Surely this is not the most important story in the book, so that cannot explain the
amount of space devoted to it. So why this protracted attention to so many details?
Maybe because God himself is in the details. Unlike other narratives earlier in
Genesis, God nowhere speaks in Genesis 24. The servant does not receive a heavenly
vision, is not told by God where to go. Likewise God's Spirit does not tip off Bethuel,
Laban, and Rebekah by telling them to be on the lookout for a certain stranger who
will soon be coming their way. As Walter Brueggemann notes, with the exception of
the servant's brief prayer in verses 12-15, this story is secular in the sense of being
the report of some very ordinary-sounding events. God is not reported as saying or
doing anything in particular, and yet throughout this chapter you have the feeling
that God is directing everything.
In retrospect the servant can see how this has all come together just so. Even before
he prayed his prayer at the spring, God had already brought him to just the right
place. Maybe that's why he takes the time so lovingly and thoughtfully to recount
every last detail to Rebekah's family over dinner. Maybe that is why the author of
Genesis likewise takes care to write it all out again. After all, would you have batted
an eye or sensed that something was missing from Genesis 24 if in verse 34, instead
of recounting the whole long story all over again, the text had said, And so the
servant then told Bethuel and Laban the story of his journey.
It could have been left at that, right? As a reader, you don't need to review the
whole thing. You might even get impatient. Suppose you are reading a novel some
evening in which chapter 3 is the story of the main character's trip to Chicago one
weekend. You read about what hotel he stayed at, where he went out for dinner, the
stores he shopped at, and the particular display he saw at the Chicago Art Institute.
It might all be very interesting, but what would you think if you then went on to
chapter 4 only to find that this chapter was about how this same character came
back home to Grand Rapids and then told his roommate about the whole weekend,
once again repeating every last hotel, museum, and restaurant detail you had just
read in the previous chapter? You might get rather frustrated with this book. Why
doesn't this author just get on with it? you might say to yourself.
But the author of Genesis is making a vital point: even ordinary-sounding stories
such as the one the servant so carefully re-tells can be, and often are, full of God.
But if we rarefy this story, make it about just what happens when someone
important like Isaac is taking center stage, then we may miss that. This is about us,
too. Because listen: if you want to be a spiritual person, then that spirituality is
going to be active not just on those rare mountaintop moments of life but in and
through the very mundane details of your day-to-day life. A while back I mentioned
the line from St. Teresa of Avila who once noted Christ dwells among the pots and
pans. It was Teresa's way of saying that if we don't bump into Jesus in the run of a
typical day, we maybe won't run into him much at all.
Thomas Merton once tried to make a similar point when he observed that a spiritual

170. life is first and foremost just a life. If you want to be a holy or spiritual person, you
need to be a person first, and what's more you need to be the very specific person
God already created you to be. The spiritual part of being a Christian is not way
out there somewhere beyond the horizon waiting for you to arrive. It's here, it's
now.
I once heard a pastor say that once upon a time she lamented all of the
distractions that would come to her in the course of the average week. She was
trying to write sermons, prepare catechism lessons, and do other obviously
spiritual work but the phone kept ringing with people who had a question or a
comment on this or that. Someone was at the door, emails cried out to be answered,
and so forth and so on. But then one day she realized: these so-called distractions
were themselves a big part of ministry. If she couldn't be spiritual in and through
those times, then when would she be spiritual?
35 The LORD has blessed my master abundantly, and he has become wealthy. He
has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, menservants and maidservants, and
camels and donkeys.
1. Someone wrote, Having found the woman who should be Isaac’s wife, the
servant now had to convince the family that Abraham’s son Isaac was the right man
for Rebekah. The fact that Rebekah would need to move far away was an obstacle,
which must be overcome by strong argumentation. This delicate task was skillfully
handled by the servant. The urgency of his mission was indicated by his refusal to
eat until the purpose of his journey was explained.
First, the servant identified himself as a representative of Abraham, Bethuel’s uncle
(verse 34). This would have set aside many objections of these relatives, who were
concerned to protect the purity of Rebekah’s descendants. Then the success of
Abraham was reported. Abraham had not been foolish to leave Haran, for God had
prospered him greatly. By inference, this testified to Isaac’s ability to provide
abundantly for the needs of Rebekah, who was not living on a poverty level herself
(cf. verses 59, 61). Isaac was said to be the sole heir of Abraham’s wealth (verse
36).
36 My master's wife Sarah has borne him a son in her old age, and he has given
him everything he owns.
1. You can bet on it that Laban was wide-awake now. His sister could be married to
a man who will inherit a fortune. He just loved that bit of information, for he loved
wealth and would love to have wealthy relatives. This Isaac guy is looking pretty
good at this point. Any father or brother, however, would be happy to know that his
daughter or sister was going to marry a man with solid financial security, and so we
cannot be too hard on Laban, for it is a legitimate concern. obody wants his little
girl to marry into poverty. The servant does seem to be making it more enticing by
mentioning the old age factor, as if to say, it may not be long before Isaac has the
whole fortune in his own possession. Any woman who has a chance should jump at

171. getting a man like this as her husband.
37 And my master made me swear an oath, and said, `You must not get a wife for
my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I live,
1. This whole section where the servant tells the family what his mission was in the
name of Abraham is repetition, and so there is little to say that has not already been
said.
38 but go to my father's family and to my own clan, and get a wife for my son.'
1. Here is a strong compliment to the family, for he is saying we had no one at home
to be worthy of being Isaac's wife, but you folks are just the kind of people that can
provide a fit mate for him.
39 Then I asked my master, `What if the woman will not come back with me?'
40 He replied, `The LORD, before whom I have walked, will send his angel with
you and make your journey a success, so that you can get a wife for my son from my
own clan and from my father's family.
41 Then, when you go to my clan, you will be released from my oath even if they
refuse to give her to you--you will be released from my oath.'
42 When I came to the spring today, I said, `O LORD, God of my master
Abraham, if you will, please grant success to the journey on which I have come.
43 See, I am standing beside this spring; if a maiden comes out to draw water and I
say to her, Please let me drink a little water from your jar,
44 and if she says to me, Drink, and I'll draw water for your camels too, let her
be the one the LORD has chosen for my master's son.'

172. 45 Before I finished praying in my heart, Rebekah came out, with her jar on her
shoulder. She went down to the spring and drew water, and I said to her, `Please
give me a drink.'
1. Clarke writes, Before I had done speaking in mine heart] So we find that the
whole of this prayer, so circumstantially related Genesis xxiv. 12-14, and again ver.
42-44, was mental, and heard only by that God to whom it was directed. It would
have been improper to have used public prayer on the occasion, as his servants
could have felt no particular interest in the accomplishment of his petitions, because
they were not concerned in them, having none of the responsibility of this mission.
2. Chuck Smith writes, ow here to me is an interesting thing, and that is that God
hears the prayers of our heart. It isn't necessary that prayers be verbalized. So often
we think we haven't prayed if we haven't spoken out. But God knows the prayers of
your heart. The servant wasn't out there with hands raised saying ow Lord, God
of my father, Abraham, you know. Had he been doing that, then all of the girls
around there thinking oh, you know, look at the loot, you know, and everything
else. And they'd all be running to get water..... Jesus said go in your closet, shut the
door, your father that sees in secret will reward you openly. And prayer doesn't
have to be uttered.
46 She quickly lowered her jar from her shoulder and said, `Drink, and I'll water
your camels too.' So I drank, and she watered the camels also.
1. An unknown author wrote, One source I looked at said a camel can go three
days without water with little difficulty, and that it will drink 5 to 7 gallons of water
per day if available. If we assume that these camels had for some time been without
water, we probably can assume that they drank at least 3 gallons each at one time
here. That would be 30 gallons of water weighing 10gal. or a total of 300. If you have
ever carried a 5-gallon bucket of water, you know that Rebekah surely was not
carrying that much in a heavy earthen vessel on her shoulder. Most likely her water
jar held 2 or 3 gallons. Thus she would have had to make ten to fifteen trips in order
to satisfy these ten thirsty camels. Furthermore, verse 16 indicates that she had to go
down to the spring to fill her jar -- language which may mean that she descended
steps into a large hole to reach the water of the spring and then had to carry that
water up out of the hole. In fact, such springs with steps leading down to them have
been found in the Middle East. All in all, Rebekah here was asking for a lot of work.
And notice how she did it according to verse 20. She quickly emptied her jar into
the trough, and ran back to the well to draw . . . In this she fully fulfilled the sign
which Abraham's servant had asked of the Lord, and even went beyond it.
2. Leupold observes: “The condition imposed is unusually apt. Readiness to serve
embodies a number of other virtues: cheerfulness, courtesy, unselfishness, and
readiness to work. The amount of service required in this case would demand the
prerequisite of good health and strength. For camels are notorious for their capacity
to absorb water. The servant's stipulation was not for an ordinary favor easily

173. bestowed. The girl measuring up to this requirement would certainly be very
distinctly marked from all others by virtue of this accomplishment.
3. Matthew Henry writes He desires that his master's wife might be a humble and
industrious woman, bred up to care and labor, and willing to put her hand to any
work that was to be done; and that she might be of a courteous disposition, and
charitable to strangers. When he came to seek a wife for his master, he did not go to
the playhouse or the park, and pray that he might meet one there, but to the well of
water, expecting to find one there well employed. It is clear that the goal was to
find a woman who could work hard and enjoy it as a service, for such a wife would
be of great benefit to any man.
47 I asked her, `Whose daughter are you?' She said, `The daughter of Bethuel
son of ahor, whom Milcah bore to him.' Then I put the ring in her nose and the
bracelets on her arms,
1. Young people will not want to read this verse, for it destroys their idea that a ring
in the nose is some kind of new fad invented by those who want to see the older
generation squirm with frustration at the crazy practices of the younger generation.
It was apparently an accepted custom to wear a nose ring thousands of years ago.
The bracelets on the arm are probably standard in every age and culture, for where
else can you wear a bracelet? But rings can go other places than the nose, and so you
wonder why anyone would ever come up with the idea. I am sure this servant of
Abraham was not the inverter of the idea, for it would be an offense to impose a new
custom like this if it was not already a common practice among young women.
48 and I bowed down and worshiped the LORD. I praised the LORD, the God of
my master Abraham, who had led me on the right road to get the granddaughter of
my master's brother for his son.
1. This servant knew that he had been directed by the providence of God to find the
one person that fit all that he desired for Isaac's bride. The chances of this
happening by chance are highly unlikely, and that is why he is praising God with all
his heard, for he knows this could not be happening without the clear guidance of
God. Good luck is what we call it in the secular language, but when we see it as the
direct leading of God, we call it providence. Providence differs from miracle in that
all is worked out by natural and normal means. othing has to happen that is
supernatural. It is just the right timing of persons and events coming together to
achieve a purpose that is prayed for by one seeking to do the will of God.
49 ow if you will show kindness and faithfulness to my master, tell me; and if not,
tell me, so I may know which way to turn.

174. 1. He wanted to know if they would be a blessing to Abraham in the light of all he
just told them, or if they would say no. He had to have an answer to know what his
next step should be. It seemed clear that Rebekah was God's choice, but he could
not force them to give her up. She was such an energetic worker that it would be a
loss for that home, and someone else would have to go get the water every day.
50 Laban and Bethuel answered, This is from the LORD; we can say nothing to
you one way or the other.
1. They were stunned by the amazing providence of God, and they knew God was in
this, but they could not say one way or the other about what choice Rebekah might
make, for it was hers to make and not their's. It is clear that God wants it, but she
still has to make the decision to go.
51 Here is Rebekah; take her and go, and let her become the wife of your master's
son, as the LORD has directed.
1. They recognized the hand of God in the events he just told them, and they
consented to have Rebekah go and be the wife of Isaac.
52 When Abraham's servant heard what they said, he bowed down to the ground
before the LORD.
1. This servant spent a lot of time on the ground because he was always being
overwhelmed with thankfulness because of how God was using him to achieve the
goal of Abraham. He is celebrating the benefits of being guided step by step, and he
cannot help but worship the God who is granting him such perfect success.
53 Then the servant brought out gold and silver jewelry and articles of clothing
and gave them to Rebekah; he also gave costly gifts to her brother and to her
mother.
1. ow we are talking in a language that everyone can understand, for it is the
language of costly gifts. Who does not love getting costly gifts? It is Christmas and
birthday party all in one here as the servant begins to unpack his pack like an
ancient Santa. The whole family would stare in wide-eyed wonder at all the riches
he was pulling out before them. This is not a common event in the life of anyone
where a stranger comes into town and finds his way to your house and begins to
shower you with wealth beyond your wildest dreams. It was like the lottery, or the
sweepstakes in our day. You can just imagine the joy that was welling up within the
hearts of this family as they viewed with awe the abundance of the gifts.

175. 2. Can't you just imagine how clever Abraham would be in packing up all these
gifts? He would put in one of the most elaborate and ornate wedding dresses any
young girl ever saw in her life. How must she and mom and brother felt when the
servant pulled up that one of a kind dress? They could just imagine their daughter,
or sister looking like the bride of the century in that gown. It would play a role in
their decision to send her so far away to marry a man she never met. The Bible is
realistic in that it recognizes that people have a need to benefit by relationships.
Why should this family send off a lovely daughter and sister to marry some
unknown guy 500 miles away, and why should she even give it a second thought?
Reward is a motivating factor. If we are going to come out way ahead in our
financial status by cooperation with this stranger, why not? It seemed like a logical
move to marry within the family, and there is so much to gain by it that it seems
foolish to turn down the opportunity. The point is, people do need to see the benefits
or rewards for doing what you want them to do. All we do as people has a motive,
and the number one motive is what is in it for me. The Gospel has the same appeal,
for it offers forgiveness of sin, and eternal life. Would there be many takers if the
Gospel just said trust Jesus as your Savior and maybe it will benefit you somewhere
down the line?
54 Then he and the men who were with him ate and drank and spent the night
there. When they got up the next morning, he said, Send me on my way to my
master.
1. Here we are made aware that this servant was not alone. Abraham had sent a
crew of men to go along to care for the many gifts that would be easily robbed by
the notorious dessert bandits if only one man was carrying all this loot. They had to
care for the camels except for the one time that Rebekah had done the job of getting
them water. The servant had these familiar men with him and so it was not a lonely
experience, but one of good fellowship as they ate and drank and had a good time
around the fire before they retired to their separate tents. The servant was anxious
to get back to Abraham and so the next morning he urged them to send him off. In
other words, my business is done here so let me go.
55 But her brother and her mother replied, Let the girl remain with us ten days
or so; then you may go.
1. We do not know the motive of mom and brother here, for it could be that they
just have a hard time letting go of this daughter and sister. On the other hand, they
may have been hoping for even more gifts now that they have agreed to the deal to
let her go. We know from future dealings with Jacob that Laban is a wheeler-dealer
who will take advantage of others if it pays off for him. He wants his cake and eat it
too, for he has the dowry now, and he wants to keep Rebekah around as long as
possible, for she was a good worker.

176. 56 But he said to them, Do not detain me, now that the LORD has granted success
to my journey. Send me on my way so I may go to my master.
1. He knew that Abraham and Isaac are back home praying for him to succeed in
his mission, and he does not want to keep them in anxiety any longer than necessary.
His job is completed in getting a wife for Isaac, but now he has a long journey to get
her back to him, and he is anxious to get on the trail. There are times when we have
to turn down hospitable requests because our priorities demand that we give up
something pleasant for ourselves to meet the requests of one we want to please most.
In this case the servant wanted to get home with the good news to Abraham, and see
the response of Isaac when he sees the girl of his dreams.
57 Then they said, Let's call the girl and ask her about it.
1. That was a clever thought. We are being asked to send our daughter and sister
with a stranger into a land far away that we have never seen, and to live a life that is
completely different and harder than what she is used to. Why don't we ask her if
this is something she would like to do? It was an obvious direction to go, but we
have to give them credit for not making this decision for her. The family did not
compel her to marry against her will, which was a common practice in that period
of history where parents made all the arrangements.
58 So they called Rebekah and asked her, Will you go with this man? I will
go, she said.
1. Here we see that Rachel had a choice in this matter. It was not a decision that her
mother or brother made for her, even though they had input, but it was her own
free will decision to go and become the wife of a complete stranger in a land far far
away. This was a courageous decision for a young girl to make who had not likely
ever been anywhere far from home.
2. Spurgeon wrote, She was expected to feel a love to one she had never seen. She
had only newly heard that there was such a person as Isaac, but yet she must love
him enough to leave her kindred, and go to a distant land. This could only be
because she recognized the will of Jehovah in the matter. Ah, my dear hearers! All
that we tell you is concerning things not seen as yet; and here is our difficulty. You
have eyes, and you want to see everything; you have hands, and you want to handle
everything; but there is one whom you cannot see as yet, who has won our love
because of what we believe concerning him. We can truly say of him, Whom
having not seen, we love: in whom, though now we see him not, yet believing, we
rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory. I know that you answer our request
thus: You demand too much of us when you ask us to love a Christ we have never
seen. I can only answer, It is even so: we do ask more of you than we expect to

177. receive. Unless God the Holy Ghost shall work a miracle of grace upon your
hearts, you will not be persuaded by us to quit your old associations, and join
yourselves to our beloved Lord. And yet, if you did come to him, and love him, he
would more than content you; for you would find in him rest unto your souls, and a
peace which passeth all understanding.
3. Rebekah was like an eastern woman living in the colonies who is challenged to
marry a pioneer and head into the West on a covered wagon to face a life of living
on the move, for Isaac moved from place to place with his father because their large
herds were in constant need of new feeding grounds. She was going from city-slicker
to rancher, and the changes would be a challenge, but she was the kind of woman
who could handle the challenge, for she was a strong woman who could keep up
with the men. She drew water for all of the camels and proved that she was
physically ready for the hard work ahead, and beside this, she had her servant girls
to help her carry the load.
59 So they sent their sister Rebekah on her way, along with her nurse and
Abraham's servant and his men.
1. The camel caravan was heading back to Abraham with a lot less precious jewels
and pretty garments, but with more people, for Rebekah had her nurse with her. In
Gen. 35:8 this nurse is named Deborah, and she became a faithful servant in the
family for the next two generations.
60 And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, Our sister, may you increase to
thousands upon thousands; may your offspring possess the gates of their enemies.
1. She became the mother of two peoples-the Edomites and the Israelites, and that
did amount to thousands of thousands. And as to possessing the gates of their
enemies Gill writes, ..exercise dominion and authority over their enemies: let them
not only be numerous, but powerful and victorious, as both the nations were at
times, and especially the latter; and particularly this had its accomplishment in
Christ, who sprung from her in the line of Jacob, Mat_1:2; some respect seems to be
had to the promise made to Abraham, Gen_22:17; of which this family might have
knowledge from Abraham's servant, who might report not only how great his
master was, but what promises were made to him with respect to his posterity.
2. The Jews say she was about 14 years old at this time, and they were sending her
off to marry a 40-year-old man. It was common for an older man to marry a
younger woman, for this gave them more hope of having children.

178. 61 Then Rebekah and her maids got ready and mounted their camels and went
back with the man. So the servant took Rebekah and left.
1. The more you read the more people show up in this caravan of camels heading
back to Abraham and Isaac. Before we thought it was only the nurse of Rebekah
who went back with her, but now we read that her maids got ready and mounted
their camels. It does not tell us how many maids, but we can vision a fairly long line
of camels as these women and Abraham's servant headed back to his home. Each of
these women knew they were not coming back, and so you can just imagine all the
things they packed. The camels had their work cut out for them on this journey, for
it was a move, lock, stock and barrel of all that these women owned. Plus, Rebekah
had a lot of stuff besides that the servant had given to her. This was a major move.
Rebekah was now making the same journey that Abraham made when he first came
to the Promised Land. She was leaving her homeland just as he did, and going to
live in the land that would one day be given to the seed of Abraham, and she would
be the one to produce that seed.
62 ow Isaac had come from Beer Lahai Roi, for he was living in the egev.
1. For the first time in the story, Isaac comes into view. He too is seen as coming
from a very significant place, a well associated with the birth of his stepbrother,
Ishmael. When God appeared to Hagar she named the well, Beer-lahai-roi, which
means the well of the living one who sees me. From that sacred place of vision,
Isaac has taken an evening stroll. As providence would have it, he lifts his eyes over
the horizon and is given a vision of a distant convoy of camels.
63 He went out to the field one evening to meditate, [8] and as he looked up, he saw
camels approaching.
1. Isaac knew that it would not be long before the servant returned with or without
a wife for him, and he had to deal with the reality that he would soon possibly be a
married man with a wife to care for. This would be one of the things he would be
giving some serious thought to, and who knows how many other things he would be
in meditation about? He was alone in the open field and it would seem that he was
out there to be the first to meet his new bride if she would show up this day. Possibly
he was out there every day for some time in hopes that this would be the day. Finally
that day came as he watched a caravan of camels coming toward him. Could this at
last be the answer to his prayer that the servant would return with a suitable wife
for him?
2. Someone gives us this description of how Hollywood might portray this meeting
of Isaac and Rebekah: The last five verses of this chapter, 62-67, could probably be
produced by Hollywood into an award winning movie scene: Enter Isaac, a
ruggedly handsome yet surprisingly gentle man, walking slowly and meditatively
through a field just as the evening sun begins to set behind him in a vast array of

179. colors. The music swells as he looks up and sees camels approaching in the distance.
As the camera breaks from Isaac and focuses upon Rebekah, gracefully seated upon
a well-groomed and friendly camel, she also looks up and sees the silhouette of a
man against the setting sun. Knowing that this was her one true love coming to meet
her she elegantly dismounts and shyly covers herself with her veil. Isaac approaches,
their eyes meet for the first time yet was it the first time? Has he seen her
somewhere in a dream perhaps? He sweeps her into his arms and carriers her,
without strain, into his tent claiming her as his wife forever. The screen slowly dims
to black. Roll credits. Happily ever after, or at least until the children were born.
64 Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel
1. The modern translations are more accurate, but they miss the humor that is
generated by the King James Version. It says here that, ..when she saw Isaac, she
lighted off her camel. Those early translators had no idea what this would sound
like to the future generations in America where the Camels cigarettes would be so
popular, and so they were innocent in implying that Rebekah lit up her cigarette
when she saw her future husband coming.
65 and asked the servant, Who is that man in the field coming to meet us? He is
my master, the servant answered. So she took her veil and covered herself.
1. She is about to meet the man she came to marry. He was a total stranger to her,
and she felt shy at exposing herself right away to his vision. She was seen by the
servant unveiled, and so was not afraid to be seen of a man, but this man coming
toward her was the man to be her husband, and to keep him a little longer in
mystery she took her veil and covered herself. This in contrast to the modern girls
approach, which is to uncover and expose herself to attract the opposite sex. The veil
was a sign of chastity, modesty and subjection says Clarke. She was giving a
message to Isaac about the kind of woman she was, and this would be appealing to
him.
66 Then the servant told Isaac all he had done.
1. This whole story was told again as Rebekah sat before him, and what an
appealing story it would be to Isaac as he sat listening and looking at this woman
who was so beautiful under that veil. He only heard from the servant what a beauty
she was, but he believed it and was anxious to see for himself. When the history of
finding her was over, he was ready to make his own history with her, and so he took
her to be his wife on the spot.
67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah.
So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his

180. mother's death.
1. This text makes it clear that Isaac was pretty much a mother's boy. It has been
about three years since his mother has died, and he is still in a state of grief. He
needs to move on, and that is why another woman needs to enter his life and become
the leading lady taking the place of Sarah. Rebekah was just the kind of woman
Isaac needed, for she was aggressive and not passive like him. One author looking at
the arrangements for her to leave her home and come to be the mate of Isaac sees a
reason for her being an aggressive woman. He writes, I think if we go to Gen 24:15
we might see one reason that Rebekah was like this. otice that the marriage
arrangements made by Abraham’s servant for Isaac and Rebekah are all made with
Laban. Why? Their father is not dead. Rebekah’s father, Bethuel, is only mentioned
in vs 15 as being the father and in verse 50 where he just acquiesces and gives
permission for Abraham’s servant to take Rebekah. All the negotiations were made
with Laban. I don’t think it is reading too much into the text to conclude that
Bethuel was an uninvolved father. We can see the results in Rebekah. She had no
advocate, so she took over and became a controlling woman. When she got married,
she took over her family.
2. It is true that Rebekah did not know Isaac, but she learned a great deal about him
from the servant sent to find him a wife. She had plenty of knowledge, and she was
not like the girl in the following conversation who was so desperate to marry. The
story is this fellow was very nervous as he contemplated asking Miss Jones to marry
him. So he decided to ask her over the telephone. So he calls on the telephone.
And he says, Is this Miss Jones?
And she says, Yes.
And he says, Could I talk to you?
And she says, Yes.
And he says, I want to ask you a question, may I?
And she said, Yes.
And he says, Miss Jones, would you marry me?
And she says, Yes, who is this?
3. The text makes it clear that an arranged marriage can lead to love just as well as
the romantic method that is the way it happens in our culture. She was his second
cousin, and was likely half his age, but they became a happy couple, and never
needed another person to come into their marriage, as was the case with most other
leading characters in the Bible. They had their problems, and were in conflict over
which of their two sons was to be the most loved, but they learned to live a lifetime
with each other with the majority of it being happy and peaceful. Someone said, A
good marriage is not a gift which the bride and groom discover among the wedding
presents. It’s an achievement, a homemade, lifelong, do- it-yourself project. It is
built by two hearts and two pairs of hands, constantly working together at the task
over a long period of time.”
4. Stedman has given us his concept of this meeting of Rebekah and Isaac. I think
the conversation here when the two met was probably rather stumbling at first. She

181. was very shy, and he very reserved. She got off her camel, all atwitter inside. She
put her veil over her face so he wouldn't see how she was blushing. This strong,
manly man came up to her, and said, Hello. She said, Hello. He said, Are you
Rebekah? She said, Yes, and dropped her eyes. Then he said, I'm Isaac. (She
knew it all the time.) He said, You can call me Ike. She said, Well, my friends
call me 'Becky.' And off they go, hand in hand.
APPEDIX
Three sermons on Rebekah
1. REBEKAH, A MARVELOUS MOTHER
athan Ausabel tells of the Jewish couple with 9 children who went to the Rabbi to
get a divorce. When the question of custody came up the wife said she wanted 5 of
the children and he could have 4. The husband said, Why should I have only 4?
You take the 4 and I'll take the 5. In order to resolve the conflict the Rabbi
suggested that they live together one more year and have another child. Then they
could divide with an equal share of the family. The couple agreed to the plan. But a
year later the man came back to the Rabbi and said the plan did not work. The
Rabbi asked, Why? Didn't your wife give birth? Yes, he said, But you see, it
was twins. They were right back where they started, and even Solomon in all his
wisdom could not divide an odd number of children evenly.
Twins can be a problem. Luis Palau, the Billy Graham of South America, was
worried sick when his wife gave birth to twins in 1963. The doctor told him there
was a very strange heart beat and they may loose the child. They did not know she
had two babies in her. Palau had to make the decision that if necessary they let the
baby die to save his wife, but it turned out to be a day of joy as the irregular
heartbeat was really the regular heartbeat of two. What a scare these twins gave
him. Twins have scared people all through history, and in many cultures they have
been immediately killed. Christian missionaries have labored hard to convince
natives that twins are not an evil omen, and today there are many healthy twins
where once they were killed.
This does not mean that twins are no longer a problem. They are often double
trouble, and because of their potential for mischief Walt Disney has been able to
make some of his greatest movies about mischievous twins. It is not all fiction either,
for there are numerous true stories about the complexity of raising twins. One
mother heard both laughing and crying coming from her twin's bedroom at bath
time. She went to see what was the matter and the laughing twin pointed to his
weeping brother and said, Grandma has given Alexander 2 baths and hasn't given
me any at all.
The problems get greater as they get older. Jean and Auguste Piccard, the famous
Swiss twins, decided to have some fun with a barber. Jean went in for a shave and

182. complained that he had the most annoying beard in the world because it grew back
so fast. The barber assured him that his trusty razor would keep it off for 24 hours
or he would shave him free. Jean let him scrape away and left. Several hours later
Auguste came in with a heavy stubble and collected his free shave. He left the
barber pondering the most amazing beard he had ever seen.
The reason I share these twin stories is because we are looking at the mother of the
most famous twins of the Bible. Rebekah was the mother of Jacob and Esau. These
two brothers were as different as night and day. They had the same parents and the
same environment, but they were opposites and totally different in personality, and
in the way they responded to the will of God. It is superficial to expect all children in
a family to be alike. Even in a godly family there will be radical differences. I once
had a family in my church where the best kids and the worst kids were from that
same family. Two of them ended up in the ministry and another broke the parents
hearts with unbelievable ungodliness. This can be tough on parents, but it has to be
accepted as a fact of life that the best parents have no guarantee that their children
will follow their values.
Rebekah was a great mother, but her twins sometimes became as famous for their
folly as for their faith. Some twins become much alike for all of life. The most
famous example in our time is Ann Landers and Abigail Van Buren. They are both
famous counselors, and their advice columns are very much alike. Other twins do
not follow the same pattern at all. One of the 12 Apostles was a twin. Thomas called
Didymus was a twin. Didymus is Greek for twin, and Thomas means twin in
Aramaic. We have no idea about his twin. He may have been an enemy of Christ for
all we know. Twins can be opposites and that is what we see in the twins of
Rebekah. They were opponents.
Rebekah favored Jacob and her husband favored Esau, but in the end mom's boy
became the man God used. Mothers often are the key persons in determining the
success of their children. Rebekah Bains Johnson, whose grandfather was a Baptist
pastor, and who came from a long line of pastors going back to Scotland, was
determined to make her son a great politician. Her father was a politician and she
married a politician, and she dreamed that her son could be a great one. She had 4
other children, but she favored Lyndon and pounded it into him that he was
destined for leadership. She kept him reading the books and writings of Thomas
Jefferson. She guided him through college and on to Washington, and eventually to
become the 35th President of the United States.
Like the Rebekah of the Bible she was obsessed by her need to favor one son and do
all she could to promote him. This led to her other son, Sam Houston Johnson, being
hurt. He worked for Lyndon and went to law school, but he never practiced. He
never got equal time and encouragement from his mother, and that made a world of
difference in their careers. A mother motivating her children makes a world of
difference. We want to look at Rebekah as a mother, and try to learn from lessons
from her life.
I. HER MARRIAGE.

183. Ideal motherhood always begins with being a good mate. We have looked at this
theme before and have concluded that the best thing any mother can do for her
children is to love their father, just as the best thing a father can do is love their
mother. Marriage comes before children, and it is the foundation that must be well
laid before the family is built upon it. In spite of Rebekah's deception of Isaac we
have to recognize she was one of the most loved wives in the Bible. Isaac is the only
one of the Patriarchs who did not take a second wife or a concubine. In a culture
where polygamy was perfectly acceptable Isaac was a one-woman man. Rebekah
had to be some kind of woman to keep a man a monogamist in that day. He never
saw Rebekah until the day he met her and married her, but from that day he loved
her, and only her, for the rest of his life. She also was faithful to him for all of her
life.
Here was a couple who had the world's shortest wedding. Gen. 24:67 says, Isaac
brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she
became his wife, and he loved her... Here was a primitive wedding without benefit
of clergy or premarital counseling. There was no courtship and no vows are
recorded, and yet they made a commitment for a lifetime. The old system of
arranged marriages could work because people were committed to love the one they
married. They did not fall in love and then get married, but they married and then
grew in love.
The modern idea of selecting a mate by the computer is not as far fetched as it may
seem. If two people are brought together with all of the values and qualities that
each likes, and they are willing to make the commitment of the ancients to love the
one they married, these could turn out to be marvelous mates. The odds are better
than the superficial way many do it now. They feel sexual attraction, and their only
commitment is to keep their relationship going as long as their hormones keeps
pushing them in that direction. We could learn from the ancients that the most
important commitment on the human level is to love the one you marry. I've never
met a couple who has so many problems that they could not be solved by this single
principle.
Isaac loved Rebekah in spite of the problems they had. The first problem was that
she was barren. For 20 years Isaac waited for her to have a child. The culture left
him free to take another wife, but he never did. He waited and prayed, and God
finally answered that prayer, and Rebekah became a mother. They are the only
couple in the Bible who are caught making love in public. Gen. 26:8 says that King
Abimelech looked down from a window and saw Isaac sporting with Rebekah. We
know this does not mean they were playing tennis. Isaac was caressing and fondling
Rebekah, and that is how the king knew she was not his sister, but his wife.
The point is, Rebekah was a fun and loving partner. Abraham and Sarah had their
fights over Hagar and Ishmael. Jacob and Rachel had their fights over Leah. But in
spite of Rebekah's deceit of Isaac there is not one word of dispute between them.
They had one of the most ideal marriages in the Bible, and possibly the most ideal.

184. We need to keep her marriage in mind when we look at the negative action of her
deceit. She did what she did in all good conscience. It was not to do any harm to her
husband, but to assure that the son that she knew was most worthy would be blest.
God confirmed her choice and blest Jacob. It seems that mothers tend to have a
degree of insight into the spiritual potential of their children. Abraham leaned
toward Ishmael and Isaac leaned toward Esau, but the mothers chose Isaac and
Jacob, and these were the two that God chose to be in line to the Messiah. Mother's
and God seem to be on the same wavelength. Father's look for the more macho type,
but mothers look for the spirit that is more willing to follow God's leading.
I have to admit that until I looked at Rebekah through the eyes of Isaac I had some
negative feelings about her. I had the same feeling I had toward the wife of Job until
I discovered that Job loved her in spite of her faults, and stuck by her, and did not
demean her. So also, we see that Isaac has not a bad word for his wife, and that is
the final authority in judging a wife. If Isaac loved her and treated her like a queen,
then it really does not matter what I think. She was a good wife, and that is where
ideal motherhood begins. Being a good wife starts before marriage. Rebekah as a
young woman was enthusiastic about serving the needs of others. Motherhood and
servant-hood are linked as one. We see her serving spirit when Abraham's servant
came looking for a wife for Isaac. She was the one who volunteered to draw water
for his camels. That was the sign that she was God's choice for a good wife. Find a
girl who cares about kindness and helpfulness and you are on the right track to a
good marriage and good motherhood.
Tally Rand said of a young lady of the court, She is intolerable, but that is her only
fault. Mark Twain once saw a mother with young twins and said, This one is a
girl isn't it? She replied, Yes. Twain said, And is the other one of the contrary
sex? The mother replied, Yes, she's a girl too. Rebekah was not a contrary
person. She took opposite sides from Isaac from which twin was to be favored, but
as we will see this was not a serious conflict with Isaac. He found Rebekah to be a
marvelous wife, and he was a happy man in his marriage. He considered Rebekah a
marvelous mother. So let's go from her marriage relationship and look more
carefully at-
II. HER MOTHERHOOD.
Rebekah was a good wife and a good mother, but one of the facts of life is that good
mothers do not necessarily have good children. Her first-born was Esau, and he
married a couple of Hittite women. Gen. 26:35 says, They were a source of grief to
Isaac and Rebekah. Jacob did not marry Hittites, and they were please with him.
Isaac had to be pleased with the clever way Rebekah worked out a plan to give the
blessing to Jacob. Has Esau been the one to inherit the riches of Isaac it would have
all gone to the Hittites. But by her cleverness Rebekah saw to it that it would go to
the people of Israel instead. Sometimes husbands are happy that their wives win in a
conflict, for in their hearts they know the wife is right. This seems to be the case
here.

185. Rebekah still loved her rebel son, and so she sent Jacob away lest he fight with Esau
and she lose both in one day. This is part of motherhood. They have the pain of
loving one who is careless and indifferent to God and His will. Love is the cause of
much of the suffering of the world, for mothers still love those sons who go astray
like Esau. It is a paradox, but it is true that the greatest virtue in life is also the
cause of so much pain. If mothers did not love rebel children, mountains of pain
would be eliminated, but the mountain stands as testimony to the pain of love. If
God did not love the rebel race of mankind, He would not have had to suffer the loss
of His Son, and Jesus would not have had to die on the cross. It was all because God
so loved the world. God suffers because he loves, and so do mothers.
Gipsy Smith was one of the great evangelists in the history of England and America.
He tells of the price his mother paid because she loved her children. His sister was
sick and they called for a doctor. When he examined her he said she had small-pox.
He ordered her to get out of town so it did not spread to others. They set up a tent
outside of town where the mother and 4 other children stayed. They put the sick girl
in a wagon 200 yards away. Soon one of the boys got the pox and was sent to live in
the wagon. One day the mother also got the pox. She had to go through great
suffering as a mother as she cared for her sick children while she was sick herself.
Her great love made a life long impression on Gipsy, for he learned that suffering
and love go together. If you love deeply, you will suffer deeply.
The way to escape suffering is to never love, for the more you love the more you
suffer. Just ask Jesus. But what a pathetic world it would be if nobody loved enough
to suffer. Motherhood would not be exalted role as it is if there were no cost to it. It
is the suffering of mother love that makes it the noble thing that it is. Show me a
mother who does not care that her children are rebels, and I will show you a
mother, who by her lack of suffering, is part of the problem, and not part of the
answer. Suffering love is the answer. It is God's answer, and though it does not solve
all problems, it has the potential to do so if rebels will respond to suffering love.
Motherhood is linked to servant-hood, and servant-hood is linked to suffering, and
the result is that good mothering is linked to Christ-likeness. Motherhood
incorporates both the joy and the pain of the cross. Motherhood begins with both
the pain of birth and the joy of new life. Pain and pleasure, burden and blessing are
combined in becoming a mother. Children are also both a pain and a pleasure in the
marriage. They can add so much joy to a couple's life, but they can also add so
much pain. Many couples report that the happiest time in their lives are before
children are born and after they grow up and leave the home. But people go on
having children, because they are the greatest potential for the future. Children give
hope that the future can be filled with the blessing of God, and that is why
motherhood is so honored. It is the path by which mankind reaches out for God's
best.
The Israelites were condemned to die in the wilderness, and yet they went on having
children. It was because they knew God had a future for His people, and their
children became the children of God who entered the Promised Land. Motherhood

186. was the key to God's plan being fulfilled, and that is why motherhood will always be
exalted. Had Isaac and Rebakah given up after 20 years of trying to have a child,
Jacob would not have been born. And Jacob was the father of the twelve tribes of
Israel. He was crucial to God's plan. They never gave up and endured the pain of it
all, but out of that pain of waiting, and then of motherhood, came the greatest of
blessings, and God changed all of history through them.
Rebekah was an ideal wife and marvelous mother, but that did not mean she was a
hundred percent successful. Esau was a rebel and caused her much grief. But she
learned to concentrate on what she could do for the best results. She focused on
being a good wife and she focused on being a good mother. And this meant she
would specialize in seeing that the full potential of her most likely son would be
realized. obody can do everything and no mother can be everything. She has to
learn to focus on what she can do and not become so fragmented in going in all
directions. Dr. James Dobson wrote, I believe more divorces are caused by mutual
over commitment by husbands and wives than all other factors combined. It is the
number one marriage killer.
Good wives and mothers are those who know they cannot do all things, and so they
specialize in doing well what they can do to please their mates and benefit their
children. Let us learn from Rebekah to choose some things we give top priority to in
order to be the best wives and mothers we can be. If your husband his happy with
you, as Isaac was with Rebakah, and one or more of your children are going in a
way that pleases God, as was Jacob, then you are succeeding, like Rebekah, as a
marvelous mother.
2. REBEKAH A MARVELOUS MATE AD MOTHER
Annie Taylor was the first person to ever go over iagara Falls in a barrel and lived
to tell about it. That was in 1901. In 1932 Pearl S. Buck was the first woman to
receive a obel Prize in literature. In 1979 Susan B. Anthony became the first
woman to ever appear on a United States coin. There are whole books written about
women who were the first to do specific things. On this Mother's Day we are going
to focus our attention on the first woman in history that we have any record of who
gave birth to twins.
Rebekah in giving birth to her two boys Jacob and Esau became one of the most
unique mothers ever, for her two boys changed the course of history. In fact, her
boys represent the two great forces of human history-good and evil. Jacob was the
line to the Messiah, and Esau was the line to Herod the Great, who tried to kill the
Messiah as a child. Her twins each took one of the two main roads in life. One took
the way of doing the will of God, and the other took the way of defying the will of
God. Rebekah then represents both sides of motherhood: the success and failure of
motherhood.
We often only look at the positive side of motherhood, but the Bible gives us a

187. balanced picture. The same mother who bears a child who goes on to produce the 12
tribes of Israel, and the very people of God, also bears a child who becomes a rebel
who marries pagan wives and produces a people who are great enemies of the
people of God. Here is a mother who can be praised for being a mother of the best,
even though she bore one who was the worst.
It is important that we see this, for I have a hunch there are millions of mothers who
are made to feel rotten and guilty on Mother's Day by sermons that exalt mothers to
the heights of sainthood. This can be disturbing to mothers who are like Rebekah.
They can point to their Jacobs and feel proud, but they also have their Esaus who
have gone a different route, and they feel hurt, bitter, and frustrated. They have
done their best, but all of their children are not what they wish, and what they have
prayed for. They feel guilty when good mothers are portrayed as always having all
their children as wonderful examples of good and godly people. It is a comfort that
the Bible gives mothers a break, and portrays one of the great mothers of Hebrew
history as one who also had failure, and a truly rotten kid. Mothers need to know
they can still be good and even great mothers, even though they have failed to guide
all their children in the way they ought to go.
ow I must confess it has taken me years to choose Rebekah for a Mother's Day
message because I had some negative feelings about her as a mother and a wife. Our
text here in Gen. 27 portrays her as deceiving her husband Isaac, and of aiding her
son Jacob to lie and deceive his father too. Who needs TV to lead a child astray with
a mother like this around? This has been my feeling over the years. But then I began
to study the facts that the Bible reveals about Rebekah. I discovered I was judging
her unfairly, and that I had a prejudiced attitude toward this unique woman based
on a narrow view of this one event in her life. I did the same thing with Jobs wife
because she told him to curse God and die. Then I discovered that Job never
rejected her, but she was his precious partner for life. The same is true for Rebekah.
Jacob never rejected her.
In almost every Mother's Day sermon I have ever preached one of the qualities that
most stands out in the great mothers of the Bible is that they were first of all loving
and loyal wives. A mother's first obligation is to help her children love God, and the
second is to love their father on earth, and they do this by being a good wife to the
father. I always thought that Rebekah got an F in this department because of this
story of deception in Gen. 27. But then I discovered the facts that make Rebekah
stand out as one of the most marvelous and precious wives in all of the Bible. Let me
share the facts, for maybe you have the same prejudiced attitude toward her as I
have had.
Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah. He stayed with her for 20 years,
even though she was barren. Finally, when Isaac was 60 years old she gave him the
twins of Jacob and Esau. Isaac lived to be 180, and so he was married to Rebekah to
140 years. Most marriages do not last that long because people don't last that long.
Today the 75 anniversary is the diamond anniversary. What would it be for the
140th anniversary? Maybe uranium would be worthy, but I don't think we need to
be concerned about it. But here is the point: Show me any other couple in the bible

188. who were married this long and yet they kept the vows of keeping themselves to
each other as long as they both lived.
They are the most unique couple in the Bible. It was an age of universal polygamy,
and yet they were monogamous. Their culture and environment favored multiple
partners. Isaac's father Abraham had the multiple partnership, and so did both of
Isaac's sons. They were the only monogamous couple in their time. Through 20
years of barrenness they struggled, and through this time of deception, and yet these
two never stopped being committed to each other. They are an example to married
people in all cultures and all times. Isaac was a one woman man married to a one
man woman. From the wedding to the grave they were faithful to each other. This is
rare even among the great people of the Bible. This helps us see this one negative
incident in the light of the bigger picture. They were so committed that this negative
event did not hurt them in any permanent way.
We need to see also that in Gen. 25:23 Rebakah was told by God that her first born
would serve the younger son. She knew it was God's will that Jacob be the blessed
son, and so what she did was to help her failing husband do what was right and best
for the kingdom of God. If you read Gen. 28 you will discover that Isaac did not
rebuke Rebekah, nor did he take a concubine unto himself to hurt her. He respected
her judgment and went along with her plan completely, and he blessed Jacob again
and sends him off to find a wife among the daughters of Rebekah's brother Laban.
There is no hint of Isaac being offended with his life partner. In fact, he was so
pleased with the wisdom of Rebekah that even Esau saw it and decided to conform
to some degree to his mother's wishes, and he went off and married an acceptable
wife from the line of Abraham. In isolation Gen. 27 makes Rebekah look bad, and it
gives the impression of her being a bad wife and mother. But when you see the
whole story it reveals her to be a wonderful wife and marvelous mother. If we learn
nothing else, let us learn not to judge anybody by any isolated incident in their lives.
By doing this to Rebekah I have had negative feelings about her, and it was foolish
for Isaac never had these feelings. He loved her and respected her judgment.
She is an ideal example of the first principle of motherhood. She was a loyal and
loving wife. Children need to see this in a mother in order to be good mates
themselves. A mother who is a good mate will give her children the foundation for
building a good marriage themselves. This does not mean the children of all good
mates will never ruin their own marriage, for this happens all the time, but it will
not be because the lacked a good example. Rebakah gets an A for her role as a good
example. God knew all along when He guided Abraham's servant to choose
Rebekah to be the wife of Isaac. He was the unique son of promise and needed a
special wife, and Rebakah was God's choice for him.
God's plan to bring His son into the world depended a great deal upon sensitive
mothers. Mothers seem to have a greater sense of which of their children are most
likely to be God's choice. Abraham would have given his blessing to Ishmael, and
Isaac would have given his blessing to Esau. But it was the mother’s choices who
were the ones God chose. A mother's choice is more likely to be the choice of God.
Isaac was in favor of Esau because he was so macho. He was rough and tough, and a

189. man of nature. He was a mighty hunter who could live off the land in its wild state.
Jacob was more of the domesticated type. He had his garden and animals, and was
more of a homebody. He was gentle and tender, and far more romantic than Esau.
He was mom's favorite, and God's as well, for God's Son was going to be more like
Jacob than Esau.
God uses both types of men, for the greatest man of the Old Testament was John the
Baptist and he was the rough and tough man of nature. God uses all types to play a
role in His kingdom, but the star role goes to the Star of Jacob, who was the
Messiah. He would be more like a mother's favorite. Mary was the chief influence in
the life of Jesus, for Joseph died and she raised Him as a single parent. God says
some powerful things about mothers in His Word. There is just no escaping the
evidence. They are the key tools God uses to determine the course of history. The
hand that rocks the cradle rules the world is not a superficial cliché, but is
supported by God's revelation, and no where is it seen more clearly than in the life
of Rebekah. Let's look at some of the details of her life that are almost trivia that
reveal just how a mother can be used of God to make a difference in the world. First
we see-
I. REBEKAH WAS A GOOD COOK.
This whole story revolves around tasty food, and if Rebekah could not have made a
goat to taste like wild game she never would have been able to pull off her plan. But
she was confident she could make a meal fit for a king that would please Isaac, in
verse 17 states that she also made bread. Here we get a picture of the old time
country kitchen with homemade bread and a pot of stew. This image is radically
changed in our day, and the majority of Americans will be eating out on this
Mother's Day, or sometime this week. The home is not the center of eating as it once
was, but it is still the place where mothers need to provide their family with
pleasurable experiences around food. Rebekah had no choice. She had to learn to be
a good cook. Today, mothers do not have to because there are alternatives galore
with fast food and microwave dinners, as well as numerous places to eat out. The
danger is that mothers will fail to realize that it is still a vital part of family life to
have enjoyable times together around good food. There is something special that is
never forgotten about the enjoyment of a delicious meal made by mom.
Mothers are the first source of food and pleasure to a baby. It is one of the roles of
motherhood to be a food provider. It does something for the whole family to be able
to enjoy the pleasure of good food prepared by mom. It gives the husband a sense of
pride, and the children a sense of security, as well as memories of a happy home life.
The comedian may have only been joking, but he may also been expressing a deep
seated disappointment when he said, In my house you could eat off the floor. Most
of the time, that's where the food would end up. We would sneak it off our plates
and give it to the dog. I wouldn't say mom was a bad cook, but one year we went
through 12 dogs. Bad cooking even leads other people to lie. A new preacher
received a pie from one of his members. It was so terrible they could not eat it. They
had to throw it in the garbage. He didn't know how to respond when she asked how

190. he liked it. He did not want to tell her the truth so he said, I can assure you that a
pie like yours doesn't last long at our house. Mothers who want to avoid things like
this need to focus on the fact that they still play the key role in what happens at the
family table. It needs to be a time of fun with tasty food and positive family
fellowship. Heaven begins with a great family feast at the marriage of the Lamb.
Part of good mothering is to make sure your family praises God for taste buds
because they are exercised frequently around the table, and giving them pleasant
memories of home and family life that will guide them to seek the same when they
establish their home. This may seem like a secular quality to stress, and it is, but it is
also a spiritual matter. Rebekah had the spiritual concern, and her good cooking
was just mother’s means to the greater end that she and her family be tools to
accomplish God's will in history. Indifference to the physical side of life is not an
asset, but a hindrance to the spiritual side of life. Anything a mother can do to
enhance the physical enjoyment of life will be an aid to her guiding her children
spiritually. The poet wrote,
It isn't the hours that makes the home,
That gives a glory to life.
It isn't the things that fill the room.
It's mainly the heart of a wife.
Rebekah was the heart of her home, for her heart was set on first of all pleasing
God, who chose her and Jacob; secondly pleasing her husband, and thirdly pleasing
her children. That is the order of priorities for the ideal mother. She used her
cooking skill to accomplish all three. She learned that there is a lot of truth in the
saying that, The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. It was also the way
to God's will. Rebekah is the ideal example of how developing physical and secular
skills can be a major factor in accomplishing spiritual ends. The second thing we
want to note is-
II. REBEKAH WAS A GOOD PROBLEM-SOLVER.
Mothers are, by definition, people-makers. Women make a lot of things, but as
mothers they make people. People are the result of their labor as mothers. The only
two people in all of history not mother-made were Adam and Eve. God only made
two people by Himself. All others have been made by mothers. But since the first
mother fell even before she became a mother, all of the people mothers make are
also fallen, and so problem making goes along with people making. Where there are
people there are problems. If a tree falls in the wood with nobody there to hear it,
does it make any sound? That is an age old question that is debated, but one thing
we know for sure, if there are no people there to hear it, it is not a problem, sound
or no sound. There are only problems where there are people, and God's people
have never been problem free.
Here is a godly family, and they are a key link to the line to the Messiah. The
salvation of the whole world is in their hands, and they are about to fumble. Isaac is

191. about to go with his preference and forget God's choice. He is ready to bless his
rebel son Esau, and he would have had it not been for Rebekah's clever plan. By this
plan she saved her husband from folly, and helped fulfill the prophecy of God. We
just have accepted this reality of life that mothers are sometimes the best
troubleshooters. They have insights and wisdom, and sensitivity to what God is
doing that men sometimes do not have. Jesus did not give all of His most profound
teachings to His disciples. He often chose a woman to hear His deepest revelations,
for He knew they could see what men often miss.
Even in the Old Testament where men were in control, and where they had all the
authority, we see God using a woman like Rebekah to get His plan accomplished,
even though the men were doing all they could to derail it. The fact is, God's will
that Jacob be blest and the ruler over Esau would not have happened without
Rebekah. The fact is, a lot of God's will would never be accomplished without
mothers.
Jacob saw his mothers determination to do what she was convinced was the will of
God, and solve the problem that stood in the way. He became a problem solver like
this himself. He had to work out problems with his father-in-law Laban over his
wives and wages. He had to work out his problems with Esau. He even wrestled with
God and won a victory. He had a life of problems, but he solved them and became
the channel by which God's people were formed. When he died he was buried in the
same tomb where his mother was buried.
Charles Dickens said, I think it must be somewhere written that the virtues of
mothers shall be visited on their children as well as the sins of their fathers. This
was certainly true with Rebekah and Jacob. He could have said with the poet,
All that I have she gave to me-
She molded my destiny
With loving care she raised me,
And gave me a legacy.
A mother came into her kitchen and found her two young boys fighting over the last
cookie. She took the cookie and said, I'll solve this problem for you. I'll eat it
myself. And she did. Sometimes the only way to solve a problem is to eliminate the
basis for the problem. Rebekah did this by getting Jacob sent off to her brother's
place to find a wife. The separation even helped Esau to cool off and forget his plot
to murder Jacob. Separation is a great problem solver. Eve might have saved Abel
by this strategy. Rebekah did save Jacob, and by doing so changed the course of
history.
Kay Kuzma, a university professor, wrote an article called Every Mother Is A
Working Mother. She has three children, and she calculated that by the time they
reaches 18 she will have put in 18,000 hours of child-generated housework. That is
housework she would not have had if she had not had children. There is no such
thing as a non-working mother. A mother of 11 was asked how she found time for
all of them. She replied, When I had my first child I realized that one child can
take all of your time, so I decided to have more, for it couldn't make much

192. difference. Kay Kuzma wrote, o one has any idea how much time it takes to
love a child into maturity- until they have had one! You know, I think that is why so
many women get discouraged after a couple of years. By choosing to spend more
time at home with their children they envision they will have time to do everything
they have always wanted to do. Instead it takes them twice as long to read a book,
the Christmas lights are still up for their family's Easter celebration, and there is no
time for those home improvements they had dreamed of making. Instead, the carpet
gets spotted, the doorways get fingerprinted, the walls get scribbled on, the curtains
get snagged and their favorite china gets chipped. Plus, the bills just keep getting
bigger! You begin to think you will never get ahead!
Rebekah married into great wealth when she married Isaac, and she had servants
too. So maybe she had more time to think and plan strategy than most mothers.
Mothers differ greatly in the time they have to give to helping their children find
God's best. Rebekah succeeded in helping Jacob, and to a lesser degree even Esau,
for he also was changed. She was a problem solver for the whole family. The record
of her life takes up a good portion of the book of Genesis. She is a major person is
the history of God's people. She is not famous for any great project or movement.
She did not write a book, a song, or a poem. She did not achieve any public fame.
All she did was be a marvelous mate and mother, and that is enough to have made
her special to God.
3. REBEKAH-A DEDICATED DAUGHTER Based on Gen. 24:42-66
Bach never wrote an opera, but the closest thing to it was his Coffee Cantata. He
became quit an expert on coffee because in his day coffee drinking was the popular
vice much like drugs have become in our day. There were laws against it and spies
roamed the city sniffing the air to catch people in the act of roasting coffee beans.
Frederick the Great was disgusted with the increase of coffee drinking among his
subjects. He was brought up on beer, and many of the great battles had been won
by soldiers nourished on beer. The king felt that coffee drinking soldiers would not
be strong in their warfare against his enemies.
The cantata of Bach is about a father who was greatly disturbed about his daughter
was hooked on coffee. If she does not get it three times a day she says, I'm no better
than a piece of dried up goat meat. Papa tries everything-he argues, he threatens,
but nothing works until he promises to find her a husband if she will kick the habit.
She agrees, but in the closing trio she confides that she will only marry a man who
will let her drink all the coffee she wants. This is Bach's idea of a prodigal daughter.
It is a rather mild rebellion in comparison to the Prodigal Son. We know that
daughters can be equally rebellious and as foolish as sons, but the Bible seldom
reveals a bad daughter. There are sons galore who bring grief to their parents, but
very few daughters.

193. The Bible is much more son oriented than daughter oriented. But there is more
about daughters then we realize. Believe it or not, there are about 500 references to
daughters in the Bible, and about 90 of them are in Genesis, which makes it the most
daughter-oriented book in the Bible. Most of Genesis is about Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob and his 12 sons. But here in Genesis 24 we see entire long chapter of this male
dominated book revolving around the young daughter Rebekah who would become
the grandmother of the 12 sons of Jacob.
Rebekah got in on God's plan for history because Abraham did not like the girls he
saw in Canaan. They were idolaters and corrupted by their culture. He did not want
his son Isaac to marry one of these girls, and so he sent his servant Eliezer back to
his native Mesopotamia to find a daughter among his brother's family. This was
probably the longest journey in the Bible to find a wife. It was a 6 weeks trip across
the desert. In our culture we don't send servants out to shop for a wife. We prefer to
see the merchandise for ourselves and make our own choice. Isaac is 40 years old,
and yet he does not go along to have some input. He just took the one the servant
selected, and they had a long and fruitful marriage. They had their fights, but they
overcame them and became the grandparents of the 12 tribes of Israel.
For some reason the Patriarchs had a hard time having daughters. Abraham had
just 2 sons-Ishmael and Isaac. Then Isaac had his 2 boys-Jacob and Esau. Then
Jacob had the 12 sons from his 4 wives, but then Leah finally came through with
one daughter named Dinah. She is the only daughter we know of for 3 generations
in that family tree. Because of this lack of daughters the line of Abraham had to go
back to the family of ahor his brother to find their wives, for girls were abundant
in his line. It gave us Rebekah, Rachel and Leah. It is a strange reality, but it is still
true today that some families tend to have all boys and others have all girls, but the
majority gets a mixture of the two. Such was the case with the family of Rebekah.
She had a brother named Laban.
The thing that surprised me in studying the families of Genesis is that many of them
just had 2 children. I guess I assumed that most families were large in the Bible, but
if you read with the intent to count, you discover that families with from 1 to 5 are
the majority, and 2 or 3 are very common. Part of the problem in counting is that
daughters are often not listed, for the family tree followed the sons. That is why it is
rare to have a passage like the one we are looking at where a daughter plays the
leading role on the stage of history. She was not forced to play it either, but chose to
play it by her own will. It was a male dominated world, but we see that the males
who dominated Rebekah's life respected her right to determine her own destiny. We
read in verse 57-8, Then they said, let's call the girl and ask her about it. So they
called Rebekah and asked her, will you go with this man? I will go, she said.
She did not hesitate to make the choice of leaving her family to go to a far land to be
married to a total stranger. It was an awesome decision, but she chooses to go. She
was the female equivalent of Abraham leaving his family to go to Canaan. Good
parenting and good relationships of all kinds demand that we respect the rights of
people to have a say in the direction they go. They should be consulted and given the
right, and not have their destiny determined by someone else.

194. It is one of the hard parts of parenting to give guidance with trying to impose your
will on your child. A mother was listening to her little daughter say her prayers one
night. She was really into blessing with God bless daddy and mommy, grandma and
grandpa, uncle Bill and aunt Dorothy, and the mailman and Mickey mouse and, the
mother seeing no end to the list said Amen. But the little girl said, Don't listen to
her God. She doesn't know when I am done. It is hard to let children be children
and have their own feelings because they often do not fit our adult agenda. One of
the major problems in our culture is the refusal of parents to let their children be
children. The parents are captives of the culture, and they feel the pressure to
impose an adult life style on their kids. Childhood is a non-productive period of life,
and so the goal is to get over it as quickly as possible. Such is the thinking of many.
It is a waste of time to be children in their minds, but this is in direct contradiction
to the Bible.
John Drescher in What Parents Should Expect writes, Because we do not see
childhood as a legitimate phase of life itself, and because we as parents feel the need
to find our success in our children, we do many ridiculous things. At 3 months we
buy toys parents like to play with. And electric train is purchased and set by parents
whose child still wants to stack blocks. A tricycle stands rider less with the driver
still in diapers. We dress 5-year-olds in caps and gowns for kindergarten
graduation. A little fellow recently said, 'I think it is bad I graduated because I can't
even read.' He goes on giving numerous illustrations of how parents refuse to let
their children be children.
We live in a childhood denying culture. Animals do not have much a childhood.
They’re born and very quickly are on their own. God made people different from
the animal kingdom. He made them to need a long period of childhood before
becoming adults. We don't like God's plan. The animal kingdom is what we want,
and so we deny that man is different and go along with the evolution philosophy
that man is just another animal. And so we reject childhood as a waste and want our
children to become adults as quickly as possible. This has led to children having
breakdowns increasing numbers, and at younger ages. The drive to be grown up
leads to inferiority feelings. This has become the number one emotional problem of
teens. Almost all of them feel inferior because they cannot be mature adults, and so
they turn to alcohol, drugs, and suicide to escape a world where they don't fit in.
Jesus said adults are to become like children, and we have reversed that to say that
children must become adults. The result is a culture where families are breaking
down at record pace. You cannot contradict God's plan for life and not pay a price.
There needs to be more of verse 57 in family life. It says, Let's all the girl and ask
her about it. Let your children share their feelings and dreams. Let them have
choices about their destiny. Don't impose your dreams, or those of your culture on
them. Let them be who they are as God has designed them.
Florence ightingale changed the history of nursing in hospitals, but few realized
how her choice to do so was fought by her family. She and her sisters were educated
at home by their father. As a teen she fell in love with the idea of studying nursing.

195. Her mother had other dreams for her. She was pretty and witty, and she smart and
talented. Her mother did everything she could to frustrate her dream of becoming a
nurse. It was not a respectable profession in those days. Her mother and sister
actually felt it was immoral to be a nurse, and her sister refused to talk about the
degrading topic.
Florence felt called of God to be a nurse, but her family's resistance led her to
depression so deep that she wanted to take her own life. At age 30 she finally
escaped the clutches of her family and got some training with the deaconesses in
Munich, Germany. But when she came back home she was sentenced to be her
sister's slave for 6 months, and she was forbidden to mention nursing. She was
deeply depressed again and realized she had to follow her own will regardless of her
family's wishes. She left home and went back to Munich. She wrote to her mother
pleading for her support, but her mother would not respond. Her family resented
her and felt she had disgraced the family name. She was treated like a criminal for
becoming a nurse.
You can understand why Florence wrote in July of 1851, The family uses people,
not for what they are, nor for what they are intended to be, but for what it wants
them for-its own uses. It thinks of them not as what God has made them but as the
something which it has arranged that they shall be. Her family interfered and got
her fired from her first job at age 32, but she fought back and got reinstated. It was
not until she became famous that the family stopped fighting her. It was too late
then, however, and even though Florence nursed her own mother the last 7 years of
her life, they were never close because she was a parent who never had the wisdom
to say, Let's call the girl and ask her about it.
Let your daughters and your sons tell you how they feel. Let them express their own
dreams, for God could have put in them, as he did in Florence, the ambition and
ability that you have no understanding of and not interest in, but which are a part
of His plan for their lives. The Bible is mainly about men who leave their land and
people to go into an unfamiliar world to do the will of God, but here in Gen. 24 we
have a daughter doing so. As history developed more and more daughters have
become called of God to make such commitments. Today there are more women on
the mission field fulfilling the great commission than there are men.
Rebekah's life reveals that commitment like hers can change all of history, but it is
not necessarily glamorous. We take famous people like Florence ightingale and
pick out the honors she received and the great events of parties with the Queen, and
we think such a life would be so glamorous. But the fact is, she had a hard life, and
it was full of loneliness and sorrow with very little glamour. She saved many
thousands of lives by her influence and commitment, but it was mostly just blood,
sweat, and tears, and not a lot of enjoying ambrosia-the nectar of the gods.
As we follow Rebekah back to Canaan to be the wife of Isaac we see it was a
commitment that changed history, but there was not a lot of glamour. Isaac was a
rather generic sort of husband. He was not a very exciting personality. He likes to
hunt and so he favored Esau the hunter. But she favored Jacob, and so there was

196. conflict in the family. She sent Jacob back to her brother and never saw him again,
and Esau was a great disappointment to her, for he married pagan girls. The point
is, she played a major role in God's plan, but her life was not full of the spectacular.
There was disappointment, boredom, loss, and just the typical life of most wives and
mothers. But she remained committed, and that is why she was God's choice for this
role.
She was given a choice and she remained committed to that choice, and that is what
God is looking for in daughters and sons. Rebekah was pretty we are told, but she
never became famous for anything. She just had a family of two boys and did her
best to raise them. obody is clamoring to get the movie rights to her life story. It
was a rather commonplace life she lived, but she had the key ingredient that makes
any daughter and asset to the kingdom of God, for she had commitment. If you
teach your child to be a committed person, you will prepare them to be used of God.
Lack of commitment has always been a major weakness in people. Adam and Eve
were not committed to obey God's will whatever the cost, and they lost paradise.
Lack of commitment has been the major problem of man ever since. The bottom line
cause of every problem every church faces is the lack of commitment. If all believers
were committed people, there would be no problem in getting people to do the work
of the church, or to fund missions, or to achieve any of the realistic goals that are
aimed for.
A missionary society wrote to the famous David Livingstone in Africa, Have you
found a good road to where you are? If so, we want to send other men to join you.
Livingstone replied, If you have men who will come only if they know there is a
good road, I don't want them. I want men who will come if there is no road at all.
We are a soft people. We have so many options of enjoyment that it is painful to do
anything that is hard and costly. Commitment involves pain, and we just do not like
the idea. There was pain involved for Rebekah to leave her family and travel for
weeks over the desert to marry a stranger. It was hard, and called for commitment.
An old Swedish hymn has this line, There is nothing that is not won by the love
which suffers. This is so true of God's love, which gave His Son to die on the cross
to achieve the reconciliation of God and man. But it is true in every realm of life.
Commitment is love for anyone or any goal that will be pursued, even if it means
suffering. John Audubon became the famous naturalist and the name to be ever
associated with bird lovers because he was committed to learn about birds. He
would go out at midnight and crouch in the swamps just to learn more about the
nighthawk. He would stand in water that was stagnant up to his neck while
poisonous water moccasins swam past his face in order to get a picture of a ew
Orleans water bird. He risked his life for what seemed so trivial because he was
committed to his goal.
Shun Fujimoto of Japan, in the 1976 summer Olympics, broke his right knee in a
floor exercise. He refused to give up, and he competed in his strongest event, which
were the rings. His routine was excellent, and when he dismounted with a triple

197. summersault twist the pain shot through his whole system like a knife. Tears ran
down his cheeks, but the tears were soon gone, for by his commitment he won the
gold medal.
The stories are endless of people who are so committed to a goal that they will suffer
greatly to achieve it. We need to have goals that we know are God's will that we are
pursuing with diligence no matter what suffering may be involved. It does not have
to be a commitment to be great or famous. God does not put that kind of pressure
on us like parents often do. He just wants us to be like Rebekah, and be committed
to what He has called us to be. She was called to be a wife and mother, and that is a
worthy calling. Today daughters are called to be just about everything that sons are
called to be. We need to encourage them to follow their dreams and be committed to
do all that they do for the glory of God.
The thing that impresses me about God's call to people in the Bible is that all He
really asks for is commitment. He does not ask them to be great. He does not ask
them to do spectacular things. He just asks them to go where He wants them to go
and be committed to the goal. Abraham was not told he had to go to Canaan and be
a hero of any kind, or become famous in the land. He was just called to go there, and
that is what he did. Rebekah was just asked to go to Canaan and be a wife, and she
went and was committed to it. She did not have to become great or famous. All she
had to do is be what she was called to be-a wife and mother. God does not put
pressure on His children to be something they are not called to be, or gifted to be.
He just wants us to be the best of what we are called to be, and that is what Rebekah
was as a dedicated daughter.
Genesis 25
This chapter is loaded with many names that most never study, and much of it is
very technical. It is here just to let you know this information is available. If you
prefer to skip those verses that deal with the details about the sons, just do so, and
get the gist of the verses that are most relevant.
1 Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.
1. Commentators point out that it is not likely this choosing of another wife took
place after the death of Sarah. The Apostle Paul wrote in Rom. 4:19 that Abraham
considered his feeble body dead along with Sarah's dead womb. In other words,
they were both long past child bearing years, and so the birth of Isaac was a miracle
of God through them. This means it is not likely Abraham could take another wife
many years later and give birth to 6 more children after the death of Sarah. Many

198. commentators are pretty much agreed with the following statements: ...it is clear
that this marriage is related here out of its chronological order, merely to form a
proper winding up of the patriarch's history. Clarke adds, It is therefore very
improbable that he had any child after the birth of Isaac; and therefore we may well
suppose that Moses had related this transaction out of its chronological order, which
is not infrequent in the sacred writings, when a variety of important facts relative to
the accomplishment of some grand design are thought necessary to be produced in a
connected series. A good example of things out of chronological order is the death
of Abraham is described in this chapter, but the fact is, he lived for many more
years after this chapter.
Let's do the math
* Birth of Isaac - Abraham is 100 (Gen 21.5)
* Death of Abraham - Abraham is 175 (Gen 25.7)
* Birth of Jacob and Esau - Isaac is 60 (Gen 25:26)
* Conclusion: Abraham lived for 15 years after the birth of
Jacob and Esau
An unknown author adds these comments: Over the centuries a number of Bible
scholars have maintained that this marriage between Abraham and Keturah did not
take place after the death of Sarah. A number of reasons can be cited in support of
this conclusion:First, the verb translated “took” can as easily be rendered “had
taken,” as the margin of the IV indicates. Second, Keturah is referred to as a
concubine in I Chronicles 1:32, which also fits nicely with the word “concubines” in
verse 6 of our passage. A concubine held a position somewhat above that of a slave,
yet she was not free, nor did she have the status or rights of a wife. The master did
have sexual relations with the concubine. Her children held an inferior status to
those born of a wife, but they could be elevated to the position of a full heir at the
will of the master. Why would Keturah be called a concubine unless Sarah were still
alive and this marriage was of a lesser type?Third, the sons of this union were said
to have been “sent away” (verse 6). This could hardly be true of the children of a
full marriage, but it would be completely consistent with the children of a
concubine. These children would have been sent away in just the same fashion as
Ishmael. According to the Code of Hammurabi the sons of a concubine could be sent
away, the compensation for which was the granting of their full freedom. Finally,
Abraham was said to have been old, beyond having children at age 100 (cf. Genesis
18:11). Paul referred to Abraham as being “as good as dead” (Romans 4:19) so far
as bearing children was concerned. Those who are mentioned here would have had
to have been born to a man at least 140 years old if Abraham married Keturah after
Sarah died and Isaac was married to Rebekah. These children listed in verse 3
would have been more of a miracle than Isaac. The fact that there is no mention of
the marvelous miracle of these 6 sons makes it clear there is no such miracle, and
Abraham had to have them much earlier.
2. Calvin sounds downright disgusted with the idea that Abraham would take a
young wife in his old age. He writes, It seems very absurd that Abraham, who is
said to have been dead in his own body thirty-eight years before the decease of
Sarah, should, after her death, marry another wife. such an act was, certainly,

199. unworthy of his gravity. Besides, when Paul commends his faith, (Rom. 4: 19,) he
not only asserts that the womb of Sarah was dead, when Isaac was about to be born,
but also that the body of the father himself was dead. Therefore Abraham acted
most foolishly, if, after the loss of his wife, he, in the decrepitude of old age,
contracted another marriage. Further, it is at variance with the language of Paul,
that he, who in his hundredth year was cold and impotent, should, forty years
afterwards, have many sons. Calvin accepts the theory that Abraham took
Keturah while Sarah was still alive, but he does not like it, and he writes, Such
conduct indeed was disgraceful, or, at least, unbecoming in the holy patriarch.
evertheless no other, of all the conjectures which have been made, seems to me
more probable. He goes on, Certainly, if Abraham married a wife while Sarah
was yet alive, (as I think most probable,) his adulterous connexion was unworthy of
the divine benediction. But although we know not why this addition was made to the
just measure of favour granted to Abraham, yet the wonderful providence of God
appears in this, that while many nations of considerable importance descended from
his other sons, the spiritual covenant, of which the rest also bore the sign in their
flesh, remained in the exclusive possession of Isaac. Calvin is saying that he
considers polygamy adultery, but fails to recognize that it was by this means that
Jacob gave birth to a third of the 12 tribes of Israel. It would be wiser to accept that
it was an acceptable practice in that day and not blot Abraham's reputation with a
sin. He blew it enough times without adding sins based on future sexual ethics of
Christians. Ronald Youngblood, a teacher at Bethel Seminary, when I was there,
says this is what is called a flashback.
3. Gill wrote his opinion like this, that Abraham took Keturah for his concubine,
about twenty years after his marriage with Sarah, she being barren, and long before
he took Hagar; though not mentioned till after the death of Sarah, that the thread of
the history might not be broken in upon; and there are various things which make it
probable, as that she is called his concubine, 1Ch_1:32, which one would think she
should not be, if married to him after the death of Sarah, and when he had no other
wife, and seeing before he died he had great grandchildren by her, and the children
of her are reckoned down to the third generation; whereas there are only mention of
two generations of Hagar, as in Gen_25:1; and therefore seems to have been taken
by him before Hagar, and even when he was in Haran, and the children by her are
thought to be the souls gotten there; nor does it seem very probable that he should
take a wife after the death of Sarah, when he was one hundred and forty years of
age, and was reckoned an old man forty years before this; and Dr. Lightfoot (f) is of
opinion, that Abraham married her long before Isaac's marriage, or Sarah's death;
and if this was the case, the difficulty of accounting for Abraham's fitness for
generation vanishes.
4. There are many, however, like Barnes and Henry who see no reason to not take
this in the order in which it is written. Abraham would be lonely in his old age after
Sarah's death, and a young wife could add new life to his body. She was young
enough to bear 6 children, and so it was a whole new experience for Abraham.
Modern studies prove that men in their elderly years, even in the 90's can and do
still have sex once or twice a month. There can be some problems, however. Morris

200. was a good example, for at 85 he married Louanne who was 25. On their wedding
night she heard a knock at her bedroom door and in walked Morris. She thought he
would be too tired, but he was ready for action. Afterwards she prepared to go to
sleep and the knock came again, and in walks Morris. He came into bed and they
enjoyed one another again. She said to him, Morris, I cannot believe you could
come to me twice in one night! Morris looks at her dumbfounded and says, You
mean I've been here already.
5. Many are convinced that when God rejuvenated Abraham to give birth to Isaac
that the rejuvenation continued so he could have more children to help fulfill the
promise to having descendants in great numbers. There is no way to know which
view is correct, and it does not really matter, except this last view does keep
Abraham from being a practicing polygamist. He did not live with Hagar, but if he
had 6 sons with Keturah while Sarah was alive he would definitely be practicing
polygamy, which would not be the case if he married her after the death of Sarah.
Ken Trivette sees the humor in this picture of Abraham becoming a family man at
his age. He writes, We see two things occurring. Abraham is becoming a husband
again and he is becoming a father again. He is around 125 or possibly older. Instead
of hearing the squeak of a rocking chair, we hear wedding bells. Instead of leaning
back and enjoying his golden years, he is surrounded by preschoolers. When it was
about time to look at ursing Homes, he was looking for kindergartens. Instead of
wheelchairs, there were baby carriages. Sarah has been dead around 20 years and
now Abraham remarries. Her name is Keturah, which means “incense” or “she who
makes incense to burn.” She was a woman that added a fragrance to all she came in
contact with. She no doubt brought a lovely fragrance to the last years of
Abraham’s life. Someone has said that optimism is a 90 year old man marrying a 20
year old woman and buying a house next to an elementary school.
6. There seems to be confusion about the number of children born to Abraham. In
this text we have a listing of 6 sons added to his son Isaac born to Sarah, and his son
Ishmael born to Hagar, which brings the total to 8. But when Paul deals with the
matter in Gal. 4:22 he only has the two born before Keturah comes into the picture,
and he writes, Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free
woman. The book of Hebrews reduces it to just one and says, By faith, Abraham
when he was tried offered up Isaac... his only begotten son. - Hebrews 11:17. This
sounds like a problem, but not really, for it all makes sense as we read this
explanation by Clarke. He writes, Galatians isn't too hard to deal with, since it
isn't saying that Abe had only two kids -- it's just picking two out of the lot (the two
most important for the context) and using them as examples. Only our modern
obsession with details requires the added thought, He had six others by another
women, but that doesn't come into this story. That leaves Hebrews (which should
not mention the other 6, which were born after the time described) -- did the writer
of Hebrews forget Ishmael? Hebrews is here making use of the LXX version of
Genesis 22:2, with one exception: where Hebrews says only begotten the LXX
says beloved. On the other hand, a variant tradition of the LXX, used by Aquila
and Josephus, also says only begotten. Why? Both words derive from the Hebrew
yahid, which can carry both meanings. This is the sense in which only begotten

201. should be understood.
7. A Rabbi Buchwald has some very interesting information from the Jewish
commentators. He writes, Who was Keturah? Our rabbis are unclear about her
identity. Some commentators say that Keturah was a new wife who was descended
from Jafet, one of the sons of oah. This means that each of Abraham's three wives
were descended from one of the three sons of oah. Sarah, was a descendent of
Shem; Hagar, a descendent of Ham; and Keturah, a descendent of Jafet. Our rabbis
see in this the fulfillment of the verse (Genesis 12:3): V'niv'r'choo v'cha kol
mish'p'chot ha'ah'da'ma, and all the nations of the world will be blessed through
you.
Other rabbis disagree, saying that Keturah was really Hagar. If that's the case, why
is she called Keturah? Keturah means closed or tied shut. Even though
scripture says of Hagar (Genesis 21:14), Va'tay'laych va'tay'ta b'midbar Be'er
Shaw'va, implying that Hagar returned to the idolatry of her father's house, our
rabbis insist that Hagar did teshuva, and that her new deeds became pleasant like
ketoret, incense. It is as if a new woman had been created, and for this reason the
Torah gives her a new name. This interpretation, however, is challenged by the
biblical text that states (Genesis 25:6): V'liv'nay ha'pee'lag'shim, and to the
children of the concubines, implying that there was more than one concubine. The
rabbis explain that in the ancient Torah text, the word pee'lag'shim, is spelled with
only one yud, indicating that Abraham had only one concubine, meaning Hagar.
This view was held by a few Christian commentators also, but the vast majority
reject it as unfounded speculation.
8. Critics point out that Keturah is called a wife here and in I Chron. 1:32 she is
called a concubine. The concubine is also a wife, but of a secondary ranking, and
not equal to the original wife. Concubines were called wives in Gen. 37:2 and Judges
19:3-5. The fact that she was called a concubine does support the view that she was
taken as a wife while Sarah was still alive. Her name means perfumed or incense,
and it was revived by the Puritans and can be found rarely in America. The Yakult
Midrash makes a not unreasonable assertion concerning all three wives of
Abraham. Abraham married three wives – Sarah, a daughter of Shem; Keturah, a
daughter of Japheth; and Hagar, a daughter of Ham.
9. Some scholar put together this interesting account about frankincense: J.A.
Selbie in A Dictionary of the Bible (James Hastings, publ. by T T Clark, Edin.,
1899) adds this comment on the sons of Keturah: From the meaning of the name
Keturah, ‘frankincense’, Sprenger [in Geog. Arab. 295] suggests that the ‘sons of
Keturah’ were so named because the author of Gn. 25 1ff. knew them as traders in
that commodity. According to Selbie, Arab genealogists maintain there was a tribe
called Katura living in the neighborhood of Mecca. Herodotus (ca. 490-425 BCE)
stated that: “Arabia is the last of inhabited lands towards the south, and it is the
only country which produces frankincense, myrrh, cassia, cinnamon, and ledanum”
(Histories, III, 107), and adds: “Concerning the spices of Arabia let no more be said.
The whole country is scented with them, and exhales an odour marvellously sweet”
(ibid., 113). Frankincense (lebonah: SHD 3828) was found almost exclusively in

202. Arabia. The prophet Jeremiah mentions incense coming from Sheba (Jer. 6:20). It
was one of the four ingredients of the specially prepared holy incense (Ex. 30:34)
used in both the Tabernacle and the Temple (cf. Lk. 1:9-10). Frankincense was also
uniquely used with the sacrifice offerings along with fine flour and oil (Lev. 2:1-2),
but its use was forbidden with sin offerings (Lev. 5:11) or jealousy offerings (um.
5:15). It was to be burned for a memorial, an offering made by fire on the two piles
of 6 loaves each of unleavened bread upon the ‘pure’ table within the Tabernacle
and the Temple (Lev. 24:5-7). Myrrh is often referred to in conjunction with
frankincense, and is associated with both the birth and death of Messiah (see Mat.
2:11; Mk. 15:23; Jn. 19:39-40). Song of Solomon 3:6 What is that coming up from
the wilderness, like a column of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense,
with all the fragrant powders of the merchant? (RSV) Psalm 45:7b-8 Therefore
God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows; 8 your
robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. (RSV) This refers to the
normal custom in the East of perfuming a bridegroom; in this particular case, the
Messiah has been anointed above his fellow elohim. We see also in ehemiah 13:5
that frankincense was considered one of the Temple treasures.
10. Ken Trivette wrote, When God does something He does it right. Here is
Abraham well over 100 and he’s having children left and right. He’s got a cane in
one hand and a high chair in the other. ot only do we see him having 6 children,
but we read of him having 7 grandsons, and 3 great-grandsons. Here’s the point I
want you to get. His most fruitful days were in the last years of his life. If the
average Christian were honest, they look back to days that were more fruitful than
the present. They can recall a time when they were doing more for God and a time
when God was using and blessing them more. Abraham was more fruitful at the end
than he was at the beginning. He started well but finished even better. That’s the
way we should want to die; still bearing spiritual fruit till the day God calls us
home. May it even be so that we are in the most fruitful days of our life when it is
our time to go.
Benjamin Franklin had only 2 years of formal schooling. But at age 25 he founded
the first library in America. At age 31 he started the first fire department. At age 36
he invented the lightning rod. At age 40 he was learning how to harness electricity.
At age 43 he designed a heating stove that is still in use today. At age 45 He founded
one of the Ivy League Universities. At age 79 he invented bifocals. Conversationalist,
economist, philosopher, diplomat, printer, publisher, linguist (spoke and wrote 5
languages). All this until age 84. He never stopped producing and making
contributions.
2 She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah.
1. Someone has pointed out that the record of these sons of Abraham is very
incomplete: For some reason the genealogist of the book of records (so it is
called in Genesis 5:1) names all 6 of Keturah's children, then identifies the offspring
of just 2 of those 6 (Abraham's grand children), and then, finally, tells us how just 1

203. of those 2 grand children gave birth to 3 clans (Abraham's great grand children).
This is a spotty record that feels patchy, random and incomplete, glaring with
significant gaps. or does the record-keeper comment on any of its significance, if it
had any significance. Details about Keturah's children with Abraham sputter out in
a genealogical dead end.
2. It is something we seldom think of, but it is a fact, Abraham is not only the father
of the Jews, but he is also the father of the Gentile nations that came from these sons
who became Arabs. They were not Jews, but Gentile descendants of Abraham. He
fathered many Gentile nations through these sons and Ishmael. Intermarriage with
the Gentiles was discouraged because they tended to become idolaters, but if they
became believers they were welcome. But if a non-Jew followed the true God, there
was no barrier to marriage, e.g. the Canaanite Rahab and the Moabitess Ruth in the
Messianic Line itself Matt. 1:5, the Egyptian princess Bithiah I Chron. 4:18, and the
godly Hittite Uriah, married to the Jewess Bathsheba—and God severely judged
King David for dishonouring this marriage II Sam. 11-12.
3. Most all of the information below about these sons of Abraham by Keturah comes
from the study of Wade Cox and Reg Scott. You can find their study with all the
many details at http://www.ccg.org/_scripts/english/C1a.asp. I will share here just
the basic facts and Bible references. Before we look at each son it is of interest to
note what these authors say about the connection of the Christian faith with that of
the Arabs and their becoming a part of Islam. The surprising statement they make
is this, Before the coming of Islam the Arabs were crossed between paganized
Arabs and Christianized Arabs. Islam is itself a version of Unitarian Christianity
and the founders of Islam were Christians. Muhammed was a baptised Christian.
Muhammed's debate with the Christians was over the trinity. He rejected it as a
denial of the oneness of God and considered it a heresy. This meant a lower view of
Jesus as the Son of God. He was born of a virgin and a miracle child, but he was a
prophet of God and not the son of God. He is highly honored and did ascend into
heaven, but they say he is not God.
Wade Cox writes, In the seventh century we are still dealing with Heathenism that
asserts that gods came down and fornicated with humans and begat children. That
was the assertion that the Koran was combating. The Koran must be read in the
light of the problems of the time. The Koran says that the true faith if that of
Abraham, Moses and Jesus, but they have manipulated many texts to conform to
their perspective and interpretation. The two great religions of the world are in
conflict over Biblical interpretation. This explains why there is often a prejudice
toward the Arabs by Christians in preaching and teaching. It is just the same as
with Catholic and Protestant, Calvinist and Armenian, and Baptists and Lutherans.
Religious conflict creates all kinds of prejudice, for it is a rule that you do not keep
an open mind toward the views of those who are the enemy. Each side builds the
case for their view and rejects all that is said for any other view. We tend to think of
the Jews and Arabs as the continuing battle of the sons of Abraham, but the fact is
the larger battle between Christianity and Islam is the same battle of the sons of
Abraham. All three of the great faiths of the world, Judaism, Islam and Christianity
claim to be the children of Abraham, and so the whole world is really caught up in a

204. form of sibling rivalry. It can be confusing because some Arabs became Jews, and
others became Christians, and most became Muslims, and so the Arabs are in all
camps.
The Koran says, Say (O Mohammed): We believe in Allah and that which is
revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac
and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and
the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and
unto Him we have surrendered. And whoso seeketh as religion other than the
Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the
Hereafter. So the whole issue is over Bible interpretation, for all parties agree on
the Bible as the basis for authority. All three agree on some things. For example,
Cox writes, The general expectation of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is of
the coming of the Messiah, the King of Righteousness, who will establish his rule for
1,000 years (Rev. 20:4) called the Millennium. The Christian tradition is that the
Millennium (or Chiliad) will be preceded by the first resurrection of the Pelekizu
(the martyrs, or the persecuted for Christ’s sake). The second or general
resurrection of the dead occurs at the end of the Millennium. The point in all this
is that we are dealing with the family of Abraham yet today in the most major
religious conflicts in the world. His family line though both Jews and Gentiles are
still the big news of today. ow lets look at these sons that came through his wife
Keturah.
1. Zimran means musical or musician. He is thought to be Zimri of Jeremiah 25:25
which is one of the many nations to suffer God's wrath when the whole Middle East
came under his judgment. These people moved into the Arabian peninsula even
before Israel went into Egypt.
2. Jokshan
Cox writes, He was the second-born son, whose name can mean snarer (BDB),
hence by implication a birdcatcher; alternatively, insidious (Strong: SHD 3370). On
Cohen’s analysis Jokshan may also be the person called Kahtan or Qahtan by the
Arabs. Jokshan produced two sons, Sheba and Dedan (Gen. 25:2-3; 1Chr. 1:32), and
the tribes from these brothers settled in northern Arabia. His two sons, the
grandsons of Abraham became large tribes who did business with the great city of
Tyre. In Ezek. 27:20-23 we see these two tribes as part of the great trading going on
in Tyre- 20 Dedan traded in saddle blankets with you. 21 'Arabia and all the
princes of Kedar were your customers; they did business with you in lambs, rams
and goats. 22 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah traded with you; for your
merchandise they exchanged the finest of all kinds of spices and precious stones, and
gold. 23 'Haran, Canneh and Eden and merchants of Sheba, Asshur and Kilmad
traded with you. 24 In your marketplace they traded with you beautiful garments,
blue fabric, embroidered work and multicolored rugs with cords twisted and tightly
knotted. We see the princes of Kedar here also, and so the sons of Ishmael and the
sons through Keturah were all a part of the world of trade going on in the vast Arab
world. These familes that came from Abraham were big business people in the
Middle East. They were wealthy people and Ezek. 38:13 has them say this as God

205. threatens to come and rob them of their wealth: 13 Sheba and Dedan and the
merchants of Tarshish and all her villages [d] will say to you, Have you come to
plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take
away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder? They had so much wealth
that they were a temptation to others to come and conquer them for the sake of their
riches.
Israel imported incense from Sheba, for it was the best, but when God was angry
with them he make it clear that they cannot escape his judgment by using the best
incense on their sacrifices. In Jer. 6:20 he says, What do I care about incense from
Sheba or sweet calamus from a distant land?
Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please me. But
when God wants to picture a great blessing on Israel with riches galore coming to
them, he refers primarily to the wealth that will come from the these sons and
grandsons of Abraham, and also from the sons of Ishmael. These Abab tribes were
the merchants of wealth in that ancient world, as they still are to this day selling oil
to the rest of the world. God states it clearly in Isa. 60:1-7:
1 Arise, shine, for your light has come,
and the glory of the LORD rises upon you.
2 See, darkness covers the earth
and thick darkness is over the peoples,
but the LORD rises upon you
and his glory appears over you.
3 ations will come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your dawn.
4 Lift up your eyes and look about you:
All assemble and come to you;
your sons come from afar,
and your daughters are carried on the arm.
5 Then you will look and be radiant,
your heart will throb and swell with joy;
the wealth on the seas will be brought to you,
to you the riches of the nations will come.
6 Herds of camels will cover your land,
young camels of Midian and Ephah.
And all from Sheba will come,
bearing gold and incense
and proclaiming the praise of the LORD.
7 All Kedar's flocks will be gathered to you,
the rams of ebaioth will serve you;
they will be accepted as offerings on my altar,
and I will adorn my glorious temple.
In Psalm 72:10-11, and 15 we read of the gold and other wealth that came to
Solomon from Sheba. Job 6:19 refers to the caravans of merchants from Sheba:
The caravans of Tema look for water, the traveling merchants of Sheba look in
hope. Here we see the son of Ishmael and the grandson of Keturah in the same

206. verse as merchants of the desert.
The greatest picture we have of their wealth is when the Queen of Sheba came to
visit Solomon and we read in I Kings 10:1-14: 1 When the queen of Sheba heard
about the fame of Solomon and his relation to the name of the LORD, she came to
test him with hard questions. 2 Arriving at Jerusalem with a very great caravan—
with camels carrying spices, large quantities of gold, and precious stones—she came
to Solomon and talked with him about all that she had on her mind. 3 Solomon
answered all her questions; nothing was too hard for the king to explain to her. 4
When the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon and the palace he had
built, 5 the food on his table, the seating of his officials, the attending servants in
their robes, his cupbearers, and the burnt offerings he made at [a] the temple of the
LORD, she was overwhelmed. 6 She said to the king, The report I heard in my own
country about your achievements and your wisdom is true. 7 But I did not believe
these things until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half was told
me; in wisdom and wealth you have far exceeded the report I heard. 8 How happy
your men must be! How happy your officials, who continually stand before you and
hear your wisdom! 9 Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you
and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the LORD's eternal love for
Israel, he has made you king, to maintain justice and righteousness. 10 And she
gave the king 120 talents [b] of gold, large quantities of spices, and precious stones.
ever again were so many spices brought in as those the queen of Sheba gave to
King Solomon. 11 (Hiram's ships brought gold from Ophir; and from there they
brought great cargoes of almugwood [c] and precious stones. 12 The king used the
almugwood to make supports for the temple of the LORD and for the royal palace,
and to make harps and lyres for the musicians. So much almugwood has never been
imported or seen since that day.) 13 King Solomon gave the queen of Sheba all she
desired and asked for, besides what he had given her out of his royal bounty. Then
she left and returned with her retinue to her own country. Solomon's Splendor 14
The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents, [d] 15 not
including the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings
and the governors of the land.
For some reason the three grandsons of Abraham which were born to this second
son of Keturah are mentioned in verse 3. othing is known about them except what
can be known from the meaning of their names. Cox gives us this information:
Asshurim (SHD 805) means steps in the sense of taking steps to go somewhere. In
later Jewish literature the Asshurim are described as ‘travelling merchants’.
Letushim (SHD 3912) means hammered or oppressed (Strong), directly related to a
word (3913) meaning to sharpen, hammer, whet (BDB), that is, the Letushim were
occupied in the sharpening of cutlery and weaponry.
Leummim (SHD 3817) means peoples or communities, from a root word meaning to
gather. In later Jewish writings the Leummim are described as the ‘chief of those
who inhabit the isles’, perhaps alluding to the Greek islands.
3. Medan

207. Cox writes, The third of Keturah’s six sons, Medan carries a name meaning
contention, discord or strife (SHD 4091). He apparently founded a number of
northern Arabian tribes, and his name is preserved in the town of Madan, which lay
slightly west of south of modern Taima. Madan or Medan is also mentioned in the
inscriptions from the reign of the Babylonian Tiglath-pileser III (ca. 732 BCE),
where it was referred to as Badan. The consonants b and m are often interchanged
in Arabic and its predecessors, Chaldean and Eastern Aramaic.
4. Midian
This forth son was more notable than the other boys because the father-in-law of
Moses came from his tribe and played a mojor role in the history of Israel. His name
means strife, brawling or contention. The story of Moses fleeing to Midian it told in
Ex. 2, and it is referred to again by Dr. Luke in Acts 7:29, Then fled Moses at this
saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons. Moses
took his wife from this tribe, and so Moses becomes locked into this son of
Abraham. Exodus 2:15-21 tells the story: When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to
kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh, and stayed in the land of Mid'ian; and he
sat down by a well. 16 ow the priest of Mid'ian had seven daughters; and they
came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. 17 The
shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and
watered their flock. 18 When they came to their father Reu'el, he said, How is it
that you have come so soon today? 19 They said, An Egyptian delivered us out of
the hand of the shepherds, and even drew water for us and watered the flock. 20
He said to his daughters, And where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him,
that he may eat bread. 21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he
gave Moses his daughter Zippo'rah. (RSV) Zipporah means a bird. She bore two
sons to Moses: Gershom, meaning exile, and Eliezer, meaning God is help. Jethro
is called the priest of Midian: he recognized the true God and even gave Moses good
advice which apparently pleased the Lord (Exod 18). Certainly, the Midianites had
some revelation of God through their father Abraham. Like most of these sons,
Midian also became an enemy of Israel.
The following is an outline of the history of this tribe of Midian.
1. Midianites become traders, moving between Gilead and Egypt,
outside the promised land
2. Jacob's sons will one day sell their brother Joseph to Midianite slave
traders who will take him to Egypt
3. Moses will marry a Midianite woman and be greatly helped by his
father-in-law, a Midianite.
4. But the Midianites will also lead Israel astray during the Exodus and
the Israelites will worship false gods because of the Midianites.
5. Because of this God will declare a special hatred against the
Midianites
1. He will command Moses to engage in a holy war against them

208. 2. This war will continue for 2 centuries or more until the
Midianites are decisively defeated by Israel under Gideon in the time
of the Judges.
3. This defeat will become legendary, with the prophet Isaiah twice
referring to it centuries later
4. Isaiah 9:4 - For the yoke of their [Israel's] burden, and the bar
across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor, you
have broken as on the day of Midian.
5. Isaiah 10.26 - The LORD of hosts will wield a whip against them
[the Assyrians], as when he struck Midian
In verse 4 the five sons of Midian are named and Cox puts together the following
information about these grandsons of Abraham. He says the Book of Jasher tells of
many greatgrandsons of Abraham born to these 5 grandsons. This book of Jasher is
quoted twice in the Bible and is, therefore, of the highest authority. We read in Josh.
10:13-14, So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself
on [b] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the
middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been
a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the
LORD was fighting for Israel! In a larger quote David ordered his men to learn a
section of this book in II Sam. 1:17-27.
17 David took up this lament concerning Saul and his son Jonathan,
18 and ordered that the men of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written
in the Book of Jashar):
19 Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your heights.
How the mighty have fallen!
20 Tell it not in Gath,
proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon,
lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad,
lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.
21 O mountains of Gilboa,
may you have neither dew nor rain,
nor fields that yield offerings of grain .
For there the shield of the mighty was defiled,
the shield of Saul—no longer rubbed with oil.
22 From the blood of the slain,
from the flesh of the mighty,
the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,
the sword of Saul did not return unsatisfied.
23 Saul and Jonathan—
in life they were loved and gracious,
and in death they were not parted.
They were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
24 O daughters of Israel,
weep for Saul,

209. who clothed you in scarlet and finery,
who adorned your garments with ornaments of gold.
25 How the mighty have fallen in battle!
Jonathan lies slain on your heights.
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.
27 How the mighty have fallen!
The weapons of war have perished!
If you want to have some fun with people tell them you are going to read from the
Bible in the book of Jasher. They will think you are losing your mind, but then you
turn to this passage and read from Jasher. Most will be surprised that part of
Jasher is in the Bible. ow lets look at the information Cox has put together on
these grandsons.
Ephah, meaning darkness or gloomy (SHD 5891), was the father of the tribes which
settled in the northwest of the Arabian peninsula, roughly in modern Ghuwafa,
south-west of Tebuk. The Babylonian king Tiglath-pileser III calls this tribe the
’Ayappa, or the Khayappa Arabs, as noted above. The last known reference to them
is found in an inscription dated to ca. 715 BCE, the time of Sargon II.
Another Ephah is also mentioned twice in the genealogical records of the tribe of
Judah (1Chr. 2:46,47).
Epher, meaning a calf (SHD 6081), was the second son of Midian, and was known to
the Arabs as ’Ofr. His descendants in turn were called the Apparu as inscriptions
from the time of King Assurbani-pal of Assyria show. The Epherite city of Ghifar,
close to Medina, still carries the name of its founder. As with Ephah above, the
name Epher appears in the genealogy of Judah (1Chr. 4:17) as well as among the
half-tribe of Manasseh across the Jordan (1Chr. 5:24).
Hanoch, has the notable meaning of dedicated or [God’s] follower (SHD 2585). He
was purported to be the father of the Kenites, who were famed metalworkers or
smiths. These tribes originally settled in the south-west region beside the Gulf of
Aqaba.
Abida(h), meaning my father knows or father of knowledge (SHD 28), was the
fourth son of Midian. In Yemen, at the south-west foot of the Arabian peninsula,
there are Minean inscriptions of ca. 9th century BCE which refer to these people as
the Abiyadi’.
Eldaah, meaning God has known or called of God (SHD 420), was the progenitor of
tribes referred to as the Yada’il in ancient Sabean inscriptions. As with their
brother tribe, they apparently settled in the area of south-western Arabia, now
modern Yemen.
The Midianites were so intertwined with the Ishmaelites that their names could be
used in the same sentence as the same people. We see it in the first contact these
people had with Israel in Gen. 37:23-28, 23 So when Joseph came to his brothers,
they stripped him of his robe—the richly ornamented robe he was wearing- 24 and

210. they took him and threw him into the cistern. ow the cistern was empty; there was
no water in it. 25 As they sat down to eat their meal, they looked up and saw a
caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels were loaded with spices,
balm and myrrh, and they were on their way to take them down to Egypt. 26 Judah
said to his brothers, What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his
blood? 27 Come, let's sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; after
all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood. His brothers agreed. 28 So when
the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern
and sold him for twenty shekels [b] of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to
Egypt. The people of Ishmael, the son of Abraham, and the people of Midian, the
grandson of Abraham had so intermarried that they were one tribe.
At one point God used the Midianites to punish his disobedient people of Israel. We
read in Judges 6:1-2,6, The people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the
LORD; and the LORD gave them into the hand of Mid'ian seven years. 2 And the
hand of Mid'ian prevailed over Israel; and because of Mid'ian the people of Israel
made for themselves the dens which are in the mountains, and the caves and the
strongholds….6 And Israel was brought very low because of Mid'ian; (RSV). Here
we see the Arabs in charge of Israel and forcing the chosen people to live in caves.
These people were greatly blest of God, but they became evil just like Israel and
God had to turn things around and let Israel wipe them out and take their vast
wealth. We read of it in umbers 31:1-33:
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be
gathered to your people.
3 So Moses said to the people, Arm some of your men to go to war against the
Midianites and to carry out the LORD'S vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a
thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.
5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were
supplied from the clans of Israel.
6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son
of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the
trumpets for signaling.
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every
man.
8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of
Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.
9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the
Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.
10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their
camps.
11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals,
12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and
the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across
from Jericho. [a]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them

211. outside the camp.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands
and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 Have you allowed all the women to live? he asked them.
16 They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of
turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a
plague struck the LORD's people.
17 ow kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay
outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify
yourselves and your captives.
20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.
21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, This is the
requirement of the law that the LORD gave Moses:
22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead
23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then
it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And
whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water.
24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come
into the camp.
Dividing the Spoils
25 The LORD said to Moses,
26 You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count
all the people and animals that were captured.
27 Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of
the community.
28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one
out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats.
29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the
LORD'S part.
30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle,
donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are
responsible for the care of the LORD'S tabernacle.
31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep,
33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a
man.
This text tells us of the enormous success of the Midianites, and the wealth that they
had collected by their business. It also tells us that 32 thousand of them became
wives of the soldiers of Israel. We need to keep in mind that every pagan nation that
Israel conquered had young virgins that were taken captive, and this explains why
polygamy had to be a common practice, for most men in Israel were already
married by the time they were soldiers in battle. They had the right to pick any girl
they found beautiful for a wife. The idea of Jews being a pure race is nonsense, for
they intermarried with all the Gentile nations.

212. If we go back to umbers 25 we can see why God was so angry at the
Midianites.They seduced Israel into immorality that led God to destroy 24 thousand
of his own people. Here is um. 25 that tells the story.
1 While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality
with Moabite women,
2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down
before these gods.
3 So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD'S anger burned
against them.
4 The LORD said to Moses, Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and
expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD'S fierce anger
may turn away from Israel.
5 So Moses said to Israel's judges, Each of you must put to death those of your men
who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor.
6 Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the
eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the
entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the
assembly, took a spear in his hand
8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—
through the Israelite and into the woman's body. Then the plague against the
Israelites was stopped;
9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
10 The LORD said to Moses,
11 Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away
from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that
in my zeal I did not put an end to them.
12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him.
13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he
was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.
14 The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri
son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family.
15 And the name of the Midianite woman who was put to death was Cozbi daughter
of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family.
16 The LORD said to Moses,
17 Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,
18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor
and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was
killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.
The end was not good for Midian because of departing from the faith of there father
Abraham, but the fact is, there were Midianites who were godly people who will be
a part of the eternal kingdom. Moses needed a Midianite as a guide when he led the
people into the desert. We read in um. 10:29-33
29 ow Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law, We
are setting out for the place about which the LORD said, 'I will give it to you.' Come

213. with us and we will treat you well, for the LORD has promised good things to
Israel.
30 He answered, o, I will not go; I am going back to my own land and my own
people.
31 But Moses said, Please do not leave us. You know where we should camp in the
desert, and you can be our eyes.
32 If you come with us, we will share with you whatever good things the LORD
gives us.
33 So they set out from the mountain of the LORD and traveled for three days. The
ark of the covenant of the LORD went before them during those three days to find
them a place to rest. 34 The cloud of the LORD was over them by day when they set
out from the camp.
It appears that he did not go with Moses, for he had a ministry among his own
people, for he was a true follower of the God of Abraham, and this is made clear
later in Exodus 18:1-12 Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of
all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the LORD had
brought Israel out of Egypt. 2 ow Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, had taken
Zippo'rah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her away, 3 and her two sons, of whom the
name of the one was Gershom (for he said, I have been a sojourner in a foreign
land), 4 and the name of the other, Elie'zer (for he said, The God of my father
was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh). 5 And Jethro, Moses'
father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he
was encamped at the mountain of God. 6 And when one told Moses, Lo, your
father-in-law Jethro is coming to you with your wife and her two sons with her, 7
Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance and kissed him; and
they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent. 8 Then Moses told his
father-in-law all that the LORD had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for
Israel's sake, all the hardship that had come upon them in the way, and how the
LORD had delivered them. 9 And Jethro rejoiced for all the good which the LORD
had done to Israel, in that he had delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians.
10 And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who has delivered you out of the hand
of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh. 11 ow I know that the LORD is
greater than all gods, because he delivered the people from under the hand of the
Egyptians, when they dealt arrogantly with them. 12 And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law,
offered a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the
elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God. (RSV)
Jethro goes on to change the life of Moses in a dramatic way with wisdom that
Moses did not have. Ex. 18:13-27 says:
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood
around him from morning till evening.
14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said,
What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all
these people stand around you from morning till evening?
15 Moses answered him, Because the people come to me to seek God's will.
16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the

214. parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws.
17 Moses' father-in-law replied, What you are doing is not good.
18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is
too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone.
19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You
must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him.
20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties
they are to perform.
21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men
who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds,
fifties and tens.
22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every
difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make
your load lighter, because they will share it with you.
23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all
these people will go home satisfied.
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said.
25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people,
officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.
26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought
to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.
27 Then Moses sent his father-in-law on his way, and Jethro returned to his own
country.
Here was one Midianite who was used of God, and we have no idea how many of his
people will be a part of eternity because of his faithfulness to the God of his father
Abraham. Cox points out the parallel with Jethro and Melchisedek. He writes,
There are also some noteworthy parallels in the encounter between Moses and
Jethro (Ex. 18:1ff.) and the one between Abraham and Melchisedek recorded in
Genesis 14. Genesis 14:17-20 After his return from the defeat of Ched-or-lao'mer
and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the
Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 And Mel-chiz'edek king of Salem
brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19 And he blessed
him and said, Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth;
20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!
(RSV) Abraham had just defeated Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, while Moses had
earlier witnessed the defeat of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Melchizedek was the priest
of the Most High God; Jethro was the priest of Midian.Both Melchizedek and
Jethro ‘blessed’/gave praises to God for their deliverance using very similar
language (cf. verse 20 above and Ex. 18:10).Melchizedek brought bread and wine
for a ceremonial meal with Abraham; Jethro also arranged a sacrificial meal and
bread to be eaten with Moses, Aaron and all the elders of Israel. There is a general
theme of “peace” and friendship in the two encounters: the king of Salem (SHD
8004, from 7999) blessed Abraham, while Jethro and Moses are said to have
exchanged Shaloms (SHD 7965, from 7999) or Salaams in the typical Middle-eastern
manner (Ex. 18:7; cf. also 4:18).

215. Another tribe that descended from Midian was the Kenites, and they like Jethro
have a positive image in the Bible. They were descendants of Jethro who stayed
connected with Israel. Judges 1:16 says, 16 The descendants of Moses' father-in-law,
the Kenite, went up from the City of Palms [b] with the men of Judah to live
among the people of the Desert of Judah in the egev near Arad. Here we see the
Arabs and the Jews living side by side in peace. In Judges 4:11 we read, 11 ow
Heber the Kenite had left the other Kenites, the descendants of Hobab, Moses'
brother-in-law, [c] and pitched his tent by the great tree in Zaanannim near
Kedesh. We read in 1Chronicles 2:55 The families also of the scribes that dwelt at
Jabez: the Ti'rathites, the Shim'e-athites, and the Su'cathites. These are the Ken'ites
who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab. (RSV) So we see
these people from Midian became intertwined with Israel.
One of the great heros in the Bible is a Kenite, and the surprising fact is this hero is
a woman. We read of her in Judges 4:17-23:
17 Sisera, however, fled on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite,
because there were friendly relations between Jabin king of Hazor and the clan of
Heber the Kenite.
18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, Come, my Lord , come right in.
Don't be afraid. So he entered her tent, and she put a covering over him.
19 I'm thirsty, he said. Please give me some water. She opened a skin of milk,
gave him a drink, and covered him up.
20 Stand in the doorway of the tent, he told her. If someone comes by and asks
you, 'Is anyone here?' say 'o.'
21 But Jael, Heber's wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to
him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into
the ground, and he died.
22 Barak came by in pursuit of Sisera, and Jael went out to meet him. Come, she
said, I will show you the man you're looking for. So he went in with her, and
there lay Sisera with the tent peg through his temple-dead.
23 On that day God subdued Jabin, the Canaanite king, before the Israelites. 24
And the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the
Canaanite king, until they destroyed him.
In her famous song of celebration Deborah sings of Jael in Judges 5:24-26
24 Most blessed of women be Jael,
the wife of Heber the Kenite,
most blessed of tent-dwelling women.
25 He asked for water, and she gave him milk;
in a bowl fit for nobles she brought him curdled milk.
26 Her hand reached for the tent peg,
her right hand for the workman's hammer.
She struck Sisera, she crushed his head,
she shattered and pierced his temple.
This descendant of Keturah is helping the descendants of Sarah win a major battle
that led to 40 years of peace.
I Sam. 15:4-6 tells us that the Kenites helped Israel before, and Saul gave them

216. warning because of their help in the past. It says, So Saul summoned the men and
mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand
men from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.
6 Then he said to the Kenites, Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not
destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they
came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
Cox speculates that the three wise men who came to worship Jesus were likely
descendants of Midian. He writes, As recorded in Matthew 2:1-11, the “wise men”
or magos of the East (to which vague area Keturah’s sons had been sent centuries
earlier) arrived after Christ’s birth to present him with gold, frankincense and
myrrh. These two most important spices were traded in early times by Arabians
including Jokshan and Midianite merchants, and gold itself was found in
abundance in the ancient Land of Midian. We saw also in Judges 8:27 that the
captured gold of Midian was used by Gideon to make an ephod; hence an altogether
strong Midianite connection
Cox also goes on to deal with the Spartans as possible descendants of Midian. It is
too complex to deal with here, but the gist of it is this:
Josephus gave credence to the claimed descent of the Spartans from Abraham
when he wrote the following in his Antiquities of the Jews:
10. At this time Seleucus, who was called Soter, reigned over Asia, being the son of
Antiochus the Great. And [now] Hyrcanus's father, Joseph, died. … His uncle also,
Onias, died, and left the high priesthood to his son Simeon. And when he was dead,
Onias his son succeeded him in that dignity. To him it was that Areus, king of the
Lacedemonians, sent an embassage, with an epistle; the copy whereof here follows:
AREUS, KIG OF THE LACEDEMOIAS, TO OIAS, SEDETH
GREETIG.
We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the
Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of
Abraham (14) It is but just therefore that you, who are our brethren, should send to
us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same thing, and
esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common
with yours. Demoteles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us.
This letter is four-square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws. (Bk.
12. chp. 4)
Other references to the Spartans or Lacedaemonians being of the same stock as the
Jews are found in Antiquities Book 13: 5, 8 and in the apocryphal 1Maccabees
12:6. You can go to his site and get all the details.
Another branck of the Kenite tribe was the Rechabites, and they were one of the
most godly tribes ever, and God greatly honored them and used them as an example
of people who know how to be commited to obey and do what is right. The entire
chapter of Jeremiah 35 deals with them, and it is a wonderful chapter to read. The
father of this tribe was Jehonadab, and he assisted Jehu the king of Judah in
destroying the Baal system in Judah and getting rid of this idolatry in the land in II

217. Kings 10.
5. Ishbak
Cox writes, Ishbak was the fifth son of Abraham by Keturah. His name means he
releases (BDB) or he will leave (Strong: SHD 3435). Apparently he and his
descendants settled in the lands to the east of Canaan, however, very little else is
known about this tribe from either the Bible or secular sources.
6. Shuah
Clarke in his commentary writes, Or Shuach. From this man the Sacceans, near to
Batanla, at the extremity of Arabia Deserta, towards Syria, are supposed to have
sprung. Bildad the Shuhite, one of Job's friends, is supposed to have descended
from this son of Abraham. Cox writes, Also called Shuach, this sixth and last of
Keturah’s sons has a name meaning variously wealth (BDB) or dell, sink, incline
(Strong: SHD 7744). He was the progenitor of the Shuhites, the most notable of
whom was Bildad, son of Shuach, and one of Job’s ‘comforters’ (Job 2:11). Matthew
Poole makes some interesting comments on this verse in Job. They were persons
then eminent for birth and quality, for wisdom and knowledge, and for the
profession of the true religion, being probably of the posterity of Abraham, and
akin to Job, and living in the same country with him. (A Commentary on the Holy
Bible, 1685, reprint by Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1962; emphasis added).
Shuah’s descendants were also well known to the Assyrians, who referred to them
as Suhu, and described their land as being on the right bank of the Euphrates River,
south of Carchemish and between the Balikh and Khabur rivers (cf. Dillmann,
Holzinger, et al). Ptolemy calls the latter Chaboras, which is probably one of the two
Chebar rivers referred to by Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:1ff.). The name Shuhite is Sauchaioon
in Greek.
3 Jokshan was the father of Sheba and Dedan; the descendants of Dedan were the
Asshurites, the Letushites and the Leummites.
1. Sheba
Gill writes, Bochart {o} is of opinion, that the posterity of this Sheba are the same
with the Sabeans who inhabited at the entrance of Arabia Felix, not far from the
abathaeans; and who, by Strabo {p}, are mentioned together as near to Syria, and
used to make excursions on their neighbors; and not without some color of reason
thought to be the same that plundered Job of his cattle, Job 1:15.
2. Dedan
Gill in his commentary writes, From Dedan came the Dedanim or Dedanites,
spoken of with the Arabians in Isa 21:13; Junius thinks Adada in Palmyrene of

218. Syria had its name from this man, and in which country is the mountain Aladan or
Alladadan. Bochart {q} more probably takes Dedan, a city in Idumea, to derive its
name from him. There is a village called Adedi in the country of the Cassanites, a
people of Arabia Felix, which Ptolemy {r} makes mention of, and seems to have
some appearance of this man's name:
3. The sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. Gill writes,
these names being plural are thought not to be proper names of men, but
appellatives, descriptive of their places of abode, or of their business: hence the
Targum of Onkelos represents them as such that dwelt in camps, in tents, and in
islands; and the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem call them merchants, artificers
and heads of the people: however, Cleodemus {s} the Heathen historian is wrong in
deriving Assyria from Asshurim, whom he calls Ashur; since Assyria and Assyrians
are so called from Ashur, the son of Shem, Ge 10:22.
4 The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah. All these
were descendants of Keturah.
Most everything that can be said about these grandchildren of Abraham is
guesswork and speculation. All we know is that this whole family became a part of
the Arab nations and dwelt in some part of Arabia. There are here six sons of
Abraham, seven grandsons, and three great-grandsons, making sixteen descendants
by Keturah. If there were any daughters, they are not noticed. It is not customary to
mention females, unless they are connected with leading historical characters.
5 Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac.
1. Abraham did this because God made it clear that the promises would be fulfilled
though Isaac, and so he sent all of his other sons away from his home and all of his
land and animals. His great wealth was to go to the one chosen to be the line to the
Messiah. He needed the support of Abraham's riches in order to assure that his
family would continue. If the line from some of his other sons were to fade away and
even come to a dead end, it would not matter, but it mattered plenty that the chosen
line have all that was needed to continue to the goal. Abraham was wise in this
choice. The others were given gifts and were able to go and survive on their own.
2. Isaac stands before us as a type both of Christ and the believer. Abraham gave
all that he had unto Isaac. Without question, this text speaks of Abraham's greater
Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God hath appointed heir of all things (Heb.
1:2). The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand (John
3:35). Everything the triune God is is in Christ. And everything the triune God
possesses is in the hands of Christ, the God-man, our Mediator, to give to whom he
will. But this text also speaks of you and me, who are the sons of God by electing
love, adopting grace, and saving faith. Like Isaac, we are the possessors of all the

219. wealth and privileges of the Father's house, heirs of God and joint-heirs with
Christ (Rom. 8:17). All that Christ possesses in his mediatorial offices, as the God-man,
we possess in him (Eph. 1:3). How rich we are if the unsearchable riches of
Christ are ours (Eph. 3:8). And they are! God, who gave us his Son, has with his son
freely given us all things (Rom. 8:32). God will not withhold any good thing from his
people. All the universe is ours! Spiritual things, eternal things, carnal things, and
temporal things, all are ours in Christ, and shall be given to us as we need them.
3. Isaac was a type of Christ in other ways also, for he was a child of miracle as was
Jesus, and he yielded himself as a voluntary sacrifice as did Jesus. He is also the
bridegroom who waited for his bride to be brought to him just as Jesus waits for his
bride, the church, to be completed so they can begin the eternal honeymoon called
heaven with the wedding supper of the Lamb.
4. HERY writes, He gave portions to the rest of his children, both to Ishmael,
though at first he was sent empty away, and to his sons by Keturah. It was justice to
provide for them; parents that do not imitate him in this are worse than infidels. It
was prudence to settle them in places distant from Isaac, that they might not
pretend to divide the inheritance with him, nor be in any way a care or expense to
him. Observe, He did this while he yet lived, lest it should not be done, or not so well
done, afterwards. ote, In many cases it is wisdom for men to make their own hands
their executors, and what they find to do to do it while they live, as far as they can.
These sons of the concubines were sent into the country that lay east from Canaan,
and their posterity were called the children of the east, famous for their numbers,
Jdg_6:5, Jdg_6:33. Their great increase was the fruit of the promise made to
Abraham, that God would multiply his seed.
6 But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent
them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.
1. Here we have a surprising plural in concubines, for we only know of Keturah as
his concubine. It could be Hagar that makes it plural, but we have no record of
Abraham giving him gifts before she was sent away with Ishmael. But since there is
no record of any other concubine it must be Hagar. These two women are called
both wives and concubines. A concubine is a wife, but a secondary wife or second
wife, sometimes called concubine wives. Ishmael was not that far away, and so it
appears that later Abraham saw to it that he received a portion of his inheritance
along with the other sons.
2. If you know anything about the transfer of power in the ancient world you know
that family members will kill to become the head of things, and so all had to leave
the area so Isaac was safe to carry on the legacy of Abraham. So many brothers
killed their brothers in order to have power later in the history of God's people, and
Abraham wanted nothing of that for Isaac, and so all competition was sent away to
the land of the east. After he was dead there would be no one with the authority to
send them away, and so while he was living he did what was necessary for peace. He

220. was wise to give gifts before he died so he could help each of his sons get a good
start. These gifts were equivalent to paying for a college education today. They
helped each to go off and be independent leaders and providers for their family.
These gifts would likely include livestock to begin their own herds, and even seed to
sow their land with implements to farm the land. Henry wrote, It was prudence to
settle them in places distant from Isaac, that they might not pretend to divide the
inheritance with him, nor be in any way a care or expense to him. Observe, He did
this while he yet lived, lest it should not be done, or not so well done, afterwards.
ote, In many cases it is wisdom for men to make their own hands their executors,
and what they find to do to do it while they live, as far as they can. These sons of the
concubines were sent into the country that lay east from Canaan, and their posterity
were called the children of the east, famous for their numbers, Judges 6:5,33. Their
great increase was the fruit of the promise made to Abraham, that God would
multiply his seed.
3. Wesley wrote, He gave gifts - Or portions to the rest of his children, both to
Ishmael, though at first he was sent empty away, and to his sons by Keturah. It was
justice to provide for them; parents that do not that, are worse than infidels. It was
prudence to settle them in places distant from Isaac, that they might not pretend to
divide the inheritance with him. He did this while he yet lived, lest it should not have
been done, or not so well done afterwards. In many cases it is wisdom for men to
make their own hands their executors, and what they find to do, to do it while they
live. These sons of the concubines were sent into the country that lay east from
Canaan, and their posterity were called the children of the east, famous for their
numbers. Their great increase was the fruit of the promise made to Abraham, that
God would multiply his seed.
7 Altogether, Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years.
1. Abraham was 75 when he was called to come to Canaan, and now a hundred
years later he is buried in Canaan, but owning only a tomb of this land that he was
promised would be possessed by his seed. This promise would take centuries to be
fulfilled, but one that was fulfilled in his lifetime was that of Gen. 15:15 which says,
“And as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good
old age. He had one brief war in his life, but all the rest was peaceful, and it was a
long and fruitful life. It was not as long as the life of his son and grandson, however,
and so he was the youngest of the patriarchs.
2. Calvin wrote, Moses now brings us down to the death of Abraham; and the first
thing to be noticed concerning his age is the number of years during which he lived
as a pilgrim; for he deserves the praise of wonderful and incomparable patience, for
having wandered through the space of a hundred years, while God led him about in
various directions, contented, both in life and death, with the bare promise of God.
Let those be ashamed who find it difficult to bear the disquietude of one, or of a few
years, since Abraham, the father of the faithful, was not merely a stranger during a
hundred years, but was also often cast forth into exile.

221. 3. Meyer wrote, o human name can vie with Abraham's for the wide-spread
reverence which it has evoked amongst all races and throughout all time. The pious
Jew looked forward to reposing, after death, in the bosom of Father Abraham. The
fact of descent from him was counted by thousands sufficient to secure them a
passport into heaven. Apostles so opposite as Paul and James united in commending
his example to the imitation of primitive Christians, in an age which had seen the
Lord Jesus Himself. The medieval Church canonized Abraham alone among Old
Testament worthies, by no decree, but by popular consent. Devout Moslems
reverence his name as second only to that of their prophet. What was the secret of
this widespread renown? It is not because he headed one of the greatest movements
of the human family; nor yet because he evinced manly and intellectual vigor; nor
because he possessed vast wealth. It was rather the remarkable nobility and
grandeur of his religious life that has made him the object of veneration to all
generations of mankind.
8 Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full
of years; and he was gathered to his people.
1. Dr. Ray Pritchard writes, I particularly like the way the ew American
Standard Bible translates those three phrases. It says that Abraham “died in a ripe
old age, an old man and satisfied with life.” What a wonderful way to put it. He was
satisfied with life. How many people can say that on their deathbeds? ot too many.
Most folks come to the end and look back with regret and remorse—regret for lost
opportunities and remorse over foolish mistakes they have made. o doubt
Abraham had his share of both, yet as he looked back over 175 he was satisfied with
the life he had lived. The Greek Philosopher Epicurus is quoted as saying, The art
of living well and the art of dying well are one. Abraham lived the truth of the
statement that dying well means living well. Living well means living faithfully not
perfectly. Another wrote, What a way to die - faithful at the end. Abraham had not
lived a perfect life; his foibles are recorded in God’s eternal word for us to see and
take heart in our own misery. But he does show us that it is possible to die well and
faithfully.... with a little Christian license we can surely put into [Abraham’s] mouth
the words which John Bunyan put into the mouth of Mr. Valiant-for-Truth in his
Pilgrim’s Progress, as that intrepid soul received his summons to enter the Celestial
City. I can think of no better epitaph. Though with great difficulty I am got hither,
yet now I do not repent me of all the trouble I have been at to arrive where I am. My
sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage, and my courage to him
that can get it. My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me, that I
have fought his battles, who will now be my rewarder....So he passed over, and all
the trumpets sounded for him on the other side. How could it be otherwise for a
man who alone was called the friend of God. Someone put it this way: The story of
Abraham is the story of a man who was, as it were, the friend of God. In fact, three
times in the holy Scriptures after the book of Genesis, Abraham is explicitly called
the friend of God. In II Chronicles, chapter 20, verse 7 he is called the friend of God.

222. In Isaiah 41, verse 8, he is called God’s friend. In James 2, verse 23, he is again
called the friend of God. The fullness of his life was based upon that redemptive
friendship which he had with the living God.
2. All people are gathered to their people when they die, but the people they are
gathered to are the people they have developed relationships with in this life. If your
relationships in life are with the ungodly, that is the people you will be gathered to,
and if godly they will be your people in the life after death. In other words, your are
choosing now the type of people you will be with in the afterlife. And unknown
author writes about this being gathered to his people: What happened after
Abraham died? Moses writes, “…he was gathered to his people.” Does this phrase
simply mean that he took a “dirt nap” in the family grave, end of story? Is it true
that there was no thought of an afterlife? Unfortunately, too many carelessly
conclude that this is precisely the case. Actually, the expression “he was gathered to
his people” cannot mean he was buried with his relatives and ancestors. In 25:8-9
such an analysis is impossible, because we know that none of Abraham’s kin, except
his wife, was buried at the cave of Machpelah. In the Old Testament those who have
already died are regarded as still existing. The event of being “gathered to one’s
people” is always distinguished from the act of burial, which is described separately
(35:29; 49:29, 31, 33). In many cases only one ancestor was in the tomb (1 Kgs 11:43;
22:40), or none at all (Deut 31:16; 1 Kgs 2:10; 16:28; 2 Kgs 21:18), so being
“gathered to one’s people” could not mean being laid in the family sepulcher.10
Undoubtedly, Old Testament saints didn’t have the full revelation of the
resurrection of the body. This awaited a later unveiling, in the ew Testament.
However, it seems certain that these early participants in the promises of God were
fully expecting to enjoy life after death. In the ew Testament when Jesus was
speaking to the Sadducees (i.e., a political/religious party who did not believe in the
resurrection), He used the argument that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
was not the God of the dead but of the living (Matt 22:32). Thus the patriarchs were
not to be counted out of the hope of resurrection.
All of this to say, death is not a period — it’s only a comma. The moment a believer
closes his eyes in death he is in the presence of Jesus. This is why Jesus told the thief
on the cross, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Luke
23:43). Jesus promises that there is life beyond the grave. He not only promised…He
demonstrated that truth with his own resurrection. Paul said, “For to me, to live is
Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21).
3. He went to his people and then became the father that all the rest of his people
went to in death, and it was called the bosom of Abraham. a synonym for the life
hereafter. According to the Old Testament, when a person died he went to be with
his fathers (Gen 15:15; 47:30; Deut. 31:16; Judg. 2:10). The patriarch Abraham
was regarded as the father of the Jews (Luke 3:8; John 8:37-40). At death,
therefore, the Jewish believer went to his forefathers or, to father Abraham. The
only Bible use of Abraham’s Bosom is in Jesus’ parable of the rich man and
Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Maclaren wrote, That phrase is only used in the earlier
Old Testament books, and there only in reference to a few persons. It is used of

223. Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Aaron, and once (Judges ii. 10) of a
whole generation. If you will weigh the words, I think you will see that there is in
them a dim intimation of something beyond this present life........Dimly, vaguely,
veiledly, but unmistakably, as it seems to me, is here expressed at least a
premonition and feeling after the thought of an immortal self in Abraham that was
not there in what ‘his sons Isaac and Ishmael laid in the cave at Machpelah,’ but
was somewhere else and was for ever. That is the first thing hinted at here—the
continuance of the personal being after death.
4. In the apocryphal book The Testament of Abraham we read this account, The
Lord consents, and orders Michael to take a cloud of light, and angels of the chariot
(merkabah), and to place Abraham in the chariot of the cherubim and to carry him
to heaven, whence he would be able to survey the whole universe. His ride begins
with the Great Sea. While surveying all the world with its joys and woes, its
beautiful and evil things, he is filled with indignation at the sight of the awful crimes
committed; and he asks the archangel to smite all malefactors with instant death—
which he did. But a voice resounds from heaven, crying: O Arch-angel Michael,
order the chariot to stop, and turn Abraham away, lest, seeing that all live in
wickedness, he destroy all creation. For behold Abraham, not having sinned himself,
has no pity for sinners; but I, who made the world, take no delight in destroying
any, but await the death of the sinner, that he may be converted and live. The story
makes Abraham to be without compassion, but it is pure fiction, and not to be taken
seriously, for Abraham was a sinner and he did have compassion on other sinner,
including his first two wives, and especially Lot whom he had to save from Sodom
twice.
5. The following song by Steve Green called Find Us Faithful is appropriate for
the life of Abraham.
We’re pilgrims on the journey Of the narrow road
And those who’ve gone before us line the way
Cheering on the faithful, encouraging the weary
Their lives a stirring testament to God’s sustaining grace
Surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses
Let us run the race not only for the prize
But as those who’ve gone before us
Let us leave to those behind us
The heritage of faithfulness passed on through godly lives
Chorus
Oh may all who come behind us find us faithful
May the fire of our devotion light their way
May the footprints that we leave
Lead them to believe
And the lives we live inspire them to obey
Oh may all who come behind us find us faithful

224. After all our hopes and dreams have come and gone
And our children sift though all we’ve left behind
May the clues that they discover and the memories they uncover
Become the light that leads them to the road we each must find
6. Life had been full of battles for Abraham. He had to battle with doubt as he
headed for Canaan without certainty to where he was going. He had to take it a step
at a time and move ahead in blind faith that God would guide. He had to battle with
his own fears that made him lie about his wife being his sister to save his life from
the Egyptians. He had to battle with his wife Sarah over the issue of Hagar and her
baby. He had to fight the battle of being forced to send his son Ishmael away. He
had to fight the battle to bring about peace with his shepherds and those of Lot. He
had to literally fight a battle to save Lot and others from captivity. He had to fight a
verbal battle with God to try and save Sodom. He had to fight his emotions as he
took his son Isaac to be sacrificed. He had to fight the battle to purchase a piece of
land from the Canaanites, who were tough negotiators, and it cost him a small
fortune. He had to fight the battle to leave all his property to just one son when he
had 7 others that he loved, and possibly loved even more than Isaac. Life is a battle
for all believers, and that is why Paul writes, For our struggle is not against flesh
and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this
darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil
day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (Eph 6:12-13).
7. The commentator writes, Clarke gives a good eulogy of Abraham: above all as
a man of God, he stands unrivaled; so that under the most exalted and perfect of all
dispensations, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he is proposed and recommended as the
model and pattern according to which the faith, obedience, and perseverance of the
followers of the Messiah are to be formed. Reader, while you admire the man, do
not forget the God that made him so great, so good, and so useful. Even Abraham
had nothing but what he had received; from the free unmerited mercy of God
proceeded all his excellences; but he was a worker together with God, and therefore
did not receive the grace of God in vain. Go thou, believe, love, obey, and persevere
in like manner. Guzik adds, Abraham passes from the scene, being one of the
most important men of the Bible. He is mentioned 70 times in the ew Testament
alone (only Moses is mentioned more times in the ew Testament [80 times]).
8. It was the opinion of Aristotle that a man should depart from life as he should rise
from a banquet. Thus Abraham died FULL of days, and SATISFIED with life.
Lucretius, lib. iii., ver. 947, ridiculing those who were unreasonably attached to
life, and grievously afflicted at the prospect of death, addresses them in the
following manner:- Fond mortal, what's the matter, thou dost sigh? Why all these
fears because thou once must die? For if the race thou hast already run Was
pleasant, if with joy thou saw'st the sun, If all thy pleasures did not pass thy mind
As through a sieve, but left some sweets behind, Why dost thou not then, like a
THAKFUL GUEST, Rise cheerfully from life's ABUDAT FEAST? CREECH.

225. Horace makes use of the same figure: From hence how few, like SATED GUESTS,
depart From life's FULL BAQUET with a cheerful heart? All these ancient
authors portray the ideal death, and that is the kind of death that Abraham
experienced as he was fully satisfied like a man rising from a feast of God's
blessings. Bruce Goettsche put it, When Abraham pushed back from the table
of life at the end of his days, he was satisfied. He had no regrets. He and enjoyed
the journey. Maclaren put it, I have drunk a full draught; I have had enough; I
bless the Giver of the feast, and push my chair back; and get up and go away.’ He
died an old man, and satisfied with his life.
9. Meyer wrote, This cannot refer to his body; for that did not sleep beside his
ancestors, but side by side with Sarah's. Surely then it must refer to his spirit. The
world's grey fathers knew little of the future; but they felt that there was somewhere
a mustering place of their clan, whither devout and holy souls were being gathered,
one by one, so that each spirit, as it passed from this world, went to rejoin its people;
the people from which it had sprung: the people whose name it bore; the people to
which by its tastes and sympathies it was akin.
What a lovely synonym for death! To DIE is to rejoin our people; to pass into a
world where the great clan is gathering, welcoming with shouts each new-comer
through the shadows. Where are your people? I trust they are God's people; and if
so, those that bear your name, standing on the other shore, are more numerous than
the handful gathered around you here; many whom you have never known, but who
know you; many whom you have loved and lost awhile; many who without you
cannot be made perfect in their happiness. There they are, rank on rank, company
on company, regiment on regiment, watching for your coming. Be sure you do not
disappoint them! But remember, if your people are God's people, you cannot be
gathered to them unless first in faith and love you are gathered to Him.
10. Goettsche then went on to give us some tips on how to live so we can die with this
same satisfaction.
* Instead of starting the day with Oh no start it with THIS is the day which
the Lord has made, I will rejoice and be glad in it
* Make time for God and savor those moments. Read His Word and share your
heart with Him every day.
* Talk about yourself and your life in the positive rather than the negative. Focus
on the blessings rather than the struggles. Make it a point to look for the silver
lining.
* Give yourself fully and enthusiastically to everything you have to whatever your
current project is.
* Whistle while you work (unless you are in a library).
* Think and speak well of your health. Focus on what you can do rather than
what you can't.
* Look for new things to try and learn and then try them and learn them (a new
language, a new skill, a new place to visit, try reading something different or
listen to some music outside of your normal tastes, learn to play an instrument)
Don't focus on the things you used to be able to do that you can't anymore . .

226. .focus on the things you wanted to do but didn't have time to do before! Have some
fun!
* Take time to notice beautiful things
* Plan flexibility into your schedule so you have time to talk with someone about
more than the weather.
* Resolve that the next time things don't go as you planned you won't pout but
will view it as an unexpected adventure.
Begin today to live so that when your life is over people will be able to say that you
lived a life that was full of years.
11. Abraham died, but his legacy lives on in all three of the great monotheistic
religions of the world today. One author wrote, The five repetitions of daily
Muslim prayer begin and end with reference to Abraham. Several rituals during the
hajj--the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca--throw back to Abraham's life. The Jews
feature the story of Abraham nearly sacrificing Isaac during their ew Year
celebrations. Christian children around the world sing Father Abraham had many
sons.... And I am one of them and so are you. Pope John Paul II spent a lifetime
dreaming of walking the steps of Abraham's journey and has a special place in his
heart for the Biblical Abraham. There has been a trend in the 1990s and 2000s to
use Abraham as a figure and tool for reconciliation. Interfaith activists have
scheduled Abraham lectures, Abraham speeches, and Abraham salons
worldwide. Bruce Feiler's Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths was
published to a welcome reception. David Van Biema in Time notes, It is a staple
premise of the interfaith movement, which has been picking at the problem since the
late 1800s, that if Muslims, Christians, and Jews are ever to respect and understand
one another, a key road leads through Abraham.
9 His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in
the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite,
1. Ishmael was not so far removed in distance or in relationship to the family that he
could not come back to be a part of his father's funeral. He maintained contact with
his brother Isaac, and there was a positive relationship with him. There is no reason
to believe that Ishmael was anything other than a godly man who stayed loyal to the
God of his father Abraham. Calvin writes, Hence it appears, that although Ishmael
had long ago been dismissed, he was not utterly alienated from his father, because
he performed the office of a son in celebrating the obsequies of his deceased parent.
Ishmael, rather than the other sons did this, as being nearer. Abraham had other
sons beside these two, but they are hardly known. These are the two that became
great nations. There could have been tension between these two, but they seem to
have been able to do this task in peace, even though Abraham left all his worldly
goods to Isaac and nothing to Ishmael. But we note that Abraham sent all of his sons
away, and not just Ishmael, for no other was to be the blood line of the covenant but
Isaac. Calvin lets the 6 sons of Abraham by Keturah off the hook by implying that
they had too far to travel, but we do not know that. The fact that not one of them

227. came back for the funeral is a hint that they hated the fact that Isaac got all of
Abraham's inheritance. Abraham had to give up a large part of his family in order
to make sure that Isaac was guaranteed a prosperous future so the could carry on
the promised line to the Messiah who would bless the whole world. The fact that
Ishmael came back, even though he was sent away with great anger by Sarah,
indicates that he loved his father and was an honorable man. He knew Abraham
loved him dearly, but had to go along with Sarah in sending him away. He did not
let the negatives of the past keep him from joining Isaac at this time of loss. He knew
how to forgive and move on.
2. Clarke writes, ..considering the rejection of Ishmael from the inheritance, this
transaction shows his character in an amiable point of view; for though he was a
wild man, yet this appellation appears to be more characteristic of his habits of life
than of his disposition. Someone else wrote, Death often puts an end to strife,
reconciles those who have been alienated, and brings rival relations, as in this
instance, to mingle tears over a father's grave. Strahan in his Hebrew Ideals writes,
The heroic huntsman from the steppes of Arabia and the gentle shepherd from the
pasture-lands of the South vie with each other in paying the last honors to the
beloved dead. They are both dutiful sons. either of them can ever forget how much
their father loved them ; neither of them ever cease to revere his name and memory.
Death brings estranged brothers together to drink the cup of a common sorrow ;
they look at each other with tear-dimmed eyes ; they see, in the light of eternity, how
paltry are all causes of earthly strife ; and they cannot return to their homes with
hard hearts. When all other means of reconciliation fail, death makes kindred and
brethren kind. The last enemy is a friend ; the great divider is a mighty reconciler.
3. Henry wrote, Here is nothing recorded of the pomp or ceremony of his funeral;
only we are told, 1. Who buried him: His sons Isaac and Ishmael. It was the last
office of respect they had to pay to their good father. Some distance there had
formerly been between Isaac and Ishmael; but it seems either that Abraham had
himself brought them together while he lived, or at least that his death reconciled
them. 2. Where they buried him: in his own burying-place, which he had purchased,
and in which he had buried Sarah. ote, Those that in life have been very dear to
each other may not only innocently, but laudably, desire to be buried together, that
in their deaths they may not be divided, and in token of their hopes of rising
together.
4. Meyer wrote, There were great differences between these two. Ishmael, the child
of his slave: Isaac, of the wedded wife. Ishmael, the offspring of expediency: Isaac,
of promise. Ishmael, wild and masterful, the wild ass; strongly marked in his
individuality; proud, independent, swift to take an insult, swift to avenge it: Isaac,
quiet and retiring, submissive and meek, willing to carry wood, to be kept in the
dark, to be bound, to yield up his wells, and to let his wife govern his house. And yet
all differences were wiped out in that moment of supreme sorrow; and coming from
his desert fastnesses, surrounded by his wild and ruffian freebooters, Ishmael united
with the other son of their common father, who had displaced him in his
inheritance, and who was so great a contrast to himself; but all differences were

228. smoothed out in that hour.
5. Rabbi Arthur Waskow develops this text into quite a story to show that the
reconciliation of these two brothers had a more long range effect than just planning
the funeral of their father. I quote it in full because of the spirit of it that is a vital
issue in our world today, and especially as peace talks are underway between the
descendants of these two brothers. The Jewish spelling of names is different, but it is
still easy to see who it is about. Some of his interpretation is questionable, but I
share it because it is of interest that Isaac settles by that very well named by Hagar
because of God's saving her and Ishmael by means of it.
Avraham died . . . and Yitzchak and Yishmael his sons buried him. Isaac and
Ishmael his sons? This is the only time in the great saga of our founding families
that the Torah speaks of them together, calling them both Abraham’s sons (Gen. 25:
9). Until this moment the Torah has never allowed us to see them together, in a
direct relationship. Always before they have been described separately:
And now they reconnect, at long last his sons. Have they come together only in a
formal public way, just to bury the Old Man and get back to their separate lives? It
seems not: the story continues, ow it was after Avraham’s death, that God
blessed Yitzchak his son. And Yitzchak settled by Be’er Lachai Ro’i, the Well of the
Living -One Who-sees-me.
What is this well? It is Yishmael’s well, the well that God gave Hagar and Yishmael
not once but twice when they were suffering in exile.
For Yitzchak to be blessed with a peaceful life at Yishmael’s well, something must
have happened at Avraham’s graveside. Let us listen:
All these years, I’ve missed you. I only came to the Old Man’s funeral because I
knew you would be here. As for the Old Man, I’ve feared and hated him. He would
have let me die. And the way he treated my mother! — ‘the Egyptian stranger,’ he
called her. For that contempt, God tells me, his offspring — your offspring, brother!
— must serve as strangers in the land of Egypt. May it be that from that service you
will learn to know the heart of the stranger, as the Old Man never knew my
mother’s heart!
And I’ve missed you. I could never understand why you were ripped out of my life.
I too, feared the Old Man — he would have literally killed me. I missed you — and I
blamed you. I always thought he took me to that mountain because he was filled
with guilt over exiling you. He thought he had to treat us equally.
You blamed me! — How amazing! For to tell the truth, I blamed you too. For your
sake, your mother said, she had us exiled. All these years, we’ve turned our fear of
the Old Man into distrust of each other. — But now, thank God, we’ve reconnected!
I would be honored if you would come to live with me a while.
That would be a blessing in my life.
And so at last there was fulfilled the last stage of the prophecy that Hagar had heard
(Gen. 16: 12) when she was pregnant with the child she named God listens:
He will be a wild man; His hand in all and the hand of all in him; And facing all his
brothers he shall dwell.
For the story of Yishmael ends (Gen. 25: 18): Facing all his brothers did he live.

229. For millennia, on Rosh Hashanah the Jewish people has read the twin stories of how
Avraham brought each of his sons to the brink of death. Perhaps we need to read on
Yom Kippur the story of their reunion and reconciliation, elevate that story in our
consciousness, see the death of their dangerous father as the opportunity to
reconceive our lives.
Perhaps on Yom Kippur we can invite the children of Yishmael to visit in our tents,
to tell their version of that ancient story and of their suffering so that we listen —
really listen, as God listened to their outcry long ago. And to name for us a time
when they will listen to our story, to our suffering.
Perhaps together we can bring forth Be’er Lachai Ro’i, the Well of the Living -One
Who-sees-me. At that wellspring we might not only hear but see each other — not in
a cloudy mirror but with clarity, how much we have in common and where we
differ. And laugh out loud at the harsh joke that God has played upon us: blessing
each of us with a sense of covenant-connection with this troubled land so filled with
promises.
Or perhaps even the Torah’s prophecy itself did not see fully clearly: perhaps it is
not brothers but the almost-sisters, Sarah and Hagar, who today will have to see
and drink from the hidden well-springs of compassion, if our children are ever to
laugh with one another.
________________
* Rabbi Waskow is the author of Godwrestling — Round 2 (Jewish Lights
Publishing, Woodstock VT) and many other works of Jewish renewal. He is a
Pathfinder of ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, an international network with
headquarters in Philadelphia. Copyright (c) 1999 by Arthur Waskow.
10 the field Abraham had bought from the Hittites.There Abraham was buried
with his wife Sarah.
1. Sarah had been buried there 38 years before this. These two who gave life to the
whole plan of God, were now joined in death side by side. This is probably the most
famous tomb in the world, where people of all three great religions come to visit. I
want to quote an article about this cave where Abraham was buried for it has some
very interesting history.
Abraham's Burial Site
by ews Agency AI
(An exclusive story translated from German and reprinted with permission of ews
Agency AI)
For 714 years, entering the Jewish forefathers' grave had been forbidden by law to
all non-Muslims -and now it is once again.
In 1981, Dr. Seev Jevin, Director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, forced himself
through a narrow opening in the underground grave chamber of the Machpela

230. cave, where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were believed to be buried. He did this
under strict observation by the Islamic Waqf. Behind bolted doors in Yitzhak Hall,
the secret entrance in the southeast wall was opened. Jews had long suspected that
the entrance to the real burial chamber must be here, and because of that they
placed their prayer slips of paper in wall cracks on the exterior of the building at
this same location.
The discovery that Dr. Jevin made in 1981 was concealed for political reasons.
However, now that Hebron has been handed back to the Muslims, he has recounted
to achrichten aus Israel (ews from Israel) how he forced himself through a
narrow entrance, went down 16 steps and crawled along a 20-meters long, 60-cm
high and 100-cm wide tunnel in order to finally reach a 3.5 x 3.5 meter room. The
chamber, tunnel and steps were all made of the same worked stones as the building
exterior. They were a homogenous group of building materials belonging to
Herodian-era construction, identical to those used in the Jerusalem temple.
Dr. Jevin determined that plaster covering the black walls in the grave chamber
dated from a later time and was designed to hide the original Herodian stones.
This is a customary tactic of the Muslims by which they attempt to cover up the
original, said Dr. Jevin.
Behind broken-off plaster, he discovered Latin script, dating to Crusader times,
containing the names Jacob and Abraham. It was obvious Christians regarded this
location as a holy place. Could this room be the true burial chamber?
Earlier Moshe Dayan, both Israel's Defense Minister and an amateur archaeologist,
had been curious about this site. Following the Six Day War, he and 12-year-old
Michal lowered themselves with a rope through the 30-cm, narrow opening into this
chamber, which was 20 cm from the blocked floor opening in Yitzhak Hall. They
measured this chamber but found no bones. ow, Dr. Jevin was standing in this
same underground chamber. He was prepared to break off his search when he
stumbled on a floor plate. Suspecting a hollow space underneath, he lifted the plate,
found a hole and slid through the narrow opening. ow Dr. Jevin found himself in a
3.5 x 4 meter room from which a passage to a second smaller oval room led. He
recalled the Talmud (Baba Bathra 58,770), which indicated two caves and recalled
that the name Machpela itself means double cave.
So Dr. Seev Jevin became the first Jew to discover the true burial chamber of his
ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-three floors below the north grave chamber. In
a nearby chamber in the cave, their wives Sarah, Rebekah and Leah would be
resting.
With uncanny silence surrounding him, Dr. Jevin looked around full of awe and
found clay shards dating from Israelite times, perhaps from Abraham's era-artifacts
almost 4,000 years old. He found pieces of a lamp and also an intact wine jug. Could
this be the jug in which monks washed the bones of the forefathers in 1119 A.D., as
old texts explain?

231. The archaeological find proves that Machpela is a Jewish burial place and that
hundreds of years prior to Mohammed it had been a holy place for the Jews. ow
Palestinians maintain that Jews are foreigners in Hebron. Also, when the
Muslims succeeded in removing almost all Jewish traces from the halls above, only
the actual grave chamber itself remained Jewish. The still walled-in passage in the
tunnel pointed towards an underground labyrinth, perhaps a Herodian necropolis.
Muslims falsified Jewish holy places, converting them into lifelong Muslim holy
places. From the Jewish temple mount in Jerusalem they made their third holy place
al-Aqsa and are now converting Solomon's stables into a mosque. At the same time
they are protesting Israel's Judaizing of Jerusalem.
And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the
silver, which he had made in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels
of silver, current money with the merchant. And the field of Ephron which was in
Machpelah which was before Mamre the field and the cave, which was therein, and
all the trees which were in the field, that were in all the borders round about were
made sure. Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of all the children of
Heth and all went in the gate of the city and after this Abraham buried Sarah his
wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre, the same in Hebron the
land of Canaan. And the field and the cave that is therein were made sure unto
Abraham for a possession of a burying place by the sons of Heth. (Genesis 23:16-
20) ...and his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him (Abraham) in the cave of
Machpelah in the field of Ephron, the son of Zohar, the Hittite, which is before
Mamre. (Genesis 25:9)
What is important is that Abraham obtained the burial place by paying the full
price, which signified under law that he and his posterity had in so doing bought
legal rights to this land. The Armana letter said this 1,400 years before Christ and it
is still local legal custom today. Abraham rejected all offers of Ephron to bury his
dead in Hittite graves, because that would not have given him perpetual rights.
Abraham stood on the fact that the contract mentioned that he had obtained the
cave and the trees which surrounded it and that according to both the law of that
time and today he had rights to harvest from that ground.
In the Bible, Machpela is mentioned three times; this is the cave which has guarded
its secret for 4,000 years as the burial place of the Jewish forefathers. Dr. Jevin was
the first to bring its secret to light. He recounted to AI that Hebron has once again
become a political challenge.
Before King David conquered Jerusalem, he reigned for seven years from Hebron.
Around the end of 1 B.C., Herod had artisans, who were adorning the second
temple, construct a 60-meter long and 32-meter wide holy building, which has been
regarded as a holy place to the present day. Whoever sees the construction over the
Machpela cave site can imagine how the earlier exterior walls of Jerusalem
appeared. Hebron and Jerusalem belong together.

232. The Byzantine Christians overlaid part of the Jewish construction and made a
basilica out of it. The grave sites of the forefathers became from this time forward a
holy place for Jews and Christians. An eyewitness from the sixth century, Antonius
the Martyr, said, Jews and Christians entered the four walls through separate
entrances. After the Holy Land was conquered by the Muslims, the
Jewish/Christian prayer site was converted to a Muslim one.
In the 12th century, the Crusaders made a church out of the site, and 150 years later
the Mame-lukes made it a mosque once again and added two minarets, wall
decorations, and a marble facade. For 700 years, from 1267 to June 8, 1967, the
Muslims forbade Jews and Christians access to the Machpela cave. During this time,
Jews could only approach the steps on the east side and only to the seventh step,
where they would stick their prayer papers in wall crevices, behind which ran eight
grave chambers-a newly discovered fact which they didn't know. So it was drafts of
wind that carried their letters of petition directly to Abraham's bosom.
Around the turn of the century, archaeologists Aly Bey, L.H. Vincent, J.H. Mackay
and Pierotti made more contemporaneous measurements of the site, but only Dr.
Jevin got into the actual (and unknown) burial chambers, because the Waqf
commissioned him to examine the already-known chamber to determine whether or
not foreigners had caused damage. Thereby he had discovered the grave of his
ancestors and proved that this spot was primarily a holy site of the Jews-which was
not made known due to political considerations.
2. This burial site is so important that I want to quote another new article.
Headline ews from Israel Today:
Wednesday, ovember 07, 2007 by Staff Writer
20,000 Israelis mark Abraham's purchase of Hebron cave
At least 20,000 Israeli Jews showed up in the biblical Judean town of Hebron last
weekend for the annual reading of the Bible passage that recounts Abraham's
purchase of a burial cave in Judaism's second holiest city. A Hebron Jewish
community spokesman told Israel ational ews that the event was one of the
largest annual faith-based gatherings in Israel. Genesis 23 tells the story of
Abraham's purchase of the Cave of Machpela as a burial place for his wife Sarah.
Eventually, Abraham, his son Isaac and his wife Rebecca, and their son Jacob and
his wife Leah would all be buried in the cave, making it one of the holiest sites on
earth for Jews and all Bible-believers. As with other biblical sites holy to Jews and
Christians, the cave and the Herodian complex that now sits over it have also been
claimed by Islam. Today the site is split into Jewish and Muslim halves, and its a
point of tension between the hundreds of thousands of Muslims and the few
hundred Jews that live in Hebron. In addition to being the burial place of Israel's
beloved patriarchs and matriarchs, Hebron was also the first capital of King David.

233. 11 After Abraham's death, God blessed his son Isaac, who then lived near Beer
Lahai Roi.
1. This was not all that far from where Ishmael lived, and so they may have
communicated and gotten together on occasion. This was the place where Hagar
and Ishmael were rescued when God revealed himself to them and where the water
was. The very place where Ishmael was blest is the place where he loved to dwell,
indicating there was no hard feelings on his part for whatever Ishmael did when he
was a child. He was laughing or mocking and it made Sarah very angry, but Isaac
has no problem with it now, if he ever did. His brother was saved in this place and
he dwells there in peace with that brother, and in gratitude for his being spared.
Lahairoi means The Living One who sees me.
This was a special place in the mind of Ishmael, and now Isaac makes it his special
place. It is likely that Isaac knew all about the appearance of God to Hagar and
Ishmael in this place, and that he honored the memory of such a great encounter
with God. It would be easy to believe that Isaac and Ishmael had some great talks
about this place, and that they even got together once in a while to commemorate
what happened here. The great Spurgeon speculates, Perhaps the providential
visitation experienced by Hagar struck Isaac's mind, and led him to revere the
place; its mystical name endeared it to him; his frequent musings by its brim at
eventide made him familiar with the well; his meeting Rebecca there had made his
spirit feel at home near the spot; but best of all, the fact that he there enjoyed
fellowship with the living God, had made him select that hallowed ground for his
dwelling.
2. God's blessing did not end with the end of Abraham's life, for the blessing passed
on to is son and the son's son, and on and on the blessing is still going through all
the seed of Abraham, which is all believers in Jesus Christ as Lord. God's blessing
never dies, for it is only by his blessing that the plan of salvation can be completed.
3. Believe it or not, the anti-Ishmael people can find even in this text a way to put
him down as the bad guy. Just read the following and you will see how a prejudice
comes out without an awareness of how foolish it looks to those who have no such
prejudice. Some unknown author wrote this, but he same thing is said by well
known expositors. You will see that there is nothing in any text to support his
making Ishmael look bad because he did not settle by the well.
La-hai-roi in Hebrew means well of the living one who sees me.This is the well
where Hagar once found strength and help when Sarah had dealt harshly with her.
The point I want to make is that Hagar and Ishmael’s visits to the well were sort of
like a trip to the store. It was a visit in time of need, much like the visits many pay to
the Lord today: In time of need, in time of thirst crying out for the well, but then
forsaking it until the canteen runs dry again. But our scripture today speaks of a
better way. It says Isaac dwelt by the well. He made the well of the living, all seeing
God his constant source of supply. If we only seek the well in times of thirst or in
time of trouble, we will miss most of the real blessings of God. We will miss the true

234. fellowship and guiding hand that would have perhaps have steered us away from
the trouble. Is it not better to dwell by the well, to drink each day and be refreshed,
and to walk strong in that nourishment than to wait until thirst has driven us nearly
to collapse before we seek the well?
4. While we are on this blast Ismael into hell kick, let me share another quote from a
man of God who does just that by making it clear that God cut Ishmael and his
people out of his salvation plan because he just gave them material things. This
quote is totally oblivious of the fact that the Gospel, which includes the Gentiles,
which means the Arabs, has reached an won to Christ millions more Arabs than
Jews. It was the Jews that Jesus said were cast out and the Gospel was taken to the
Gentile. It was Paul who left off trying to win the stubborn Jews and became the
Apostle to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles, including the Arabs accepted that Gospel
gladly. Only a mere fraction of the Jews accepted Christ as Savior and Lord
compared to the Arabs. Yet, in spite of these facts, I read endless nonsense by
Christians that the descendants of Ishmael were rejected as having to place in the
plan of salvation. Read this and weep if you believe the Gospel.
God was faithful to fulfill his promises to Ishmael, but those promises were not
saving promises. They were not saving blessings. And we’re going to see several
times in the book of Genesis blessings pronounced which really do come true but
which do not entail salvation. We’re going to see this in the life of Esau, and it’s a
sad thing. And it reminds us that people can love the gifts of God more than God
himself. Or they can love the gifts of God instead of God himself. This was
apparently the case with Ishmael. It was clearly the case with Esau. In fact, it’s a
little bit ironic, isn’t it, that Genesis 26:12 through 18 begins with the story of
Ishmael, and then tells us about a very similar man at the end of the chapter. This
man Esau. And so we see that God is always faithful to fulfill His promises, but not
all of His blessings are saving blessings. They may be true blessings, but not saving
blessings. And Ishmael was the recipient of one of those true blessings which wasn’t
a saving blessing.
Of course, it is true that having 12 princes and much land and wealth does not save
anyone, but the anti-Ishmael crowd means by this that because they were not chosen
to be the line to the Messiah, they were condemned to be lost and not included in
God's plan, and this is sheer nonsense. The fact is that many hundreds of thousands
of the line of Isaac were cast out of the plan of salvation because of their idolatry
and departure from God, but nobody condemns Isaac for that. But they do blame
Ishmael because his descendants also became idol worshippers. But they came back
to God through Christ in greater numbers than did the line of Isaac. We need to be
honest and see that both lines were messed up so that even the line to Christ was full
of misfits, but both were blest of God in both material and spiritual blessings to such
a great degree that there is no basis for being negative on either line when you see
the big picture. God used, and is still using today, people from both lines to build his
kingdom through both Jews and Arabs.

235. 12 This is the account of Abraham's son Ishmael, whom Sarah's maidservant,
Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham.
1. Right after some try to make Ishmael look bad, the Holy Spirit inspires Moses to
write the history of Ishmael, and give him the honor due to his name and the
blessings of God upon him. This is a logical place for this account of Ishmael and
sons, for he has come to honor Abraham along with Isaac, and so it is a good place
to update us on these two boys fathered by Abraham, and tell us what is going on in
their lives. one of the other boys showed up for the funeral and so there is no
knowledge of what is happening to them.
2. It is of interest too that the books of Jasher give us the genealogy of Ishmael. This
book is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and II Sam. 1:18, and so is considered by Moses
to be of highest authority. The Book of Jasher (chapter 25) states that the sons of
Ishmael were twelve princes 'according to their nations'. The families of Ishmael
afterward spread forth, and Ishmael took his children and all the property that he
had gained, together with the souls of his household and all belonging to him, and
they went to dwell where they should find a place. And they went and dwelt near the
wilderness of Paran, and their dwelling was from Havilah to Shur. And Ishmael and
his sons dwelt in the land, and they had children born to them, and they were
fruitful and increased abundantly.
3. In contrast to the honor that the Word of God gives to Ishmael, there are many
commentators who defy the Word of God and the promised blessing God gave him,
and they rank him among the despised and lost world of pagans whom they judge
not worthy to be included in God's plan of salvation. I keep coming back to this
topic because it is an evil thread running all through Genesis that makes the words
of prejudiced, and even bigoted men that which people believe rather than the
Words of God. You are blind to the reality of Christians being bigots if you can read
the following outline by a Christian preacher and not be angry at his taking over the
role of God as the final judge and declaring Ishmael eternally lost without a shred of
evidence to support his judgment.
From Ishmael’s Story We Learn About PRESTIGE
A. He Became Father of 12 Princes With Cities Castles [All Lived Lifestyles of
Rich Famous]
1. He Became Famous-Powerful-A SOMEBODY in World—But a OBODY With
GOD
2. HE Received WHAT GOD GAVE HIM Without a Thank You 3. He TOOK the
CREDIT FOR His Success [Own Prestige]
7. Finally, From Ishmael’s Story We Learn About POSTERITY
A. Ishmael Lived 137 Years On Earth…Most Very Good Years [Had It All} I’m
sure envied by many
B. But Jesus Asked in Mk.8:36, “What Shall It Profit a Man if He Gain the Whole
world and lose his own soul?
1. Answer: It Profits Him othing.. Been Better If He Had ever Been Born ! ASK

236. ISHMAEL
4. It is no wonder that many Muslim's hate Christians when they see how hateful
they are to the father of their people. God says I will bless him, and the preacher
says I will curse him. So you can see how they might come to the conclusion that
Christians even hate God when they go so violently against his Word. Prejudice is
not laughing matter, and yet it is by means of humor that it can be shown to be the
folly that it is. The following story is a good illustration of this.
A Chinese man and a Jewish man were eating lunch together. Suddenly, without
warning the Jew got up, walked over to the Chinese fellow and smashed him in the
mouth, sending him sprawling. The Chinese man picked himself up, rubbing his jaw
and asked, What in the world did you do that for? The Jew answered, That's for
Pearl Harbor! The Chinese man in astonishment said, Pearl Harbor? I didn't
have anything to with Pearl Harbor. I'm Chinese. It was the Japanese that bombed
Pearl Harbor. The Jew responded, Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese - they're all the
same to me. With that they both sit down again, and before too long the Chinese
man got up, walked over to the Jew and sent him flying with a hard slap to the jaw.
The Jew yelled out What did you do that for? The Chinese man answered,
That's for the Titanic. The Jew said, The Titanic? Why, I didn't have anything
to do with the Titanic! The Chinese man replied, Goldberg, Feinberg, ICEBERG
they're all the same to me!
5. God promised that Ishmael would be a great nation, and here are some facts that
make it clear that God kept his promise. In fact the blessing on him was far greater
than that on Isaac in terms of material blessings.
God has faithfully kept His promise to the descendants of Ishmael. In 1996, there
were 21 Arab States covering 5.3 million square miles of oil rich land and a
combined population of 175 million Arabs! Isaac’s descendants, on the other hand,
have one State, Israel, with 8,000 square miles of land with no major oil reserves yet
discovered and a population of 4 million Jews. That is a population ratio of 43 to 1
and a land ratio of 662 to 1. ot bad for the son of a slave woman who cried out to
God in her time of distress! The “tribes” of Ishmael, are basically the peoples of
Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco,
Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
and Yeman.
6. Ishmael's descendants play roles in God's plan to save his people. Ishmaelites
(the descendants of Ishmael had become traders in spices) rescue Joseph (a son of
Jacob, son of Isaac). It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 37:25 28, RSV. “Then
they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from
Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it
down to Egypt… and they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold
him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver; and they took Joseph to Egypt.”
This rescuing of Joseph by the Ishmaelites and taking him to Egypt was part of
God's plan. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 45:5-7, RSV. “So Joseph said to his

237. brothers, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am
your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be distressed, or
angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to
preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years; and there are yet
five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me
before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many
survivors.”
Jethro (a Midianite, Arab, one of the “eastern” children of Abraham, provides
refuge for Moses who is escaping for his life from Egypt. Jethro has kept alive the
worship of the One true God and therefore teaches Moses, since the knowledge of
God among the Hebrew people in Egypt was nearly lost, and Moses had received
most of his training in the pagan religions of Egypt in the court of Pharaoh. It's in
the Bible, the Torah, Exodus 2:15,16, 21; 3:1, RSV. “But Moses fled from Pharaoh,
and stayed in the land of Midian; and he sat down by a well. ow the priest of
Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs
to water their father's flock” “And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he
gave Moses his daughter Zipporah.” “ow Moses was keeping the flock of his
father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian; and he led his flock to the west side of
the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.”
Job, an eastern man - an Arab - endures suffering, provides an example of patient
submission to God and gives a picture of the great controversy between God and
Satan.
Descendants of Abraham through Ishmael are predicted to bring their praise into
the temple of God. This is interpreted by most scholars to refer to the gathering of
the peoples in the ew Earth, heaven, paradise. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Isaiah
60:6 7, RSV. “A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian
and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and
frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall
be gathered to you, the rams of ebaioth shall minister to you; they shall come up
with acceptance on my altar, and I will glorify my glorious house.” These are all
sons of Abraham, children of the East, Arabs, forefathers of the Muslim people.
13 These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth:
ebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,
1. These12 sons are called princes in verse 16, and each became a nation of which
they were the ruler. They ruled all the vast land between Egypt and Assyria, and the
land as a whole became known as Arabia. They were often wandering nomads, but
they also had towns and castles as we read in verse 16. They became a great
multitude of people for that was the promise of God that they would in 16:10, 17:20,
21:13.

238. EBAIOTH
2 ebaioth is the firstborn of Ishmael, and we know more about him and the
brother after him than all the others put together. These two brothers are referred
to in Isa. 60:7 as being an ultimate blessing to Israel. ebaioth has a claim to fame
that few others can match, for he was the father of the abatheans who established
a vast kingdom and built up a capital city that has become one of the new seven
wonders of the world. It is the famous rose red city of Petra, which is now in Jordon,
and has become one of the biggest tourist attractions in the Middle East.
Gill in his commentary writes, Josephus (i) says, that all the country from
Euphrates to the Red sea is called the abatene country. The posterity of this man
inhabited part of Arabia Deserta and of Arabia Petraea, even to the entrance of
Arabia Felix. Strabo (k) reckons the abataeans among the Arabians, and calls
Petra the metropolis of Arabia Petraea, Petra abataea, and Petra of the Arabian
abataeans, who he says dwelt about Syria, and often made excursions into it; and
observes, that their country is populous and abounds with pastures; hence the rams
of ebaioth, mentioned in Isa_60:7; Pliny also (l) places them in Arabia, and says
they inhabit the town called Petra, and that they border upon Syria. Josephus lived
during the time of the abateans and he says they were the ones who gave names to
the Arabian nations. Apparently it was the privilege of the eldest son to give names
to the rest of the tribes.
ebaioth had a sister by the name of Mahalath, and she was taken as a wife by
Abraham's grandson Esaw. So even though Ishmael was sent away from the family
of Abraham so as not to compete with Isaac, he now has a daughter in Isaac's
family. It was hard not to marry your cousin in that day when families all lived in
the same general area and were family. Gen. 28:8-9 says, ...and Esau saw that the
daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; so Esau went unto Ishmael, and
took unto the wives that he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son,
the sister of ebaioth, to be his wife... In other words he married his dad's
brother's daughter. Esaw must have like marrying his cousin, for in Gen. 36:2-3 we
read that he married the sister of Mahalath who was named Basemath. It says,
Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the
Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,
and Basemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of ebaioth.. So we have some pretty
strong ties between these two families, and these ties became a part of their history
as they grew into nations. Unknown authors have supplied much of the information
below.
Three hundred years later the abatu surface again, this time in the Zenon papyri
which date from 259 BC. They mention that the abatu were trading Gerrhean and
Minaean frankincense, transporting them to Gaza and Syria at that time. They
transported their goods through the Kedarite centers of orthern Arabia, Jauf, and
Tayma. Early abataean pottery has also been found in locations on the Persian
Gulf, along the coasts of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. (Tuwayr, Zubayda, Thaj, and
Ayn Jawan) There are also ancient references to the abatu, as living along the
western edges of the Arabian Peninsula and in the Sinai. These abatu were also

239. pirates who sailed the Red Sea plundering trading vessels. Later they established
bases in a number of seaports, including the port city of Aila (modern day Aqaba),
which is only some 120 km from present day Petra.
While most of us think of the abataeans as people who transported goods in the
desert by camel caravan, it has become increasingly evident that the abataeans
were also a sea trading people. It is quite clear from the historical records that in
586 BC, as the Edomites began a gradual migration north, into Jewish lands that
had been emptied by ebuchadnezzar, the tribes of Arabia also began to move
northward. From their port city of Aila, (Aqaba) it was only a short move inland for
the abatu to occupy the quickly emptying land of the Edomites, eventually making
it the heart of the abataean Empire.
Although the chronology is not yet clear, it appears that some Edomites remained
behind. Those that emigrated into Judeah became known as Idumaeans. These
were some of the people that opposed the Jews during the rebuilding of the temple
at Jerusalem under Ezra; and the rebuilding of the city walls of Jerusalem under
ehemiah. In time, the abataeans built an impressive civilization based on
merchant trade. Their capital was originally the city of Petra, located deep in the
sandstone mountains of southern Jordan. Later, Bostra, in southern Syria also
functioned as a royal city. The abataeans also built a number of other cities, many
of them in the egev, while others were located in orthern Saudi Arabia today,
and in other parts of modern Jordan. In 106 AD they seceded their empire to the
Romans and eventually their abataean distinctiveness disappeared.
Wade Cox is the authority on all of the sons of Ishmael, and nobody does such an
extensive study on them as he has done. He has more than most people care to know,
but I want to include his entire article, for it reveals that these are real people and
they are a part of the Word of God. We are to live by every word of His Word, and
all Scripture is profitable says the Apostle, and so we are to know all we can about
these sons. He writes,
ebaioth, or abajoth, and his brothers settled in Arabia. Josephus notes this in
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 12.4.
“These inhabited all the country from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, and called it
abatene. They are an Arabian ation, and they name their tribes from these, both
because of their own virtue, and because of the dignity of Abraham their father.”
He was the head of the tribe named after him. He and his brother Kedar were
renowned for sheep rearing in the time of Isaiah (Isa. 60:7).
All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you, the rams of ebai'oth shall minister
to you; they shall come up with acceptance on my altar, and I will glorify my
glorious house.
This verse shows the two tribes of the sons of Ishmael that will be converted and
they will offer sacrifice to God in Jerusalem as part of the millennial Restoration.
The “rams of ebai’oth ministering to you” is an allusion to the function of the first-born
of Ishmael as part of the priesthood under the Messiah.

240. While Josephus and other scholars have previously identified ebaioth with the
abataeans, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) says that the
fact of a spelling difference makes this theory unacceptable. The Jewish
Encyclopaedia also discards this theory.
From Assyrian records we learn that King Ashurbanipal (668-662 BCE) fought with
the abataeans. However, a group of Chaldeans, including some neighbouring
tribes, rebelled against Sennacharib, the Assyrian ruler, in 703 BCE. Among the
rebels, the records of Tiglath- pileser III lists the abatu (possible descendants of
ebayoth, Ishmael’s eldest son) and the Kedarites (descendants of Ishmael’s second
son). These tribes were not conquered and they were recorded as fleeing from
Assyria into the Arabian Desert.
As might be expected the Assyrian kingdom was eventually divided as the two
brothers began to rule – one as King of Babylonia and the other King of Assyria.
Then in 652 BCE when conflict broke out between the two brothers, the Kedarites
supported the Babylonian king in an invasion of western Assyria. They were
defeated, and fled to the leader of the abayat for safety. When the Kedarites and
the abayat later attacked the western borders of Assyria they were defeated.
Some three hundred years later the Zenon papyri, which date from 259 BCE,
mention that the abatu were trading Gerrhean and Minaean frankincense,
transporting it to Gaza and Syria through the Kedarite centres of northern Arabia,
Jauf, and Tayma.
Historical records clearly state that in 586 BCE the Edomites began to move north
into the Jewish lands that ebuchadnezzar had emptied. So also the Arabian tribes
began to move northward. In time the abatu began to occupy the vacant land left
by the Edomites and eventually make it the centre of the abataean Empire.
Based on merchant trade, the abataeans went on to build an impressive
civilization. While the city of Petra was the original capital, Bostra, in Syria, was
also utilised as a royal city. Other cities were also built in the egev, in northern
Saudi Arabia today, and in parts of modern Jordan. However, in 106 CE the
abataeans seceded their empire to the Romans and over time they lost their
individuality. However, the Jewish Encyclopedia in its article by George A Barton
on the abataeans states that they are not identical with ebayoth. Barton states
that while it was initially thought that the abatæans were the same people as the
ebajoth of Genesis 25:13, and also with the aba-a-a-ti of the annals of
Assurbanipal, it is now considered that they should be identified with the
Kadmonites of Genesis 15:19. As inscriptions have been found written in Aramaic, it
appears that the abataeans were of Arabian background but possibly they were
Arabs under Arabian influence.
Schurer, in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, (ed.
Vermes, et al., T. and T. Clark Edinburgh, 1987, Appendix II, pp. 574ff.) says that
so little is known of the abateans that not even their ethnic origin is certain. Their
language on inscriptions and coins was without exception Aramaic, which indicates
they were Aramaeans. Yet, on the other hand, they were repeatedly spoken of as

241. Arabs by ancient writers, not only by those remote from them in time but also by
Josephus who is expected to know full well the difference between the two. From
this evidence it has therefore been concluded that they were Arabs who, because
Arabic was not yet developed into a written language, made use of Aramaic which
was the civilised language of the time for literary purposes. Schurer considers their
identification with the ebayoth of Genesis 25:13, 28:9; 36:3; 1Chronicles 1:29; and
Isaiah 60:7 as an Arab tribe as very improbable. Thus he discounts them as being
sons of Ishmael.
It is only from the beginning of the Hellenistic period that a coherent picture of
them emerges. They were at that time settled where the Edomites lived between the
Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, in the region of Petra which Schurer says is
probably not identical with the old Sela of the Edomites (ibid., p. 576).After
Antigonus had driven Ptolemy Lagus from Coele-Syria in 312 BCE, he sent his
general Athenaeus against the abataeans with 4000 infantry and 600 cavalry and
attacked their fortress at Petra by surprise. However, due to his own carelessness,
his army was virtually annihilated in a night assault by the abataeans (ibid.).
Antigonus then sent his son Demetrius to subdue them but without success.
According to Diodorus who wrote the account, they were primitive pastoral nomads
who had not developed a kingship. The first known dynasty of these people was
Aretas who was described as Tyrannos or tyrant. The High Priest Jason sought
refuge with him in 168 BCE (2Mac. 5:8).
They were friendly with the Jewish party in the Maccabean revolt in 164 and 160
BCE (see 1Mac. 5:25; 9:35). Their power reached as far as east of the Jordan. In the
end of the second century BCE when the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires collapsed,
they reached their greatest power under Erotimus (Aretas II?) ca. 110-100 BCE.
The Palestinians and Syrians were defeated a number of times by the Arabs
seemingly under the king of the abataeans from 93 BCE (Alexander Jannaeus) to
87 BCE (Antiochus XII) perhaps both times under Obodat or Obodas I. Antiochus
XII fell in the battle at Cana.
Thus we have a fair idea of the strength and power and we know their location, but
if Schurer is to be followed they are not Ishmaelites but are Arabs of the sons of
Keturah. They are not Edomites of the sons of Esau. It is possible that they are both.
They traded from Egypt and Gaza through Petra to central Arabia and as far as
Babylonia. Other trade routes were also available to them and a colony was
established at the Italian port of Puteoli. There they erected a temple to their native
deity. They developed a coinage in the 2nd century BCE bearing the names of the
following rulers: Malchus I. (Maliku), c. 145 BCE; Obodas I. (Obodath), c. 97-85;
Aretas III. (Haretath Melek abatu), c. 85-62; Obodas II. (Obodath Melek abatu);
Aretas IV. (Haretath), 2-50 CE; Malchus III, 50-70; and Rabel, 70-95.
Aramaic inscriptions show that the abataeans controlled the area from the Arnon
to Damascus early in the First Century and later lost the Hauran and Peræa to
Herod. However, they were able to maintain a line of fortresses linking their
southern dominions with the region around Damascus, over which they still held a

242. protectorate. In the time of Augustus the abatæan kingdom became dependent on
Rome, as did the Judean kingdom. Most of the extant dated abatæan inscriptions
come from Aretas IV, Malchus III., and Rabel, kings of this period and interestingly
it was Aretas’ (Haretath) daughter who was divorced by Herod Antipas in favour of
Herodias (Josephus, Ant. Jews, xviii. 5, 1; Mat. 14:3ff.). It was during this same rule
that Paul escaped from Damascus (2Cor. 11:32). The abatæans provided
assistance to the army of Titus during the siege of Jerusalem (Josephus, l.c. xvii. 10,
9) (see also the paper War with Rome and the Fall of the Temple (o. 298)).
The abatæan kingdom ended under Trajan with the nearer portions of it brought
into the Roman province of Arabia. In 106 CE, so Schurer records, Arabia
belonging to Petra; in other words abataean Arabia was made a Roman province
by Cornelius Palma, governor of Syria on the orders of Trajan (ibid., p. 585). We
can thus assume that if the abataeans were not originally Arab but Aramaic (sons
of Aram) the region and its people were subsequently absorbed into and, under the
Romans, formed part of the province of Arabia.
If the abataeans were indeed the Kadmonites of Genesis 15:19 then we are dealing
with the Qedem, of the land of Qedem which is the east country (Gen. 25:6 RSV).
The Messiah will always come from the east and hence the orientation of the
Hebrews was to the east as being to the “front.” It was to the land of Qedem that
Abraham sent the sons of Keturah and that was believed to have been in the Syrian
Desert, east of Byblos. The lands of the Kadmonites, the Kenites and the Kenizzites
were given to the descendants of Abraham and thus they were absorbed into the
sons of Keturah. The sons of Qedem are identified as “the people of the east” which
was to include Job a son of Issachar of Israel (Job 1:3; cf. 18:20), and the camel-riding
Midianite Kings (Jdg. 8:10-12, 21, 26) and the wise men who bore names of
Arabian association (1Kgs. 4:30-31 (H5:10 see Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
Vol. 3, p. 2, art. ‘Kadmonites’).
The Kenites were a tribe of semi-nomadic smiths or metalworkers and occupied the
rock country south of Tell Arad on the western slopes of the mineral rich Wadi
Arabah above Tamar (um. 24:21; Jdg. 1:16). The Arabic Sleib, who are nomadic
metalworkers, are not held in the same respect as these Kenites were from as early
as 1300 BCE. They were originally living in Canaan, which land was promised to
Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 15:19). The reference in umbers 24:21 says
they are “set in the rock” which places them at the time of Balaam in the Wadi
Arabah. In Judges 4:11 the Kenites are designated as descendants of Hobab (cf. Jdg.
1:16).
The Interpreter’s Dictionary considers that they may have been living among the
Midianites and taught them metal work and it is thought that Moses learned metal
work while among the Kenites and Midianites, as the term is also applied on
occasion to Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law. Shortly after this the Kenites entered
Palestine as part of Israel in the tribe of Judah and this relationship seems to be
reaffirmed in 1Samuel 15:6 where the Kenites were described as showing loyalty to
Israel in the Exodus. At that time they had become associated with the Amalekites
and Saul warned them to separate if they wished to avoid destruction. (ibid., p. 6).

243. In the period of the Judges a nomadic branch of the Kenites under Heber inhabited
Galilee (Jdg. 4:11; 5:24) (Int. Dict., ibid., p. 7).
1Chronicles 2:55 describes as Kenite certain families of scribes who dwelt in Jabez
in southern Judah, tracing their ancestry from Hammath father of the house of
Rechab. There is a significant E3b YDA composition among Jews, which probably
came from the Canaanites.
The last mention of the Kenites in the Bible is when David, whilst he was living in
Gath of the Philistines, plundered clans living in the egeb of the Kenites (1Sam.
27:10) and then David sent spoil to the elders of Judah and to his kinsmen (cf. LXX)
among whom are those named as residing in the cities of the Kenites (1Sam. 30:29).
The Kenites to the east became absorbed into the Arabs. However, the postulated
relationship between the Kenites and the Arab tribe of the Banu’l-Qayn living in the
region between Teima and Hauran in the sixth century CE just before the time of
the Prophet cannot be demonstrated (ibid.).
The Kenizzites mentioned are a composite group that were present in Canaan when
their lands were promised to be given to the descendants of Abraham. The name
also applies to the sons of Eliphaz, first-born of Esau, and are dealt with in that
section.
The Kenizzites are a non-Israelite composite group that moved into the egeb from
the southeast before the main body of the conquest. They were composed of the
clans of the Calebites who occupied Hebron (modern El Khalil) (Jos. 14:6-14; 15:52-
54). The second group were the Othnielites who occupied Debir (modern Tell Beit
Mirsim?) (Jos. 15:15-19; Jdg. 1:11-15). The third possible group may have been the
Jerahmeelites, who must have occupied the southernmost hill country of Judah.
They were associated with the Edomites and the Kenites. Thus the southern group
associated with the abataeans that has later Arab association is also associated
with Edom and Judah, but may actually derive from none of them but rather from
early Canaan and have association with Aram and hence Aramaic as well as with
the Arabs and Jews.
Kedar
3. This second born son of Ishmael became a leader of a major tribe of Arabs who
lived very near his older brother and the abateans. His descendants became
known as Cedreans and formed part of the Saracens. In Jewish writings the Arabic
language is most frequently called the language of Kedar. They departed from the
faith of Abraham and worshiped other gods, but they built a great kingdom before
they were judged by God. We read of both their glory and their judgment in Isa.
21:16-17 For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the
years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail: 17 And the residue of the
number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished:
for the LORD God of Israel hath spoken it. The Kedarites were the main military
power of the sons of Ishmael. They were also famous traders in livestock and
Ezekiel 27:21 says of their trade with Tyre, Arabia and all the princes of Kedar
were your customers; they did business with you in lambs, rams and goats. The

244. Kedarites and the abateans were so successful because of their control of the water
supply in that whole part of the world that the Romans wanted control of their
commercial routes, but it took them almost half a century to conquor them.
ebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon is the one who carried Israel away into captivity
for 70 years, but he also attacked Kedar and his associate Hazon, and the Bible gives
us this account of it in Jeremiah 49:28-33,
28 Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor, which ebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon attacked:
This is what the LORD says:
Arise, and attack Kedar
and destroy the people of the East.
29 Their tents and their flocks will be taken;
their shelters will be carried off
with all their goods and camels.
Men will shout to them,
'Terror on every side!'
30 Flee quickly away!
Stay in deep caves, you who live in Hazor,
declares the LORD.
ebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has plotted against you;
he has devised a plan against you.
31 Arise and attack a nation at ease,
which lives in confidence,
declares the LORD,
a nation that has neither gates nor bars;
its people live alone.
32 Their camels will become plunder,
and their large herds will be booty.
I will scatter to the winds those who are in distant places [d]
and will bring disaster on them from every side,
declares the LORD.
33 Hazor will become a haunt of jackals,
a desolate place forever.
o one will live there;
no man will dwell in it.
These were the Arabs who opposed Israel in building Jerusalem after the exile in
Babylon. One writer says, ehemiah's opponent, 'Geshem the Arab' has been
identified as one of the kings of Kedar from the mid fifth century BC. (based on a
number of orth Arabian inscriptions). Records show that they worshipped the
morning star, but it was the star and not Jesus who is called the morning star. They
also worshiped the sun. The Kedarites are mentioned in a number of places in the
Bible, and always referred to as nomads.
Psalm 120:5 This Psalm is a cry of distress, as the writer has fled and lives in a place
called Meshech in the tents of the Kedarites.

245. Isaiah 42:11 Kedar is mentioned in a song of praise.
Jeremiah 2:10 The children of Israel are advised to check with Kedar and see if it is
an ordinary thing for a people to forsake their gods and turn to others.
Jeremiah 49:28 This passage presents us with a prophecy against Arabia (Hazor
and Kedar) foretelling that ebuchadnezzar a king of Babylon will destroy them.
Ezekiel 27:21 In this lament over the city of Tyre, it is mentioned that Arabia, and
the princes of Kedar traded lambs, rams, and goats with Tyre.
In the middle of the fourth century BC, the Kedarites seem to fade from history and
the abataeans then come to the forefront.
“Kedar:...Of the Ishmaelite tribes, Kedar must have been one of the most
important, and thus in later times the name came to be applied to all the wild tribes
of the desert. It is through Kedar (Arab, Keidar) that Muslim genealogists trace the
descent of Mohammed from Ishmael.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives us this information: Kedar:
(black): Second son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13)... Mohammed traces his lineage to
Abraham through the celebrated Koreish tribe, which sprang from Kedar. The
Arabs in the Hejaz are called Beni Harb (men of war), and are Ishmaelites as of old,
from their beginning.
At some point the flocks from these first two brothers will be a blessing to the people
of Israel, for Isa. 60:7 says, All Kedar's flocks will be gathered to you, the rams of
ebaioth will serve yoiu, they will be accepted as offerings on my altar. Also at
some point the people of Kedar, and also the people of Petra, formerly called Selah,
will praise the Lord of Israel and the God of Abraham. We see it in Isa. 42:10-12
10Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise from the ends of the earth,
you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it,
you islands, and all who live in them.
11 Let the desert and its towns raise their voices;
let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice.
Let the people of Sela sing for joy;
let them shout from the mountaintops.
12 Let them give glory to the LORD
and proclaim his praise in the islands.
It is easy to get confused when the Bible calls people the enemy, and then at another
time calls them friends and worshipers. The confusion is based on the false
assumption that the enemies of Israel are also enemies of God. This is sometimes
stated clearly, but many times God uses the enemies of Israel to bring judgment on
Israel. In Judges God uses one enemy after anothe to judge Israel and used Babylon,
a pagan people to almost wipe them out and carry them into captivity. God uses
pagans over and over again to punish his people. He hated their idolatry, just as he
hated the idolatry of Israel, but he still loved the people. He judged them severely
just as he did Israel, but he never gave up on trying to reach them and bring them
back to the fold as any good Shepherd does. So we read of God judging these
enemies of Israel and think that he has no use for such scum, but he has a love for

246. them still the same. The reason he became so angry at Israel for their folly of
worshiping other gods and letting pagans defeat them is because his goal was to
have a pure people who could win the rest of the world to believe in and worship
him as the only God. He did not love Israel any less because he demolished their
cities and carried them captive, and he does not love the sons of Ishmael less because
he did the same to them in judgment on their folly of forsaking the faith of
Abraham. The point is, in the long run God is going to see all the children of
Abraham back in fellowship with one another and in worship of Him as Lord of all.
We see it here and in Isa. 19:19-24.
19 In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a
monument to the LORD at its border. 20 It will be a sign and witness to the LORD
Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their
oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them. 21 So
the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will
acknowledge the LORD. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they
will make vows to the LORD and keep them. 22 The LORD will strike Egypt with a
plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the LORD, and he will
respond to their pleas and heal them. 23 In that day there will be a highway from
Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The
Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. 24 In that day Israel will be the
third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. 25 The LORD
Almighty will bless them, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my
handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.
Gary Gordon is a founding member of Building Bridges, Jews, Muslims, and
Christians in Duluth, Minnesota, who learn together and hold workshops on their
belief in the inevitability of peace in the Middle East.
With Love to Isaac and Ishmael
Beloved Israel.
Time is breathing out
as you lie at the moment
between the last inspiration
and the next taste of sweet Jerusalem air.
Centuries of abuse and victimization
by a world of double standards
has left you stiff-necked and confused.
Brothers separated by the foggy veil of suspicion.
Partners at odds being swallowed by the same whale.
Oh, Isaac,
reach across the unknown, and take the hand of Ishmael.
ot like an innocent child
nor like ations short on perspective and narrowed in vision,
but as a family with choice between extinction and light. Turn aside the next page of
history
and re-write the scenario.
Imagine the Middle East as the center among civilized nations.

247. A path for the prophets of the future.
Take this opportunity
to exist alongside each other in collective pride.
In time there will be trust, and one day love will follow . . .
as an artifact cleared and awakened by desert winds. Gary F. Gordon
Wade Cox again has all the information on Kedar below.
Kedar (blackness; sorrow)
There are a few allusions to Kedar in the Bible. Prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah
indicate wars and defeat but that in the end times they will be restored and placed
within Israel as part of the Messianic Kingdom. The first-born plays a lead roll in
the ministry but also the sons of the second-born, Kedar, are placed within the
restoration amongst the flock, which is the Church of God. They were a nomadic
people trading particularly in sheep and goats and living in tents.
The name Kedar was rendered by the Hebrews as Qedar and by the Assyrians as
Qidri. The Arabs refer to them as Qidar They became a powerful tribe of Arabs in
the northwest Arabian Peninsula. They dwelt in black tents, which were well known
in the ancient world. The Babylonians, under ebuchadnezzar, fought a battle
against them in 599 BCE. This was part of the subjugation of the southern Semites,
the final part of which was the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. Jeremiah
foretold the battle in Jeremiah 49:28-29. The tribe of Kedar had a long history of
conflict with the sons of Asshur and they are mentioned in the Assyrian records of
Ashurbanipal and in those of various other Assyrian kings with whom they were in
conflict. In these records Kedar and ebai’oth are in close association.
Kedar also lived at Mecca (Makkah). The Arab genealogists say there are 40
generations from Kedar to ‘Adnan and his son Ma’ad from whom ‘Adnanian Arabs
trace their ancestry. The Hadith says that the Prophet only traced his ancestry back
to ‘Adnan and stopped there as he held the uncertainty of the genealogy from that
date. He is quoted as saying, “Genealogists tell lies” (cf. Rahmat-ul-lil’alameen 2/7-
17). Thus the Prophet was not a “Pure” or al-‘Ariba Arab, which actually is a term
applied to sons of Shem both from Aram and Arphaxad (see also Descendants of
Abraham Part IV: Sons of Keturah (o. 212D)).
The Prophet was an Arabicised Arab or al-Musta’ribah of the sons of Ishmael.
Some famous noble ‘Ananaite families from the Quriesh group are Alnazi,
Altamimi, Almaleek, Bani Khaled, Bani Kolab, Bani hashim etc.
The term al-Musta’ribah is also used for non-Ishmaelites or the Mixed Arabs of
both groups. The forty generations of Kedar between him and ‘Adanad are no
doubt also dispersed into a great people and later absorbed into other tribes. The
time-frame of forty generations is 1600 years. If we only allow twenty years per
generation it is still 800 years until ‘Adnan, being some time in the end of the period
of Judges and the fall of Troy. If thirty years are allowed we are at the period after
the fall of Israel and at about the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Thus the wars
with the Assyrians and the expansion of the Spartans into Laconia were all before

248. ’Adnan and the wars were fought by the sons of Kedar and abai’oth, and these
tribes were subjugated by David as were those of Meshech and the Syrians before
what became Sparta was conquered. The expansion of the Edomites occurred after
the fall of Israel and Judah. The expansion occurred from ‘Adnan at Mecca.
Ma’ad son of ‘Adnan had only one son, izar.
izar had four sons who branched out to form four great tribes. These were:
Eyad
Anmar
Rabi’a
Mudar
The last two formed a variety of septs.
Rabi’a fathered Asad, Anazah, ‘Abdul, Qais, Hanifa and others. Rabi’a’s son,
Wa’il, had two sons Bakr and Taghlib.
The Mudar tribes formed into two great divisions:
The septs from Qais ‘Ailan bin Mudar
The septs of Elias bin Mudar.
From Qais ‘Ailan came:
The Banu Saleem, the Banu Hawazin, and the Banu Ghatafan, from whom
descended, ‘Abs, Zubyan, Ashja’ and Gani bin A’sur.
From Elias came:
Tamim bin Murra, Hudhail bin Mudrika, the banu Asad bin Khuzaimah and the
septs of the Kinana bin Khuzaimah, from whom came the famous Quraish, the
descendants of Fahr bin Malik, bin An-adr bin Kinana.
The Quraish branched out into various tribes, the most notable being Jumah, Sahm,
‘Adi, Makhzum, Tayim, Zahra, and three septs of the Qusai bin Kilab, ‘Abdud-Dar
bin Qusai, Asad bin ‘Abdul ‘Uzza bin Qusai and ‘Abd Manaf bin Qusai.
‘Abd Manaf branched out into four tribes:
‘Abd Shams
awfal
Muttalib
Hashim
It is from the family of Hashim that the man Abu Qasim, the Prophet of Arabia, is
descended, being Qasim bin ‘Abdullah, bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib bin Hashim, called
Muhammed.
The line is Ishmael to Kinana to Quraish, to Hashim to Qasim known as
Muhammed (cf. Muslim 2/245; Tirmidhi 2/201).
(cf. also www.witnesss-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch1s1.html)
Thus Kedar’s most well-known contribution was when one of the descendants of
Kedar, Abu Qasim, was converted to the Christian faith. His followers later
corrupted the faith with what became known as the Hadith, a compilation of
traditions and false interpretation that was later used to establish the religion of
Islam.
The children of ‘Adnan spread out over Arabia. From them came also the tribe of
‘Abdul Qais with the septs of Bakr bin Wa’il and Tamim who emigrated to Bahrain.
The Banu Hanifa bin Sa’b bin Ali bin Bakr settled in Hijr the capital of Yamama.
Thus all the tribes of Bakr bin Wa’ol lived in the area of land which included

249. Yamama, Bahrain, Saif Kazima, to the sea’s shore and to the outer borders of Iraq,
Ablah and Hait.
Most of the tribe of Tahglib lived in the Euphrates area and some of them lived with
the Bakr.
The Banu Tamim lived in the Basra semi-desert.
The Banu Saleem lived in the vicinity of Madinah (Medinah) between Wadi Al-
Qura to Khaibar to the eastern mountains of Harrah.
The Taqif lived in Ta’if and Hwazin east of Mecca near Autas on the Mecca-Basra
road.
The Banu Asad lived on the east of Taim and west of Kufa with the Banu Tai’ living
between them and Taim, some five days walk from Kufa.
Zubyan lived on the lands between Taim and Hawran.
Whilst some septs of Kinana lived in Tihama, the septs of Quraish lived in Mecca
and were disunited completely.
The Quraish were finally united on honourable terms, which recognised their status
and importance as a tribe, by Qusai bin Kilab who rallied their ranks thus making
them a force (cf. Mudadrat Tareekh Al-Umam Al-Islamiyah 1/15-16).
For the movement of the sons of Keturah into Mecca and Medina under the Roman
occupation of Arabia see the paper Descendants of Abraham Part IV: Sons of
Keturah (o. 212D).
The importance of the Qureish was increased significantly and many of the sons of
Kedar trace their origins through his family.
For example: there are two families descended from the Prophet in Basra, being the
Barakat and the al-aqib. There are altogether 150 tribes in Iraq, thirty of which
are the most important. Most of these tribes or clans regard loyalty to their clan as
being more important than any national loyalty.
The full list of the septs or tribes of the family of the Prophet in Iraq are given at
Annex A. There are seventy-two septs or sub-tribes claiming descent from the
Prophet in Iraq alone.
However there are many of the sons of Ishmael through Kedar in Iraq. The Rabi’a
are centred around the Kut city area.
The Bani (Banu) Tamim are in central and southern Iraq with
Al-Suhail clan as the tribal leaders near Abu Ghuraib
Al-Turshan section centred in the Diyala governorate
Al-Kan’an section in the Basra governorate and across the borders in Iran in
Kuzestan Province.
The Bani Ka’b Federation are also in Basra and in the Kurdestan Province in Iran.
The Arab Federations and their locations in Iraq are in Appendix A.
Prophecy under the Babylonians
Jeremiah speaks of Kedar under the Babylonians.
Jeremiah 49:28-39 Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor which
ebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon smote. Thus says the LORD: Rise up, advance
against Kedar! Destroy the people of the east! 29 Their tents and their flocks shall
be taken, their curtains and all their goods; their camels shall be borne away from
them, and men shall cry to them: `Terror on every side!' 30 Flee, wander far away,
dwell in the depths, O inhabitants of Hazor! says the LORD. For ebuchadrez'zar
king of Babylon has made a plan against you, and formed a purpose against you. 31

250. Rise up, advance against a nation at ease, that dwells securely, says the LORD,
that has no gates or bars, that dwells alone. 32 Their camels shall become booty,
their herds of cattle a spoil. I will scatter to every wind those who cut the corners of
their hair, and I will bring their calamity from every side of them, says the LORD.
33 Hazor shall become a haunt of jackals, an everlasting waste; no man shall dwell
there, no man shall sojourn in her. 34 The word of the LORD that came to
Jeremiah the prophet concerning Elam, in the beginning of the reign of Zedeki'ah
king of Judah. 35 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will break the bow of
Elam, the mainstay of their might; 36 and I will bring upon Elam the four winds
from the four quarters of heaven; and I will scatter them to all those winds, and
there shall be no nation to which those driven out of Elam shall not come. 37 I will
terrify Elam before their enemies, and before those who seek their life; I will bring
evil upon them, my fierce anger, says the LORD. I will send the sword after them,
until I have consumed them; 38 and I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy their
king and princes, says the LORD. 39 But in the latter days I will restore the
fortunes of Elam, says the LORD.
Ezekiel 27 deals with the lamentation of Tyre. Tyre was a great trading centre and
Kedar was a favoured resource for trade in sheep and goats.
Ezekiel 27:21 Arabia and all the princes of Kedar were your favored dealers in
lambs, rams, and goats; in these they trafficked with you.
Isaiah states that the nation of Kedar, who were mighty men and skilled archers,
would be defeated.
Isaiah 21:14-17 The oracle concerning Arabia. In the thickets in Arabia you will
lodge, O caravans of De'danites. 14 To the thirsty bring water, meet the fugitive
with bread, O inhabitants of the land of Tema. 15 For they have fled from the
swords, from the drawn sword, from the bent bow, and from the press of battle. 16
For thus the Lord said to me, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling,
all the glory of Kedar will come to an end; 17 and the remainder of the archers of
the mighty men of the sons of Kedar will be few; for the LORD, the God of Israel,
has spoken.
These wars will come to an end and the Messiah will establish the men of Kedar and
use those of the first-born ebai’oth to convert all of the Arabs and the sons of the
Middle East, and they will be brought to peace and ruled from Jerusalem.
ADBEEL
Wade Cox is again the main authority on what can be known about this son of
Ishmael. His name means vapour, or cloud of God, also servant of God. Cox writes,
This tribe was located in the northwest of Arabia close to Kedar and ebaioth.
They are mentioned in Genesis 25:13 and 1Chronicles 1:20. S. Cohen says they were
identical with the Idiba’ileans that were conquered by Tiglath-pileser III (some
attribute as II) and then appointed as guards on the Egyptian frontier (Interp. Dict.,
Vol. 1, p. 45). These Idiba’ileans are the Idibi’ilu of Arubu. Some authorities
attempt to locate the tribe in the Sinai because they dwelt in the west.
MIBSAM MISHMA

251. 1. Wade Cox, Mibsam (smelling sweet) and Mishma (hearing; obeying)
Again, there is little information about these two tribes. The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia says that as these two names are also noted in 1Chronicles
4:25ff. in relation to the sons of Simione, and that they were two Arabian tribes,
which may have become affiliated with the Simionites.
These two tribes appear to have been associated with the Idiba’ileans in the same
area.
The accuracy of this is not fully known.
S. Cohen identifies Mibsam as a descendant of Simeon and the father of Mishma
from 1Chronicles 4:25 and appears to make them distinct from the Ishmaelites
(Interp. Dict. art. ‘Mibsam’, Vol. 3, p. 369). However, in his article ‘Mishma’ on p.
404 he notes that there is a Jebel Mishma between Teima and Jebel Shamar; but the
reading is uncertain. He then goes on to say that the presence of the two names here
and in the Ishmaelite genealogies may indicate that the two were Arabian tribes that
had become affiliated with Simeon in the course of the latter’s expansion southward
(vv. 38-43).
It may be that they became affiliated from Egypt even before the Exodus perhaps
even under the Hyksos, as the text in Genesis would seem to require an early
connection; but the southern expansion of Simeon seems a very plausible
explanation.
These tribes would thus also be Jews and perhaps scattered in Israel as well.
Dumah
1. Verse 14. Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa
Where the first and last of these settled is not known; but it is probable that Dumah
gave his name to a place called Dumah in Arabia. See a prophecy concerning this
place, Isaiah 21:11, from which we find that it was in the vicinity of Mount Seir.
These three names have passed into a proverb among the Hebrews, because of their
signification. mishma signifies HEARIG; dumah, SILECE; and massa,
PATIECE. Hence, Hear much, say little, and bear much, tantamount to the
famous maxim of the Stoics, ανεχουκαιαπεχου, Sustain and abstain, is supposed
to be the spirit of the original words.
Gill makes this comment on these three sons: The Targum of Jonathan translates
these three names, hearing, silence, and patience;'' which the Jews use as a
proverb, when they would signify that there are some things to be heard and not
spoken of, and to be patiently borne. If Ishmael had in view to teach such lessons by
the names he gave his children, he will seem to be a better man than he is usually
thought to be.
2. Wade Cox writes, Dumah (silence) The Dumah are held to be the Idumaeans.
The name of Dumah is still preserved in the modern Arab city of Dumat-al-Jandal,
which was the capital of the tribe.
ow this cannot be correct as Dumah is a son of Ishmael but is also used to refer to
Mt. Seir, which is the home of the son of Esau. Isaiah 21:11 makes that connection.
Thus we must assume that a section of the tribe of Dumah was connected with

252. Edom in Mt. Seir while the northern section of Dumah lived in the area in
Mesopotamia to the north. The explanation is probably that, as Edom moved
northwest into the lands of depopulated Israel and Judah, the Dumah moved into
the lands of Mt. Seir and seemingly absorbed into Edom but, at the very least, were
prophesied against by Isaiah.
The Jewish Encyclopedia, in its article by Emil G. Hirsch, Solomon Schechter and
Kaufmann Kohler, states that in biblical literature Dumah has been found in Dumat
al-Jandal in Arabia, called Jauf today (Yakut, s.v.; Burkhardt, Travels in Syria, p.
662), and compared with Domatha (Pliny, Historia aturalis, vi. 32; Stephanus
Byzantius, s.v.). The Dumathii are mentioned in Porphyry, De Abstinentia (ii. 56), as
an Arabian tribe which sacrifices a boy every year and buries him under the altar of
its idol. The name Dumah seems to point, like the name Hadramaut (Gen. x. 26), to
some legend of Hades (cf. Glaser, Skizze der Gesch. und Geographie Arabiens, 1890,
p. 440).
It goes on to say that it is the name of a land probably identical with the territory of
the tribe of Ishmael (Isa. xxi. 11). The Septuagint substitutes Idumea (see
commentaries ad loc., and comp. Abu al-Walid's Dictionary, s.v. ).
Also, it is the name of a city of Judah (Josh. xv. 52). The Ginsburg MS., the Vulgate,
and the Septuagint have Rouma, but Jerome's and Eusebius' Onomastica, s.v.,
mention a village of the name of Dumah, which has been identified with Khirbat
Daumah in the neighbourhood of Bait Jibrin.
Dumah is mentioned in the biblical records as a city in Canaan (Josh. 15:52). It is
also associated with Edom and Seir in Isaiah 21:11. From abataean.net: Dumah is
generally identified by historians with the Addyrian Adummatu people.
Esarhaddon related how, in his attempt to subdue the Arabs, his father,
Sennacherib struck against their capital, Adummatu, which he called the stronghold
of the Arabs. Sennacherib captured their king, Haza'il, who is called, King of the
Arabs. Kaza'il is also referred to in one inscription of Ashurbanipal as King of the
Kedarites. From a geographical standpoint, Adummatu is often associated with the
medieval Arabic Dumat el-Jandal, which was in ancient times a very important and
strategic junction on the major trade route between Syria, Babylon, ajd and the
Hijaz area. Dumat el Jandal is at the southeastern end of Al Jawf, which is a desert
basin, and often denotes the whole lower region of Wadi as Sirhan, the famous
depression situated half way between Syria and Mesopotamia. This area has water,
and was a stopping place for caravan traders coming from Tayma, before
proceeding on to Syria or Babylonia.
This strategic location effectively made Dumah the entrance to north Arabia. This
oasis was the center of rule for many north Arabian kings and queens, as related to
us in Assyrian records.
Massa

253. 1.The records of Tiglath Pileser III mentions the inhabitants of Mas'a and of Tema,
who paid him tribute. On the summit of Jebal Ghunaym, located about fourteen
kilometers south of Tayma, archeologists Winnett and Reed discovered some graffiti
texts mentioning the tribe Massaa, in connection with Dedan and ebayot. These
texts refer to the war against Dedan, the war against abayat and the war against
Massaa. Therefore, these tribes appear to have been close to each other at this time.
The tribe of Massaa is possibly connected with the Masanoi of orth Arabia as
mentioned by Ptolemy, Geography v18, 2.
Those holding to the theory that the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea into
Arabia proper, identify El Maser as the place where the Israelites murmured.
(Exodus 17:7, Deut 6:16,9:22,33:8)
2. Wade Cox writes, Massa (a burden; prophecy) From the abataean website:
The records of Tiglath Pileser III mentions the inhabitants of Mas'a and of Tema,
who paid him tribute. On the summit of Jebal Ghunaym, located about fourteen
kilometers south of Tayma, archeologists Winnett and Reed discovered some graffiti
texts mentioning the tribe Massaa, in connection with Dedan and ebayot. These
texts refer to the war against Dedan, the war against abayat and the war against
Massaa. Therefore, these tribes appear to have been close to each other at this time.
The tribe of Massaa is possibly connected with the Masanoi in the vicinity of Tema.
Hadad
1. Some historians speculate that this tribe may have become known as the Harar,
or the Hararina people that lived near the mountains northwest of Palmyra. It is
also interesting to notice that there is a Hadad tribe in Arabia. Most of the Hadads
are now Christians, and are located throughout the Levant. (Eg: Jordan, Syria,
Lebanon, Palestine)
2. Wade Cox writes, Massa (a burden; prophecy) From the abataean website:
The records of Tiglath Pileser III mentions the inhabitants of Mas'a and of Tema,
who paid him tribute. On the summit of Jebal Ghunaym, located about fourteen
kilometers south of Tayma, archeologists Winnett and Reed discovered some graffiti
texts mentioning the tribe Massaa, in connection with Dedan and ebayot. These
texts refer to the war against Dedan, the war against abayat and the war against
Massaa. Therefore, these tribes appear to have been close to each other at this time.
The tribe of Massaa is possibly connected with the Masanoi in the vicinity of
Tema.Clarke says, This name should be read Hadad as in 1 Chronicles 1:30. This
reading is supported by more than three hundred MSS., versions, and printed
editions.
Tema
1. Teyma is usually associated with the ancient oasis of Tayma, located northeast of
the Hijaz district, on the trade route between Tathrib (Medina) and Dumah.
Between Tayma and Dumah is the famous afud desert. It is thought that the
present city of Tayma at the southwestern end of the great afud desert is built on
the remains of the ancient oasis by the same name.

254. Tiglath Pileser III received tributes from Tayma, as well as from other Arabian
oasis. The Assyrian recorded recall how a collation headed by Samsi, queen of the
Arabs was defeated. The coalition was made up of Massaa, the city of Tayma, the
tribes of Saba, Hajappa, Badana, Hatti, and Idiba'il, which lay far to the west. Once
defeated, these tribes had to send tribute of gold, silver, camels and spices of all
kinds.
The Assyrian king, Sennacherib even named one of his gates in the great city of
ineveh as the Desert Gate, and records that the gifts of the Sumu'anite and the
Teymeite enter through it. From this we can recognize Teyma as being an
important place.
Around 552 BC, the Babylonian king, abonidus (555-539 BC) the father of biblical
Belshazzar (Daniel 7:1) made the city of Tayma his residence and spent ten of the
sixteen years of his reign there.
During the Achaemenid period, the city probably became a seat of one of the
Persian emperors.
However, by the first century BC, the abataeans began to dominate Tayma and it
slowly became a part of their trading empire.
Isaiah 21:13-14 Invites the people of Tayma to provide water and food for their
fugitive countrymen, in an apparent allusion to Tiglath Pileser's invasion of orth
Arabia in 738 BC.
Jeremiah 25:23 A prophecy against the oasis city
Job 6:19,20 Job laments at his fall from wealth, and comments that the troops of
Tema and the armies of Sheba (Yemen) had hoped for plunder, but now Job had
nothing.
2. Wade Cox writes, Tema (admiration; perfection; consummation). Cohen says
that he was a son of Ishmael and hence the name of an Arabian locality (Gen. 25:15;
1Chr. 1:30).
It is the same as the modern Teima which is an oasis located ca. 250 miles SE of
Aqaba on the road to the head of the Persian Gulf and about 200 miles E of
Medina on the road to Damascus. To the west lies the efud Desert which separates
Tema from Dumah and Edom. In view of its strategic location at the junction of the
two main caravan routes it was an important caravansary (Interp. Dict. of the Bible,
art. ‘Tema’, Vol. 4, p. 533). These caravans are mention in Job 6:19 and headed to
that city. The oracle in Isaiah 21:14, which bids the inhabitants of Tema help their
fugitive brethren with food and drink, is thought to refer to the campaign of
Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria in 738 BCE. Although parts of orthern Arabia were
conquered, Tema escaped destruction by paying tribute to the Assyrians, as did
other oases.
However, Jeremiah issued dire warnings against them (Jer. 25:23; cf. 49:28-33).
ebuchadnezzar of Babylon waged campaigns against the region and the prophecy
may have referred to that campaign or had a dual aspect.
abonidus (555-539) was the last king of Babylonia and was in danger from the
Medes and Persians. In 552 BCE (following Cohen), he left his son Belshazzar to
rule in Babylon (cf. Dan. 7:1) and destroyed the city of Tema and its populace, then

255. rebuilt it and repopulated the city with a large range of different people. He lived
there for ten years (ca. 549-539) probably to consolidate the region and consolidate
his links with Egypt, which was his only ally against the Persians. However, God
raised Cyrus in 540 BCE to conquer the Babylonians. According to Xenophon
Cyrus conquered all that region of Arabia, with Babylon itself falling a year later
(ibid.).
The Assyrian records also show that a coalition headed by Samsi, queen of the
Arabs, was defeated and made to pay significant tribute. The coalition was made up
of Massaa, the city of Tayma, the tribes of Saba, Hajappa, Badana, Hatti, and
Idiba'il, which lay far to the west.
Female rulers among the ancient Arabs were not uncommon as we saw with the
Queen of Sheba.
ote the names of the coalition and their relationship to the sub-tribes of Ishmael
and also of Keturah to the south-east and to the far west of Tema.
The Assyrian Sennacharib named the great gate at ineveh the Desert Gate because
the tribute of the Sumu’anites and the Temaites entered through it.
These people are not to be confused with the Temani or Temanites who are a clan of
the people of Esau (Gen. 36:11,15). Those people lived at Tawilan E of Elji on a
shelf of land above Elji and below Jebel Heidan, which rises above it to the E.
From the Early Iron Age I-II pottery (ca. 1200-600 BCE) found there, it seems to
have been of considerable importance (ibid., art. ‘Teman’, pp. 533-534). This was a
very fertile area and thickly populated. One of the kings there was Husham of the
Temanites (Gen. 36:34; 1Chr. 1:45).
Jetur
From whom came the Itureans, who occupied a small tract of country beyond
Jordan, which was afterwards possessed by the half-tribe of Manasseh. Wade Cox
gives us more information than we need, but it is of interest. He writes, Jetur
(order; succession; mountainous)
This tribe of Ishmael (Gen. 25:15; 1Chr. 1:31) was one of the tribes at war with
Israel in the Tranjordan (1Chr. 5:19).
Saunders (Interp. Dict., art. ‘Iturea’, Vol. 2, p. 773) places it E of Galilee in the
Anti-Lebanon country settled by Arab people of Ishmaelite stock. The region was
included in the Tetrachy of Philip (Lk. 3:1). Saunders holds that the people known
from the Second Century BCE (by the Hellenised form) as ‘Itouraoi are
undoubtedly the same tribe as the descendants of Jetur mentions in Genesis 25:15
and as being the enemies of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (1Chr. 5:19). Schurer says
exactly the same thing in his work (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, ed. Vermes et al., T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1987, Vol. 1, Appendix
1, p. 561).
The exact boundaries of the Itureans of northern Palestine are difficult to define. It
is not certain whether Iturea and Trachonitis were wholly distinct districts or

256. overlapped or were identical.
Strabo (Geography XVI.2.16,18) locates the kingdom of the Itureans in Anti-
Lebanon in the Beqa’ valley with its capital at Chalcis, and carefully distinguishes it
from the territory of the Trachons.
Josephus describes a campaign against them by Aristobulus I in 105-104 BCE
(Saunders, ibid.).
They were forcibly annexed by Judea and the men were forcibly circumcised (A of
J, XIII, xi, 3).
Originally they were a hill people living on the western slope of Anti-Lebanon and
perhaps in the larger Lebanon region towards Phoenicia.
In the First Century BCE under Ptolemy and Lysanius the kingdom developed
lands to its greatest extent, extending from the sea in the west to Damascus in the
east and included the lands of Panias and Ulatha in the south, down to and perhaps
including the northern borders of Galilee. After the death of Lysanius in 36 BCE the
kingdom may have been divided into several smaller districts.
Schurer details the extent of Iturea in his work. He notes Gaulanitis to be to the east
of the Jordan and taking its name from the Golon and was the ancient Bashan
(Deut. 4:43; Jos. 20:8; 21:27; 1Chr. 6:56). Josephus distinguishes upper and lower
Gaulanitis and says Gamal lay in lower Gaulanitis east of Lake Genessaret (B. J. iii
3,1 (37)) and Gaulanitis provided the eastern boundary of Galilee (vol. 1, p. 337 n.).
It is thus the lowlands east of the Jordan from its source to the southern tip of Lake
Genessaret. The district of Panias, which was occupied by the Itureans, was located
on the town of Panias at the source of the Jordan (Vol. II, 23:1). It belonged in
earlier times to Zenodorus and before that it was the kingdom of the Itureans. The
comment by Luke referred in fact to only a small part of what was once a far
greater kingdom. The Itureans were regarded by both Greeks and Romans as an
uncivilised bandit people and they designated them as both Syrians and Arabians.
The references in Vergil, Lucan, Cicero and Strabo all mention their skill as
bowman. The Hellenized name first appears in the second century BCE before
Roman rule in Palestine. They formed a strong confederacy scattered throughout
Lebanon. In the First Century BCE they were ruled by Ptolemy the son of
Mennaeus (ca. 85-40 BCE) and Strabo says he possessed “Massyas and the
Mountainous country of the Itureans” (Geography XVI.ii.10). Pompey destroyed
many of the fortified strongholds and reduced the area. His son Lysanius inherited
the tribal principality and is referred to as a King of the Itureans by Dio Cassius
(XLIX.32); he ruled the principality until his death in 36 BCE. At the instigation of
Mark Antony large portions were given to Cleopatra, and both Plutarch (Antony
36) and Josephus (Antiq. XV.iv,1-2) confirm this.
The subsequent history is confused but it was probably divided into four parts. In
20 BCE Augustus conferred the tetrarchy of Zenodorus, who was successor to
Lysanius as a vassal of Cleopatra, on Herod the Great who in turn bequeathed it to
his son Philip (Josephus, Ant. xv. 10, 3) (see also Saunders, Interp. Dict., loc. cit.).

257. The tetrarchy centred on Abila was conferred by Claudius on Herod Agrippa I in
41 CE (see also Josephus, Antiq. XIX.v.1 and XX.vii.1). Abila lay 18 Roman miles
from Damascus on the road to Heliopolis and is now the village of Suk on the
Barada and which lies on the remains of the ancient town. The town contains the
place of the tomb of the Prophet Abel, hence Abila or Abilene (Schurer, p.567).
The Lysanius son of Ptolemy is not the Lysanius referred to in Luke and Josephus.
It is a much younger Lysanius that Josephus is referring to, and archaeological
evidence both at Abila (Corpus Inscriptorium Graecarun 4521) and Heliopolis
(4523) has now confirmed that both Josephus and Luke are referring to this
younger tetrarch who ruled Abila before 47 CE.
In 38 CE the territory of Soemus of the Itureans was seized by Caligula and later
incorporated into the province of Syria.
Saunders considers that it probably consisted of the northern territory below
Heliopolis to Laodicea, which was the tetrarchy of Arca (Saunders, ibid.).
The southern borders of Philip’s territory also excluded the cities of Bosra and
Salcah, south of the Hauran, as we have inscriptions placing the abataean kings
Malchus and Aretas over them. However, from an Aramaic inscription Schurer says
that Hebran on the southern slope of the Hauran belonged to Philip (op.cit., p. 338
n.).
aphish
These are evidently the same people mentioned 1 Chronicles 5:19, who, with the
Itureans and the people of adab, assisted the Hagarenes against the Israelites, but
were overcome by the two tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of
Manasseh.
aphish (the soul; he that rests, refreshes himself, or rests) The ISBE records
aphish as the 11th son of Ishmael and the chief prince of the Arabian tribe that
descended from him. The tribe was defeated by the Transjordan Israelite tribes and
survivors were taken captive. Some became temple slaves and are listed among the
families that returned from exile (Ezra 2:50; eh. 7:52). This tribe can be
considered as a part of Judah today.
Kedemah
Probably the descendants of this person dwelt at Kedemoth, a place mentioned
Deuteronomy 2:26. I wish the reader to observe, that concerning those ancient tribes
mentioned here or elsewhere in the Pentateuch little is known; nor of their places of
settlement have we more certain information. On this subject many learned men
have toiled hard with but little fruit of their labour. Those who wish to enter into
discussions of this nature must consult Bochart's Geographia Sacra, Calmet.
Ked'emah (oriental; ancient; first)
They are identified as the Kadmonites, a people of the east, listed with the Kenites
and Kenizzites of Edom. They are also dealt with elsewhere in the papers dealing

258. with Edom and the other sons of Abraham.
Each of these sons also had sons, and here is a list of the grandsons of Abraham
through Ishmael.
Offspring of Ishmael (Book of Jasher)
Sons of ebaioth, the first born of Ishmael Mend Send Mayon
Sons of Kedar Alyon Kezem Chamad Eli
Sons of Adbeel Chamad Jabin
Sons of Mibsam Obadiah Ebedmelech Yeush
Sons of Mishma Shamua Zecaryon Obed
Sons of Dumah Kezed Eli Machmad Amed
Sons of Masa Melon Mula Ebidadon
Sons of Chadad Azur Minzar Ebedmelech
Sons of Tema Seir Sadon Yakol
Sons of Yetur Merith Yaish Alyo Pachoth
Sons of aphish Ebed-Tamed Abiyasaph Mir
Sons of Kedma Kedma Calip Tachti Omir
16 These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal
rulers according to their settlements and camps.
Brow, who has done extensive research on these sons of Ishmael sums up this list
with Bible Texts where they are mentioned, and then gives an interesting concluding
statement. He writes, God had promised Abraham that I would bring forth twelve
princes (17:20), and sure enough after ebaioth the other eleven soon came in rapid
succession. Here is my quiver of twelve arrows (see Psalm 127:3-5): ebaioth
(25:13, 28:9, 36:3, 1 Chronicles 1:29, Isaiah 60:7) Kedar (25:13, 1 Chronicles 1:29,
Psalm 120:5, Song of Solomon 1:5, Isaiah 21:16,17, 42:11, 60:7, Jeremiah 2:10,
49:28-29, Ezekiel 27:21) Abdeel (25:24, 1 Chronicles 1:29) Mibsam (25:14, 1
Chronicles 1:29. It is interesting that among the sons of Simeon the names Mibsam
and Mishma occur (1 Chronicles 4:25-26). The tribe of Simeon was in the extreme
south of the country, and may have had Arab connections by marriage.) Mishma
(25:14, 1 Chronicles 1:30) Dumah (25:14, Isaiah 21:11,12, modern Arabic Dumat-al-
Gandal, 1 Chronicles 1:30) Massa (25:14, 1 Chronicles 1:30, Proverbs 31:1 is better
translated Lemuel King of Massa) Hadad (Hadar in 25:15, 1 Chronicles 1:30)
Tema (25:15, 1 Chronicles 1:30, Job 6:19, Isaiah 21:14, Jer 25:23) Jetur (25:15, 1
Chronicles 1:31, 5:19) aphish (25:15, 1 Chronicles 1:31, 5:19) Kedemah (25:15, 1
Chronicles 1:31.
The listing of the twelve sons of Ishmael among the genealogies in the much later
book of Chronicles (1 Chronicles 1:29-31, as well as the as the sons of Keturah (1
Chronicles 1:32-33), and the various clans of Edomites descended from Esau (1
Chronicles 1:35-54), proves that the Jews at that time still viewed the Arabs as blood
relatives also descended from Abraham).
All of this information about the sons of Ishmael provokes the question, why? Why
bother with all this when the main story is about Isaac and his son Jacob? This is

259. the way the big river flows, and so why this interruption to explore some minor
tributaries off the main river? Brow pointed out one reason, but John Buchanan
points out a much greater reason in the following paragraphs.
Professor Walter Brueggeman, in his classic treatment of the story, observes that
“God has this special commitment to Ishmael. For some inscrutable reason, God is
not quite prepared to yield easily to his own essential plot. . . God cares about this
outsider the tradition wants to abandon. God will remember all the children, like a
mother remembers all her children.” (Isaiah 49:15)
It’s almost as if the Bible is arguing with itself here. The big story is Isaac. But from
the very beginning the Bible keeps reminding us that God doesn’t forget about the
ones who get pushed to the margins or pushed out of the big story. From the very
beginning God is passionately committed to the very ones the traditions and customs
and laws of God’s people exclude. God stands in judgment of the very religious
tradition God has inspired. That’s what gets so hot about this story . . .and
provocative.
Centuries later Jesus did the same thing; in God’s name remembered and reached
out to the very people who were being excluded by the customs and traditions and
laws of God’s people. That’s what is going on in the ew Testament when he
touches a leper, and sits at table with tax collectors and allows a prostitute to pour
oil on his feet and talks with women in broad daylight and heals on the sabbath,
welcomes the children. In one way or another these people are outsiders—excluded
by religion in Jesus’ day. You simply cannot read scripture and avoid the radical
inclusivity of God’s love. You cannot claim the tradition without claiming the part
that judges the tradition’s exclusivity. You cannot claim the name of Jesus and
ignore his embrace of those his own religion marginalized.
17 Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last
and died, and he was gathered to his people.
1. Ishmael lived 48 years after Abraham died, but he did not live a long as his father
did, for Abraham lived for 175 years. It was an old age from out point of view, but
short in the light of the life of Abraham. Gill writes, ..some of the same expressions
being used of him as of his father, Gen_25:8, have led some to conclude that he was
a penitent and died a good man, and was gathered to the same people; but these
phrases are used both of good and bad men.
2. Wesley wrote, He lived an hundred and thirty and seven years - Which is
recorded to shew the efficacy of Abraham's prayer for him, chap. xvii, 18. O that
Ishmael might live before thee! Then he also was gathered to his people. And he died
in the presence of all his brethren - With his friends about him. Who would not wish
so to do?

260. 18 His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of
Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their
brothers.
That is where they settled then, but now they have settled all over the world, and
today in the United States they have settled as well. Here are some statistics from the
year 2000. There are about 1.2 million U.S. residents whose ancestry is solely or
partly Arab, less than 0.5 percent of all Americans. People of Arab descent living in
the United States tend to be better educated and wealthier than other Americans,
the Census Bureau says. Arabs are nearly twice as likely as the typical U.S. resident
to possess a college degree, 41 percent to 24 percent. Better education typically
translates into higher income, and that was highlighted in the report: The median
income for an Arab family was $52,300, about $2,300 more than the median income
for all U.S. families. The proportion of U.S. Arabs working in management jobs was
higher than the U.S. average, 42 percent to 34 percent.
1. The Islamic prophet Muhammad is considered to be a descendant of Ishmael. The
oldest extant biography of Muhammad, compiled by Mohammed Ibn Ishak, and
edited by Abu Mohammed Abd el Malik Ibn Hisham, opens:
This book contains the life of the Apostle of God: Muhammad was the son of Abd
Allah, son of Abdu-l-Mottaleb, son of Hashim, son of Abd Menaf, son of Kussei, son
of Kilab, son of Murra, son of Kaab, son of Luei, son of Ghalib, son of Fihr, son of
Malik, son of adhr, son of Kinana, son of Khuzeima, son of Mudrika, son of Alya,
son of Mudhar, son of izar, son of Maad, son of Adrian, son of Udd, son of
Mukawwam, son of ahor, son of Teira, son of Yarob, son of Yashyob, son of abit,
son of Ishmael, son of Abraham, the Friend of God, son of Tara, son of ahor, son
of Sarukh, son of Rau, son of Falih, son of Eiber, son of Shalih, son of Arphakhsad,
son of Shem, son of oah, son of Lamek, son of Metushalakh, son of Khanukh, -
who, as is believed, was the prophet Idris, the first prophet, and the first who wrote
with the reed, - son of Yared, son of Mahaleel, son of Kainanan, son of Yanish, son
of Sheth, son of Adam, to whom may God be gracious!
2. Clarke writes, The descendants of Ishmael possessed all that country which
extends from east to west, from Havilah on the Euphrates, near its junction with the
Tigris, to the desert of Shur eastward of Egypt; and which extends along the
isthmus of Suez, which separates the Red Sea from the Mediterranean. As thou
goest toward Assyria - “These words,” says Calmet, “may refer either to Egypt, to
Shur, or to Havilah. The desert of Shur is on the road from Egypt to Assyria in
traversing Arabia Petraea, and in passing by the country of Havilah. I know not,”
adds he, “whether Ashshurah in the text may not mark out rather the Asshurim
descended from Keturah, than the Assyrians, who were the descendants of Asshur
the son of Shem.”
He died in the presence of all his brethren - The original will not well bear this
translation. In Gen_25:17 it is said, He gave up the ghost and died, and was

261. gathered to his people. Then follows the account of the district occupied by the
Ishmaelites, at the conclusion of which it is added על פני כל אחיו נפל al peney col
echaiv naphal, “It (the lot or district) Fell (or was divided to him) in the presence of
all his brethren:” and this was exactly agreeable to the promise of God, Gen_16:12,
He shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren; and to show that this promise had
been strictly fulfilled, it is here remarked that his lot or inheritance was assigned
him by Divine Providence, contiguous to that of the other branches of the family.
The same word, נפל naphal, is used Jos_23:4, for to divide by lot.
3. Gill wrote, And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur,.... That is, the posterity of
Ishmael, whose country reached from one place to the other; not from India to
Chaluza, as the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem; but the extent is that vast
desert of Arabia, which eastward was called the wilderness of Havilah, and
westward the wilderness of Shur; so that they inhabited it from east to west: that [is]
before Egypt, as thou goest to Assyria; which last place was over against Egypt, and
bordered on that part where lies the way to the land of Assyria:
A line in the Book of Jubilees (20:13) mentions that the descendants of Abraham's
son by Hagar, Ishmael, as well as his descendants by Keturah, became the
Arabians or Arabs. The 1st century Jewish historian Josephus similarly
described the descendants of Ishmael (i.e. the Ishmaelites) as an Arabian people.
[5] He also calls Ishmael the founder (êôßóôçò) of the Arabians. [6] Some
Biblical scholars also believe that the area outlined in Genesis as the final
destination of Ishmael and his descendants (from Havilah to Assyria) refers to the
Arabian peninsula. This has led to a commonplace view that modern Semitic-speaking
Arabs are descended from Abraham via Ishmael, in addition to various
other tribes who intermixed with the Ishmaelites, such as Joktan, Sheba, Dedan,
Broham, etc. Both Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions speak of earlier
inhabitants of Arabia. Midian and Ishmael were half brothers born of Abraham to
two different women, and they intermarried and became as one tribe for part of
them.
4. Robert Brow has done an unbelievablel job of tracing the relationships of the
Jews and Arabs, both of whom were the seed of Abraham. They often fought, but he
makes it clear that there was also positive relationships. This is a long study, but
well worth it for the insight it gives us on the interaction of these two lines from
Abraham. He writes, Another thirty years later Isaac (1852-1672) died, and both
brothers Esau and Jacob were there to bury him in the cave of Macpelah, where
Sarah and Abraham were buried in the town now called Hebron (Genesis 23:19,
25:7-10, 35:28-29). This shows that 60 years after the death of Ishmael there were
peaceful and brotherly contacts between the Arab and Jewish cousins.
In Genesis 36 we have a very careful genealogical list written by Jewish scribes of
the various clans of the tribe of Edom. From Esau's son Eliphaz came the families of
Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz. A second son Reuel had ahath, Zerah,
Shammah, and Mizzah. There is also a list of the first dynasty of eight Arab kings
who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites

262. (36:31-39). This must have been recorded at a time when the genealogies of the Arab
cousins was still of great importance for the Jewish line of Jacob.
67 years after the death of Ishmael, Isaac's son Joseph was sold to Midianite traders
by his brothers (Genesis 37:28), and they sold him as a slave in Egypt. The
interesting thing is that already by this time the Midianites could also be called
Ishmaelites. This shows that, not only were they engaged in extensive trade, but this
tribe was already viewed as part of the Ishmaelite Arab brotherhood (Genesis
37:27-28). In our day it is acceptable for the Welsh to be called British, but they
could never be called English. Similarly there is no problem with Midianites, or any
other tribe being called Bene-Ishmael (children of Ishmael). But as we will see later
in this chapter the leadership of the Arab brotherhood tended to be united under
the lineage of a pure Ishmaelite leadership.
Moses had spent forty years with the tribe of Midian (descended from Abraham's
concubine Keturah, Genesis 25:1-2) and he stayed with Reuel (friend of God) the
priest of Midian. The priest had seven daughters and Moses married Zipporah.
Moses' son, Gershom, was therefore half Arab (Exodus 2:15-22).
Three hundred years after the death of Ishmael there was the Jewish Exodus from
Egypt (Other dates are given by various scholars, but 1447 BC. fits the framework
we have used for this book). For the next 40 years they wandered through Arab
territory on their way through the Sinai desert and up the Jordan valley. The Arab
tribes they encountered are clearly identified and located in their areas : Amalekites
(Exodus 14:25, 24:20), Edomites (umbers 20:14-18, 21:24) Moab (Exodus 21:10,
22:1), Ammonites (Exodus 21:24, Deuteronomy 2:19-21, 23:3-6), Midian (Exodus
25:1-15). As we have seen in previous chapters, these Arab tribes are all descended
directly from Abraham, or his nephew Lot.
Joshua was the general who succeeded Moses and he died about 1367 BC. In his last
speech he spoke in the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. I took your father
Abraham from beyond the River and led him through the land of Canaan and made
his offspring many. I gave him Isaac, and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. I gave
Esau the hill country of Seir to possess, but Jacob and his children went down to
Egypt (Joshua 24:2-4). Here the Jewish Lord God of Abraham allocates the land of
Canaan to the children of Isaac, but he also puts the area across the Jordan valley
into Arab hands (see Deuteronomy 2:19, Joshua 12:2-3).
During the period of the Judges (say about 1350 to 1050 BC) Moab, with the help of
the tribes of Ammon and Amalek took the City of Palms (Jericho), and subjugated
Israel for 18 years (Judges 3:12-14). Some time later a coalition of Midianites,
Amalekites (descended from Esau, Genesis 36:12), and Easterners (descended from
Keturah , Genesis 25:6) overran the Israelites (Judges 6:1-6). They were later
defeated by Gideon, and as in the story of Joseph these tribes are viewed as part of
the Ishmaelite Arab brotherhood (Judges 8:22-24). Similarly the tribe of Ammon
crushed and oppressed the Israelites for another period of 18 years (Judges 10:7-
9). But under the leadership of Jephtah they were driven back and subdued (Judges

263. 11:4-6, 32-33).
Saul became the first king of Israel. He defeated five Arab tribes, Moab, Ammon,
Edom,and Amalek, and Zobah (an Aramean tribe, 1 Samuel 14:47-48). This
indicates that the Arameans (Syrians) had by this time joined the Arab
brotherhood. David, the second king of Israel,also defeated the Moabites and
Arameans (Syrians) and placed garrisons there to collect tribute (2 Samuel 8:2-6). A
few years later David defeated a different grouping of Arameans and Ammonites (2
Samuel 10:6-19).
In the previous chapter we suggested that Ishmael may have established contacts
with the family of Abraham's brother Haran who had settled among the Arameans
(Syrians, descended from Shem, Genesis 10:23). Both Isaac married Rebekah and
Jacob married Leah and Rachel from that tribal grouping. We do not know when
the people of Syria began calling themselves Arabs, but they were certainly never
part of the Jewish people,. Throughout the Old Testament historical period there
are references to contacts, wars, and alliances with them (e.g. 2 Samuel 8:6, 11:25,
15:8, 1 Kings 10:29, 22:1, 2 Kings 5:1, 6:8, 8:28, Syria is mentioned 40 times in these
books). Obviously these battles were written by Jews from their national point of
view. But they show that these Arab tribes are still named and grouped in the same
way as they were at the end of Ishmael's life 700 years before.
A sister of the Jewish King David was Abigail and she was married to Jether the
Ishmaelite (1 Chronicles 2:13-17). And after King David had handed over the
regency to Solomon (1 Chronicles 23:1), one of David's servants was Obil the
Ishmaelite, who was in charge of the camels (1 Chronicles 27:30). Obviously the
Ishmaelites of the desert were viewed as the most qualified to be in charge of the
royal camels, but the text also points to the fact of contacts and even intermarriage
between Israelites and Arabs.
When David became king over Israel and Judah he forced the Moabites (descended
from Lot) to pay him tribute (2 Samuel 8:2). He also put garrisons to control Edom
(descended from Esau, 2 Samuel 8:14), and carried off silver and gold from Edom
and Moab, the Ammonites (both descended from Lot, Genesis 19:37-38) and the
Amalekites (descended from Esau, Genesis 36:12, see 1 Chronicles 18:11). Though
Arabs might well imagine that some of the victories are exaggerated, the texts
certainly prove that these Arab tribes still retained their identity seven hundred
years after the death of Ishmael.
Perhaps as a result of these victories King David and his son Solomon were able to
build a fleet of ships in Edomite territory at Eloth (present day Elath) on the Gulf of
Aqaba (1 Kings 9:26). Building a navy two hundred miles away in Edomite territory
would only be possible when there was military control or a firm peace agreement.
The ships enabled them to sail down the Red Sea to Ophir (present day Yemen,
occupied by Arabs descended from Yoktan, Genesis 10:25-26). In addition to
sandalwood and spices, they brought back four hundred talents of gold (30,000 lbs =
13,600 kg, with a present day value $1.5 billion, 1 Kings 9:26-28, 10:11, 2 Chronicles

264. 8:17, 9:10).
As a result of this impressive trading expedition the Queen of Sheba (One of the
thriteen Arab tribes descended from Yoktan (Genesis 10:25-29) came to visit King
Solomon. That was a journey of 1,200 miles passing through areas occupied by
many Arab tribes. She came with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices,
and very much gold, and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she told
him all that was on her mind (1 Kings 10:2). She may have been keen to discuss the
safe passage needed for her caravans to travel through Jewish territory. But the fact
that she came to test him with hard questions (1 Kings 10:1) perhaps suggested
that she was also interested in questions related to faith in the God of Abraham.
A hundred years after the time of Solomon King Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem tried to
duplicate Solomon's naval expedition to obtain gold from the area now called the
Yemen. He made ships of the Tarshish type to go to Ophir for gold; but they did
not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber (1 Kings 22:48). What is
interesting is that Jehoshaphat was able to do this at time when there was no king
in Edom; a deputy was king (1 Kings 22:47). But such ship building expeditions in
Arab territory would always be precarious. And this was always precarious. One of
the psalms speaks of plans to destroy Israel by a grouping of Arab tribes including
Edomites, Ishmaelites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Amalekites (Psalm 83:3-7).
Though many wars between Jews and Arabs are described in the Bible from the
Jewish point of view, it is also clear that there were wars between the tribes in the
Arab brotherhood. Ezekiel refers to the Ammonites (descended from Lot, Genesis
19:38), who were going to be attacked by the people of the East (tribes descended
from Keturah, Abraham's concubine, Genesis 25:1-5, Ezekiel 25:1-4).
Isaiah prophesied about a thousand years after the death of Ishmael, but he refers
to four Arab tribes with which he is obviously very familiar. Dumah, the Dedanites,
Tema, and Kedar (Isaiah 21:11-17, see 42:11).
Jeremiah announced some reasons for the imminent wrath that would fall upon the
tribe of Moab (descended from Lot). Contrary to the Abrahamic faith of Ishmael,
they had appointed priests who led them into idolatry to worship the god Chemosh
(Jeremiah 48:11). As a result Judgment has come upon the tableland, upon Holon,
and Jahzah, and Mephaat, and Dibon, and ebo (the mountain from where Moses
viewed the promised land, Deuteronomy 34:1), Beth-diblathaim, and Kiriathaim,
and Beth-gamul, and Beth-meon, and Kerioth, and Bozrah (Jeremiah 48:21-24, see
Moabite territory in umbers 21:13-20). It may not be possible to identify the
locations of these towns, but they were obviously well known to the Jewish prophet
Jeremiah on the other side of the Jordan valley. It is also significant that although
Moab was to be destroyed (Jeremiah 48:39, 42) the chapter ends with Yet I will
restore the fortunes of Moab in the latter days, says the Lord (Jeremiah 48:47).
Jeremiah had a similar complaint against Ammon (descended from Lot) who had
appointed idolatrous priests to serve the god Milcom. They would also be decimated,
but again the Lord says But afterward I will restore the fortunes of the

265. Ammonites (Jeremiah 49:3, 6). It is significant that this Jewish prophet has no
doubt that after a thousand years of constant wars against them the God of
Abraham is still interested in these two Arab tribes.
The prophet Ezekiel prophesied just before the fall of Jerusalem in 587. He wrote a
lament over the imminent destruction of the Phoenician city of Tyre. He lists five
Arab tribes who had traded with that city on the Mediterranean. Dedan
(descended from Keturah, Genesis 25:3) traded with you in saddlecloths for riding.
Arabia and all the princes of Kedar (Ishmael's sons, Genesis 25:13) were your
favored dealers in lambs, rams, and goats; in these they did business with you. The
merchants of Sheba (present day Yemen, see 1 Kings 10:1-2) and Raamah (also in
the Yemen) traded with you; they exchanged for your wares the best of all kinds of
spices, and all precious stones and gold. (Ezekiel 27:20-22).
It is only in the last book of the Jewish prophets that the descendants of Esau are
viewed as under God's final judgment (Malachi 1:2-5, but see Jeremiah 49:7-22,
Lamentations 4:22, Ezekiel 25:12-13, Joel 3:19, Amos 1:11-12, 2:1-3, ). But we
should put alongside this the equally severe judgments on Israel (in Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos 2:4-8). We also note Jesus' prophecy that the Jewish
religious establishment of Jerusalem would be ended in that generation, as
happened in AD 70 (Matthew 23:36, 24:1-9). But when Paul the Jewish rabbi spoke
of God's severe judgment on his own people, he also predicts their eventual
restoration (Romans 10:12, 24,-25). In their history Israel and the Arabs have both
experienced times of terrible judgment, but from God's point of view that is never
the end of the story.
Finally we go on another hundred years to the time when Ezra and ehemiah were
restoring Jerusalem after the exile. A group of Arab tribes are mentioned as
opposing the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. They were led by Samballat the
Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab (ehemiah 2:19, 4:7, 6:1,
see 13:23). This is further evidence to prove that throughout the Jewish Bible and
fourteen centuries after the death of Ishmael the original grouping of Arab tribes
was still known among the Jewish people.
As among present day Europeans, there were often squabbles over territorial
boundaries, and there could be vicious wars. But the constant throughout Old
Testament history was a continual hostility between the Arabs outside the land of
Canaan and the Jewish inhabitants of the land which was called Canaan till the
invasion under Joshua. And the frequent periods of hostility continue to this day.
In previous chapters we have noted that communication between Israel and her
Arab neighbors was possible because they had the common language which
Abraham and his sons learned in Canaan. Modern scholars call this language West
Semitic, but according to the biblical terminology this was a Hamitic language
(Genesis 10:6, 15) which had displaced the previous Sumerian (Shemitic) language
that Abraham had spoken in Ur (Genesis 10:21-24, 11:10-32, see the Introduction to
this book). This meant that both Jews and Arabs were originally Sumerian by race,

266. but they spoke the language of Canaan, which was a dialect of the Aramaic
language that was understood all over the Arab lands.
From the beginning of the Christian era there is no need to repeat the huge amount
of historical information that is available about the Arab people. Though Jesus was
a Jew, and his followers were called Christians, the faith which he taught was the
faith of Abraham. He was opposed by the Pharisee legalists on the one hand and
Sadduccee priestly class on the other (Matthew 9:14, 16:1, 6-12, 23:1-32, ). And we
have suggested that the original Abrahamic faith of Ishmael had no time for
legalistic rules of behavior, or for priests offering sacrifice in elaborate temples. The
Sadduccees did not believe in the resurrection of the body, whereas this became an
essential part of Arab theology. And like Jesus, Ishmael continued his father
Abraham's very personal relationship to God as Father and friend. That had always
made the idea of making an idol of God totally abhorrent.
That is why it is not surprising that the life and teachings of Jesus were very
appealing to the Arab people.. Whereas the Christian churches were viciously
persecuted in the Roman empire till the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in
AD 312, there was a mushrooming of churches growing to the east during the first
four centuries of the Christian era. There were hundreds of churches established in
all the Arab tribes we have listed. Among the bishops at the Synod of Antioch in 364
Theotinus is listed as Bishop of the Arabs (John Foster, Church History, AD 29-500,
1972, p.109). By the time of Muhammad in the seventh century there were still five
churches in the area of Bahrein located at Hatta, Darin, Masmahia, Tylus Island
(Bahrein) and Hegha (Mary Heolund, Atlas of the Early Church World, 1958. p.
36). But without an Arabic Bible it was impossible for ordinary people to distinguish
Christian teaching from Islam, and it seems probable that the vast majority of Arab
Christians at that time became Muslim.
When Muhammad became a prophet, and wrote the Qur'an, he certainly could not
have distinguished his message from what we have called the faith of Abraham. He
believed in one God, required circumcision for male children and converts, and had
no time for priests and temples. He was totally opposed to idolatry. As we have seen,
there were Arab tribes such as the Ammonites and Moabites, who fell into the hands
of priests who taught them pagan idolatrous practices. This had occured in Mecca
before Muhammad was able to cleanse the Kaaba from idols and heathen images on
its walls. But most of his work was restoring the genuine faith of Abraham and
Ishmael among the Arab people. And politically he was able to reunite the many
feuding Arab tribes and form them into one brotherhood. That is the vision we have
suggested goes back to Ishmael the founder of the Arab people.
What remains for Arabs, Jews, and Christians as we enter the next millenium is to
fulfill the third part of the original promise to Abraham. God is interested in each
nation having a land, and each nation prospering and multiplying, but the real
concern of His heart is that all nations should be blessed by the faith of Abraham
(Genesis 12:1-3).

267. 19 This is the account of Abraham's son Isaac. Abraham became the father of
Isaac,
1. Calvin wrote, Because what Moses has said concerning the Ishmaelites was
incidental, he now returns to the principal subject of the history, for the purpose of
describing the progress of the Church. It is true that the main character is the
promised son Isaac, and it is his history that is pursued, but the history of Ishmael is
not just incidental, for his descendants play a major role in history, and it is because
God promised to bless this seed of Ishmael. There is a tendency to put down the role
of Ishmael and his seed because they are not the seed through whom the Messiah
will come, and this reveals a prejudice that is unnecessary, for most of the tribes of
Israel were also eliminated from this direct line to the Messiah. People can still be
blest of God and useful for his plan for history without being the chosen line to
bring God's greatest blessing to the world. This needs to be acknowledged so that
others besides the direct line are not belittled for not being chosen. Isaac was chosen
and so it is his history that has the focus beginning here, but let us keep in mind that
he was not chosen because he was in some way better than Ishmael. The history of
Isaac fails to live up to the level of Abraham or Ishmael.
2. Steve Zeisler portrays Isaac as a wimp compared with his father, and he writes,
Here we should pause and ask questions about what we have learned. What kind
of influence did Isaac have in the world? Did he display God's character? Was he a
truth-teller, bringing righteousness to bear and creating a hunger among people for
God? The record does not show that he was any of these things. Isaac accepted a
great inheritance, knowledge of God and wealth from his father, and he squandered
most of it on himself. He did not do much wrong, but it is true to say he did not do
much of anything. Abraham made his home all the way across the map of the ear
East, from Mesopotamia, to Canaan, to Egypt, to Syria and back, but Isaac lived
180 years in the confines of a small radius. Ishmael had twelve sons; Isaac had two.
He lived in his own small world, comforted by the riches his father had given him
but not doing much with them. Abraham fought kings and saved the innocent. He
worshiped in public before Melchizedek. He interceded for Sodom. He saved Lot
twice. He prayed for and led Abimelech in a solemn covenant before the Lord. He
lived a life of constant reaching out to others, praying for them and comforting
them, being God's man in his generation. But Isaac, by comparison, spent his days
walking away from trouble, keeping his thoughts to himself, avoiding strife at all
costs, apparently unable to offer blessing to others................... Isaac did not fight any
battles. Compared to his father, he seems to have been a man without passion or
goals. He did not even wrestle with God as Jacob would later. He seemed content to
cruise through life, feeding his appetites.........If Isaac is seen to be different from his
father in his passion for God, what would comparing him with his half-brother,
Ishmael, teach us? First, there is an observable difference in their capabilities.
Ishmael was capable, assertive, effective, powerful. Isaac, of course, as we have seen,
was none of those things. But these men were also very different in God's eyes. The
inescapable fact of Scripture is that God said, I chose Isaac. ot because he was
deserving or attractive or that he had anything which commended him to God. For

268. his own purposes God decreed, This is my man. To be God's chosen does not
mean that one is better than others, for God does not always choose as men would
choose.
3. The amount of space devoted to the life of Isaac is quite small compared to his
father Abraham and his son Jacob. It seems like his life is skipped over to a great
degree. Brian Morgan writes about this and says, The fact that Isaac's life is
passed over is shocking when we consider how wondrously his life began. Isaac was
the promised son whose birth was announced by God and angels and whose
conception was a miracle of life from the dead. As a youth, his silent submission on
Moriah became an icon of faith and trust, typical of the Lamb of God who was to
come. Isaac's marriage seemed made in heaven. His bride came from just the right
family, and their vows were sealed in love and purity. With such a strong
foundation we would expect an easy transition to the next generation. But
somewhere everything went wrong. Though we are not yet told how this happened,
this surprising gap has a shocking ring about it.
20 and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel
the Aramean from Paddan Aram [4] and sister of Laban the Aramean.
1. Here begins another life testing experience of a chosen couple. Isaac is 40 when he
marries Rebekah and verse 26 says it is twenty years later before Rebekah
conceives, and so, like Abraham and Sarah, they had to wait for and pray for two
decades before they had their promised baby. This line of people who are to have a
vast multitude of descendants is very slow in getting started. Ishmael and his wife
are popping out babies every year, and this promised line is flowing like molassas in
January. It had to be very frustrating to be the chosen line and yet have the fewest
babies and at the slowest rate. It took a great deal of faith to believe they were the
chosen line to the Messiah. The evidence pointed to them being the least likely line to
go anywhere, let alone to the seed that would bless the whole world. It is just not
easy to be the chosen ones.
2. Isaac is the only one of the three great patriarchs who married one wife and
stayed with her for life. His was the ideal life as far as marriage goes, for he had
none of the problems that Abraham and Jacob had because of plural wives. It is also
of interest that Isaac was a man of round numbers. He was married at 40, had a son
at 60 and died at 180.
3. Isaac was the rich son of a rich father. He was the stable one who did not travel
like his father Abraham who left his home to go to a land he knew not, or like his
son Jacob who left home to live in another land, and later come back. Issac never
left the promised land, and unlike the others he had only one wife. He lived a rather
uneventful life. He was born, lived and died in the same place. His wife Rebekah
was more of a risk taker, and she was willing to leave her land and family and

269. marry him sight unseen.
4. Rebekah was Aramean or Syrian, for both her father and brother are called such,
and it was because they now lived in Syria. People who lived in a certain place for a
long time are called by that place, and so Jacob was later called Syrian in Deut. 26:5
because he lived there so long. It would be like an American going to live in Canada
for 20 years. People who knew him would be calling him a Canadian even though he
was still and American.
21 Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The
LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.
1. Here is prayer in its most simple and basic meaning. It is asking for something,
and then receiving something. Isaace prayed that his wife could bear a child, and
the result was that Rebekah became pregnant and bore a child. But simple as it is, it
is not as easy as it looks, for sometimes God does not answer prayer along the same
time line that we are seeking to receive an answer. Sarah and Abraham had to wait
25 years before Isaac was born; Jacob had to labor for 14 years to obtain his two
wives; and Joseph had to wait over 20 years before he was reconciled to his
brothers. Isaac was 60 years old, according to verse 27, when his boys were born,
and so he had a 20 year wait also. It looks like he just prayed and the next morning
his wife announced she was having a baby, but it was 20 years of praying and
hoping before that announcement was heard by this persistent man of prayer.
2. Here we see that men can go though long periods of frustration and agony also in
terms of waiting for a baby to come into their lives. But the fact is, sometimes men
are self-centered in their awareness of the suffering going on. Such is the case with
the man in this story. I read about a young father-to-be that was pacing back and
forth, wringing his hands in the hospital corridor while his wife was in labor. He
was tied up in knots of fear and anxiety, and beads of perspiration dropping from
his brow revealed the agony of his suffering. Finally, at 4 a.m. a nurse popped out of
a door and said, Well, sir, you have a little girl. He dropped his hands, became
limp, and said, Oh, how I thank God it's a girl. She'll never have to go through the
awful agony I've had tonight.
3. Pastor Sarver In verse 21 we learn that Rebekah was barren, unable to conceive
and have children. This is the same problem that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, had
encountered. I do not believe that this is coincidental, but rather God ordained both
women’s barrenness for a good purpose, one of the good and necessary purposes
being to encourage Israel (God’s people) and to instruct us. The nation of Israel
could look back and see that their existence as a nation was not the result of man’s
planning or natural events, but was rather the result of divine intervention. This
would have been encouraging to the people because if they were the result of God’s
supernatural plan and work then they could count on God to complete his plan of
bringing them into the Promised Land. In a similar way, Christian’s can see that
our existence as God’s people is not the result of human ability. As it says in John

270. 1:13, “(We are children of God) born not of natural descent, nor of human decision,
or a husband’s will, but born of God.” We are the result of God’s supernatural
intervention, so we also can depend on God to complete what he has begun and
bring us to heaven.
4. Clarke writes, The form of the original in this place is worthy of notice: Isaac
entreated Jehovah, lenochach ishto, directly, purposely, especially, for his wife.
Ainsworth thinks the words imply their praying together for this thing; and the
rabbins say that Isaac and Rebekah went on purpose to Mount Moriah, where he
had been bound, and prayed together there that they might have a son. God was
pleased to exercise the faith of Isaac previous to the birth of Jacob, as he had
exercised that of Abraham previous to his own birth.
5. Isaac was a man of prayer, and the record indicates this was just about the only
agressive thing he ever did. Unlike his father Abraham and his son Jacob, he was
not really known for any great act that stands out. There is no great story to tell
that characterizes his life. Keathley wrote, What about Isaac? If you read Genesis
and look for all the things Isaac did. You’ll find that not much space is devoted to
him and he really didn’t do anything significant. I was making a chart of Genesis
and plotting the main characters or patriarchs to show what their main contribution
and character were, and all I could come up with to describe Isaac was “Passive
Acceptance.” He accepted his father’s near sacrifice of him, which is good, but the
main point of that event is Abraham’s faith. Isaac did nothing else of significance in
the entire book.
Isaac didn’t go out to find his own wife. I’ve been told, that it is a literary device in
ancient Hebrew literature to have men first meet their wives at some well or spring.
What happens at the well is indicative of the relationship. For instance, Moses met
his wife at the well. He delivered her from the bandits. What he did there was a
foreshadowing of his deliverance of Israel. Jacob met his wife at a spring. He had
difficulty removing the stone so he could drink. That was a foreshadowing of the
fact that Rachel’s womb would be closed and they would have difficulty having
children. But Isaac didn’t even go to the well. His father’s servant went and found a
wife (at the well) for him and brought her back home. I think this gives the reader
an early clue as to his passive nature.
6. Prayer and pregnancy can go hand in hand, and this is a prayer that is prayed
daily by many couples who want children, but something is preventing it from
happening. As in everything else, this prayer is not always answered as is was here,
and even here it took 20 years. This is the type of situation that illustrates how
important human cooperation goes along with prayer, for prayer alone will not get
anyone pregnant. There has to be action on the part of the people praying. I will
never forget the naive young woman who said to me that she did not think that
pastor’s got their children the same way as other people. She really thought that
they came as a result of prayer. This kind of mistaken thinking grows out of a
negative view of sex, and that it is inconsistent with a holy life. This is pure
nonsense, but there are people with this foolish view. Prayer without sex is the
ultimate in folly for people who want to have children.

271. othing came to Isaac easily. He received Rebekah as an answer to prayer, and he
received his children in an answer to prayer. Some people just cannot seem to get
anything without the providence of God entering history to help them. Isaac did not
do anything very spectacular, but he was a man of prayer. From the day he was
passively laid on the alter to be sacrificed by his father Isaac was a passive person.
Unlike his father and son, who always seemed to want to run ahead of God, he just
patiently waited for God to work out His plan in His time.
7. It is of interest to note that all three wives of the Patriarchs were barren, and they
had a hard time bringing a child into the world. This was, no doubt, to make it clear
that children are the heritage of the Lord, and that the children of promise are not
just the fruit of nature, but are the gift of grace. There would have been no line to
the Messiah at all unless God had opened the wombs of these wives to bear sons.
Their barrenness was also a test of faith. Would they believe, even though it looked
like it was not possible for their seed to be a blessing to the whole world, for they
could not even get one child into the world. Often the facts of life are contradicting
the promise of God, and you need faith to carry on.
22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, Why is this happening
to me? So she went to inquire of the LORD.
1. The term jostle sound mild as if they were just bumping each other as they twised
and turned, but this is a strong word in the Hebrew, and some translate it crush or
bruised. In other words, it was a torturous time of tumultuous tremors in her tender
tummy. The point is, if Rebekah is very concerned about what is happening inside
her, it has to be something that is radical. Jewish legends say Jacob and Esau tried
to kill each other in the womb. This sounds too radical, but it was bad enough for
her to exclaim, Why is this happening to me? Somone wrote, I think it became
so severe that she must have thought, either, “I am going to die, or I am going to lose
this baby.” Another said, If I am in the will of God concerning this covenant, why
am I having such severe complications? ...according to the Midrash, she
expressed the thought that if she had known it would be so painful she would not
have wished to become pregnant.
Like many a mother, she was not sure she should have prayed for this. She was
miserable for her twins were already using her womb for a battle ground before
they were born. Most brothers do fight on occasion, but who ever heard of them
beginning before they are born? They were jostling each other and so were prenatal
wrestlers. An early start is usually good, but when it comes to fighting maybe it is
not so good. It is symbolic of their life long hostility. Before they fought in the world
they fought in the womb. It was womb war I in Rebekah for she had twin wrestlers
in her womb. Fetus fighting is not a great sport, but it could be that God got a kick
out of it. We know Rebekah did, but not in the same way. Here were two dudes
duking it out for dominance. Here is the earliest example of sibling rivalry.
2. I think Keith R. Krell said it best: The struggle going on in Rebekah’s womb

272. was more than just normal, fetal movement.13 The Hebrew says the children
smashed themselves inside her.14 Literally, it is used to describe skulls being
smashed (Judg 9:53; Ps 74:14) or reeds being broken (e.g., Isa 36:6). The use of such
a term vividly indicates the violence of the struggle within Rebekah’s womb.15
There was “womb warfare” going on! The sense of her question is, “Why then did I
ever become pregnant?” Or, “Why do I go on living?”
Many a mother going through the pains of bearing babies ask this same question of
why me? I hear of other women who do not even know they are pregnant until the
baby falls out. Others go about life as if there were no change to deal with, but here
I am with a civil war going on inside me and all of life is in a turmoil because I am
pregnant, and I want to know, why me? We all tend to compare our experience with
others and when we feel we are getting the short stick we feel picked on and wonder
why I have to suffer when others do not.
3. Here we see a common mystery in that the pregnancy is an answer to persistent
prayer, and even yet there are complications. You can have a prayer answered and
yet have misery along with the joy, for things can go wrong, or not be just right even
when the providence of God is involved. If you think that being in God's will is a
guarantee that all will go smooth, you have neglected your Bible study. The fact is
when you get an answer to prayer it may just call for you to keep on praying for
other things to bring the whole story to a happy ending. That is just what we see
here as Rebekah goes to prayer to figure out what is going on. In other words,
prayer is never over just because one prayer is answered, or any number of them
are. It is an ongoing lifestyle in which we pray without ceasing, for the story is never
over until eternity begins.
Isn't it interesting that after praying for 20 years, when the answer finally comes, it
brings more questions and more difficulty? Isn't it true that answered prayer can be
as difficult to handle as unanswered prayer? I'm sure you've heard it said, Be
careful what you pray for because God may give it to you.
—We pray for children and when our children come, they are nothing but trouble.
—We pray for a new job and when we get one, our boss is a jerk.
—We pray for a new house and when we move in, we discover termites in the
foundation.
—We pray to be married and then we pray to be divorced and when we are
divorced we discover that we are still not happy.
Often we pray for some cherished dream, thinking that it will make us happy. When
God finally answers, we discover his answer only means more problems. Why is
that? Because God is not in the business of making it easy for his people to travel
from earth to heaven. Rather, he's in the business of using the journey to teach us
holiness, righteousness and godliness. If he makes it too easy, we'll never develop the
right kind of character.
4. It is of interest how often brothers are in conflict in the Bible. You have Cain and
Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph and his brothers. But in the

273. ew Testament you see Jesus choosing brothers for his twelve disciples. There is
James and John, Peter and Andrew, and Matthew and the other James. Half of His
disciples were brothers, and so we see that they can be key factors in the unity of a
group, and do not need to be factors for division as they were so often in the Old
Testament. Even the story of Jacob and Esau ends with reconciliation. That is part
of the message of his life, that when their is reconciliation with God there will be
reconciliation with man. Get the vertical relation with God right, and the horizontal
relation with man will work out as well. But there is ever much conflict between
men who are those of force and action with those who are of thought and sensibility.
The men of violence and the men of peace. Those for whom life is primarily self-gratification,
and those for whom it is primarily service to others. Some like to
think that twins are always somewhat opposite, and one is good and the other evil.
This stems from the account of Jacob and Esau.
5. Rebakah is shocked by what is happening to her after her prayer for a baby is
answered, and shock seems to be a common experience with babies. An old story
about shock goes like this: Three men waiting in the room for expectant fathers
waited for word on the arrival of their infants.Some while later a nurse comes in
and announces to one of the men that his wife had just given birth to twins.’that’s
amazing he said - I play for the Minnesota Twins’ ! About twenty minutes later
another nurse comes in and announces to the second gentleman that his wife had
given birth to triplets. ’WOW’ - he stated, ’I work for the 3M company’ !Upon
hearing that the third man fell off his chair and fainted - after those who were
present were able to revive him, they all inquired as to why he had fainted. He said ’
I work for the 7-UP company !
6. Gill writes of the different interpretations of who she went to; ...and she went to
inquire of the Lord; to the school of Shem the great, say the Targums of Jonathan
and Jerusalem, and so Jarchi: the Arabic writers say {d}, she inquired of
Melchizedek; and, according to Aben Ezra, of some prophet, or of Abraham, who
lived fifteen years after this event: and indeed, if she inquired of any particular
person of note for religion, and as a prophet, there is none so likely as he, who was
the friend of God, and had great intimacy with him, and to whom he revealed his
secrets. But perhaps no more is meant by it, than that she went either to some
proper and private place, and prayed unto the Lord that he would show her the
reason of what had happened unto her; or to some public place of worship, and
where prayer was wont to be made, and where she inquired by means of such as
were engaged therein concerning this matter.
7. Calvin gives his impression of what Rebekah is going through: And the children
struggled together. Here a new temptation suddenly arises, namely, that the infants
struggle together in their mother's womb. This conflict occasions the mother such
grief that she wishes for death. And no wonder; for she thinks that it would be a
hundred times better for her to die, than that she have within her the horrible
prodigy of twin-brothers, shut up in her womb, carrying on intestine war. They,
therefore, are mistaken, who attribute this complaint to female impatience, since it
was not so much extorted by pain or torture, as by abhorrence of the prodigy. For

274. she doubtless perceived that this conflict did not arise from natural causes, but was
a prodigy portending some dreadful and tragic end. She also necessarily felt some
fear of the divine anger stealing over her: as it is usual with the faithful not to
confine their thoughts to the evil immediately present with them, but to trace it to its
cause; and hence they tremble hrough the apprehension of divine judgment. But
though in the beginning she was more grievously disturbed than she ought to have
been, and, breaking out into murmurings, preserved neither moderation nor
temper; yet she soon afterwards receives a remedy and solace to her grief. We are
thus taught by her example to take care that we do not give excessive indulgence to
sorrow in affairs of perplexity, nor inflame our minds by inwardly cherishing secret
causes of distress. It is, indeed, difficult to restrain the first emotions of our minds;
but before they become ungovernable, we must bridle them, and bring them into
subjection. And chiefly we must pray to the Lord for moderation; as Moses here
relates that Rebekah went to ask counsel from the Lord.
23 The LORD said to her, Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from
within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the
older will serve the younger.
1. Rebekah had to be of gigantic proportions to have two nations in her womb, but,
or course, God is talking about two babies who will form two nations, and the
younger of the two will become superior so that the older will serve him. This means
that Jacob, the father of Israel will be far superior to Esau the father of the
Edomites. Pregnant women often think they are so big, but few have ever given
birth to two nations. It is of interest that the two eventually became one, which we
learn from Clarke's commentary. Clarke writes of how this prophecy worked itself
out in the two nations that came from Rebekah's womb. He writes, We have, says
Bishop ewton, in the prophecies delivered respecting the sons of Isaac, ample
proof that these prophecies were not meant so much of single persons as of whole
nations descended from them; for what was predicted concerning Esau and Jacob
was not verified in themselves, but in their posterity. The Edomites were the
offspring of Esau, the Israelites were of Jacob; and who but the Author and Giver of
life could foresee that two children in the womb would multiply into two nations?
Jacob had twelve sons, and their descendants were all united and incorporated into
one nation; and what an overruling providence was it that two nations should arise
from the two sons only of Isaac! and that they should be two such different nations!
The Edomites and Israelites have been from the beginning two such different people
in their manners, customs, and religion, as to be at perpetual variance among
themselves. The children struggled together in the womb, which was an omen of
their future disagreement; and when they grew up to manhood, they manifested
very different inclinations. Esau was a cunning hunter, and delighted in the sports
of the field; Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents-minding his sheep and his
cattle. The religion of the Jews is well known; but whatever the Edomites were at
first, in process of time they became idolaters. When Amaziah king of Judah
overthrew them, he brought their gods, and set them up to be his gods. The king of
Edom having refused a passage to the Israelites through his territories on their

275. return from Egypt, the history of the Edomites afterwards is little more than the
history of their wars with the Jews.
The same author continues to observe, that for some time the family of Esau was
the more powerful of the two, there having been dukes and kings in Edom before
there was any king in Israel; but David and his captains made an entire conquest of
the Edomites, slew several thousands of them, and compelled the rest to become
tributaries, and planted garrisons among them to secure their obedience. In this
state of servitude they continued about one hundred and fifty years, without a king
of their own, being governed by deputies or viceroys appointed by the kings of
Judah; but in the days of Jehoram they revolted, recovered their liberties, and set
up a king of their own. Afterwards Amaziah, king of Judah, gave them a total
overthrow in the valley of Salt; and Azariah took Elath, a commodious harbour on
the Red Sea, from them. Judas Maccabeus also attacked and defeated them with a
loss of more than twenty thousand at two different times, and took their chief city
Hebron. At last Hyrcanus his nephew took other cities from them, and reduced
them to the necessity of leaving their country or embracing the Jewish religion; on
which they submitted to be circumcised, and become proselytes to the Jewish
religion, and were ever afterwards incorporated into the Jewish Church and
nation.
2. It is of interest that whole nations can come from one baby. This is not as likely
today even when so many babies are being born because there is little room to new
nations to be formed. Here are some interesting statistics. The annual number of
births in the world is roughly estimated at 95 million or 3 babies every second.
Three-fifths of births are in Asia, one-fifth in Europe, and one-tenth in Africa and
the Americas. The average weight at birth for boys is 7-4/5 lbs. and for girls 7-2/5
lbs. The average length at birth is 20 1/2 inches for boys and 20 inches for girls. The
heaviest newborn child in modern times was a boy born in Turkey in 1961 that
weighed 24 lbs. and 4 oz. The lowest-weight surviving newborn child was a baby
born in England in 1938. It was a little girl that weighed 10 oz and was 12 inches
long. We have no details about the size and weight of these two boys in her womb,
but they threw their weight around in that ancient world and had quite an impact
on it.
3. The Lord then informs Rebekah that the older shall serve the younger. There is
plenty of biblical precedence for this. The offering of Cain, the older brother, was
rejected, whereas the offering of the younger brother, Abel, was accepted. The line
of Seth, the younger brother, was the chosen line (4:26-5:8); Isaac was chosen over
his older brother, Ishmael (17:18-19); Rachel was chosen over her older sister, Leah
(29:18); Joseph, the younger brother, was chosen over all the rest (37:3); and Judah
was chosen over his older brothers (49:8). The intention behind each of these
“reversals” was the recurring theme of God’s sovereign plan of grace. The blessing
was not a natural right, as a right of the firstborn son would be. Rather, God’s
blessing is extended to those who have no other claim to it. They all received what
they did not deserve

276. 4. Keith R. Krell writes, Significantly, the ew Testament is painstakingly clear
that God esteems the weak and that Jacob was the underdog. This is a consistent
theme in the Bible. God is not neutral. Faced with a choice, He always seems to side
with the underdog. He chose the nation of Israel not because they were great, but
because they weren’t great, and He promised to help make them great. The greatest
king in the Old Testament, King David, was the youngest kid in his family, the one
his father didn’t even think of when asked to line up his boys to see which one might
become the next king. When Jesus came and talked about the coming of the
kingdom of God, it wasn’t the social or religious elite who got it…it was the people
on the margins of society. There seems to be a special place in God’s heart for
people who are overlooked, for people in low positions. Do we share that heart? Do
we share God’s concern for the overlooked, for the downtrodden?
5. She only had this one experience of delivering babies, but she was really
delivering two nations of people who would be in conflict all through history. God
is saying here that Esau will serve Jacob. It is not these men, but the people born to
their line that will do this. Under David the Idumeans were made subject to Israel.
Those people have disappeared but the Jews live on. Herod was a Jew by
nationality, but an Edomite, or Idumean by race. They were incorparated into the
Jewish nation.
There are not many direct revelations to women in the Bible, but here is one that
explains to Rebekah what her body is going through, and what the outcome of it all
will be. It is a very personal revelation, but one which effects the rest of history. She
never forgot this, and that is why she worked so hard to make sure that Jacob got
the blessing. She had knowledge others did not have, and apparently even Isaac did
not know. She kept this message to herself. Had she shared it there may not have
been the division in her family. Mates need to share, or there can be many negative
consequences.
6. An unknown source provides this host of insight:
The first explanation Rebekah hears concerning her internal turmoil is the word
two. They are going to have twins! Isaac had prayed for a son, and he will receive
two times more than he asked for. The LORD then details the destiny of these two
boys, in four poetic lines. As is typical of Hebrew poetry, each line develops and
intensifies the first.
First, we learn that the two boys represent two nations. What a reassuring
pronouncement of fertility! But then the second line adds a note about a conflict so
intense that it will force a separation right from birth. Fokkelman comments: for
Jacob and Esau any room is too small when they are together. The first battlefield is
their mother's womb. How cruelly the sweet expectations of children, the greater
after twenty years of hope and despair, are dashed for Isaac and Rebekah! As early
as the pregnancy their parental happiness is threatened.
Then Rebekah is told that these two boys will differ in strength, which is natural,
but the oracle is sealed with a surprising twist, the older will be a slave to the

277. younger. This final word would have brought great anxiety to an expectant mother
in that world, for God's promise was subverting the entire social order of their day.
The first-born in the ancient world was granted certain rights and privileges
(primogeniture rights), so that the leadership and inheritance rights in a family
were carefully managed from one generation to the next. The first-born was the key
person around whom the social world was ordered.
But now God says he maintains the right to totally subvert that order, and he makes
no apology for the disruption it will cause. The older will be a slave to the
younger. (Waltke notes how the verb will serve, ya'abod, sounds much like
Jacob, ya'aqob; while the noun younger, sa'ir, sounds much like se'ar, hairy, in
reference to Esau).[5] Therefore the son who bears the promise will be destined for
conflict. The point could not be clearer. In God's kingdom our destiny is not shaped
by the privileges the world confers, but on God's promise. And God often aligns
himself with the insignificant (another translation of the term younger) and
disfranchised (orphans and widows, Exod 22:22; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11). These
actions by God create great disruption to the cultural norms, and the world shakes
its fist in anger (Ps 2:1-3).
Imagine the emotions that this oracle created for this expectant mother. Rebekah
seeks an answer to the physical tremors in her womb, and in receiving the answer is
given emotional tremors as weighty to bear as the twins she is carrying. She must
now reflect on how her two twins will forever be at war because of the choice of
God. Who wants to bear children destined for conflict? Jacob's life will be riddled
with conflict from beginning to end. It begins with Esau in the womb and escalates
to such a point that Jacob must flee for his life. But even exile brings Jacob no relief.
It only changes the stage of conflict to Haran, where he battles his father-in-law,
Laban, for twenty years. Then the birth process of his twelve sons is shaped by the
conflict between his two wives, one barren, the other unloved, each one competing
for what the other possesses but cannot have. Finally, when Jacob is back in the
land, he still cannot find rest because of the violent behavior of his sons whom he
cannot control. But by far the most decisive battle is the one Jacob has with the
angel of the Lord.
After Rebekah receives the oracle we hear no more details about her pregnancy. But
we can imagine how deeply the oracle affected her. The next scene details the birth
of the twins.
24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb.
1. When you walk anywhere with two babies you are sure to get plenty of attention.
It seems so romantic to have twins. But as one mother poet says, it ain’t all
glamorous.
Drudgery that’s double or more.
Laundering till your hands are sore;

278. Tangle of lines with soggy things drying.
Day and night chorus of yelling and crying,
Endless chores and no end of expenses,
Worries that drive you out of your senses.
Everyone bothering you with questions,
Everyone giving you crazy suggestions,
If I knew whom to blame for twins, I’d sue’em
Those who want twins are welcome to ‘em.
2. There were times, I am sure, when Isaac and Rebekah felt this way, for their boys
were for even in competition, and this means there had to be plenty of arguments
and fighting between them. I had a good relationship with my brother and we
fought frequently, and so I can just imagine how often these twins went at it. They
were already fighting each other in the womb, and so their relationship would be
basically a civil war in that family. Jacob lost the prenatal battle, but we can be sure
there were many to follow where he held his own or won. When they were long dead
their descendants were still fighting each other as the Edomites and Israelites. Jacob
had to have become quite a wrestler to be able later to wrestle all night with an
angel. We can assume that he got this practice by wrestling with his brother.
3. So many twins are so cute because they look alike. Many cannot be told apart by
anyone but the mother and dad, and even they can be fooled. This was not the case
with these twins, for they were radically different in both appearance and in
attitude. When you saw one, you had not in any way seen the other. It was not with
them as with many, and as it was in this story: Once upon a time a married couple
bore twin sons. They were very poor and could not afford to keep them. They put
the twins up for adoption. One of the boys went to a Spanish family and was named
Juan. The other twin was placed to an Egyptian family and was named Amal. Some
years later, Juan became curious about his birth parents. After researching and
finally locating them, he sent them a nice letter and a picture of himself. Upon
receiving the picture, the birth mother said I'm so glad that he's happy. And what
a wonderful picture! I wish we had a picture of Amal. I would love to know what he
looks like. Her husband turned to her and said, I wouldn't worry about it, dear,
when you've seen Juan, you've seen Amal.
Do you know what the Hispanic firefighter named his twin sons? Hosea and Hose B
4. The following story does fit the experience of Isaac and Rebekah. A census taker
in a rural area went up to a farm-house and knocked. When a woman came to the
door, he asked her how many children she had and their ages. She said, Les' see
now, there's the twins, Sally and Billy, they're eighteen. And the twins, Seth Beth,
they're sixteen. And the twins, Penny and Jenny, they're fourteen-- Hold on! said
the census taker, Did you get twins every time? The woman answered, Heck no,
there were hundreds of times we didn't get nothin'!
5. It is of interest that the only other twins born in the Old Testament had this same
issue of determining which of them is first, for the birthright is based on that fact,
and it was a case where the first one out was in second place, but then pulled the

279. other back and made it out first. Zerah and Perez are the second set of twins in the
Old Testament (Genesis 38:27-30). Zerah's hand came out of the womb first, and the
midwife tied a thread around it, but Zerah pulled his hand back into the womb.
Then Perez came out followed by Zerah with the thread still tied around his wrist. I
assume the thread was used to determine who was the first born. The point is, once
again, someone's hand or arm was checked to determine their identity or status.
Pastor Bob Sanders writes about a quip that fits the attitude of Jacob, but is just
like that of the firstborn in the above story. He writes, This quip is a good
comparison to Jacob's life: Two men were discussing the character of a third. Let
me describe him this way, said the first. He's the kind of guy who follows you into
a revolving door and comes out ahead of you.
6. Castor and Pollux, the Gemini twins are also mentioned in the Bible. They were
the figurehead on the bow of the ship that took Paul away from Malta (Acts 28:11).
According to one tradition in Greek mythology Castor and Pollux were the twin
sons of Zeus and a human mother. This maybe the tradition that the Bible in the
original Greek is referring to because it calls them the son's of Zeus.
25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so
they named him Esau.
1. ew born babies are often red, but in Esau's case it was not a passing thing that
soon changed. He was a hairy red creature and stayed that way for life. He was so
hairy that when Jacob had to impersonate him to fool Isaac he had to wear
goatskins on his hands and neck. He was just loaded with hair. The text sounds like
he came out already dressed in a garment made of hair. He was like an animal with
fur. I think if he had been my baby I would have been somewhat afraid that
something was seriously wrong. After getting exposed to him and his fun loving
nature the fear would go away, but I would probably joke about that first day in the
hospital when I called him scary hairy. His very appearance gave the impression of
an agressive and robust nature heading for maturity the day he was born. Jacob on
the other hand was a sweet little thing with smooth skin like most babies. Esau is
called the burly boy, and Jacob the mama's boy. They were different in looks, likes,
and loves. Most everyone would take a look at the two and say Esau will be a
mighty man, but God took a look and, as usual, chose the underdog.
2. Ken Trivette wrote, John Phillips in his commentary on Genesis says, “He
looked more like a baby animal than anything else, all covered with hair.” I don’t
think the neighbors were oohing and aahing and talking about what a pretty baby
he was. It had to be embarrassing when someone would see little hairy and ask
them when they got their new pet. Ray Scott writes, The condition of Esau’s
hairyness by the way is no exaggeration. There’s a fellow in China named Yu
Zhenhuan who has hair covering 96% of his body everywhere but the palms of his
hands and the soles of his feet. He loses the Guinness book listing though by a pair
of Mexican brothers - Victor and Gabriel Ramos Gomez who have 98% hair
coverage.

280. 26 After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was
named Jacob. [f] Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.
1. So many Bible personalities are named after events in their life. This is a tradition
that has long been lost, so that now there is no connection of a name and an event in
anyone's life. icknames, however, are often connected with some event or
characteristic of the person. Ray Pritchard writes, The first baby to come out was
red, and his whole body was like a red garment. That is, his body was covered
with red hair—almost like a wild animal. They named him Esau, which means
Red and can also mean Hairy. But that wasn't the only surprise. As Esau came
out, a little white hand was clutching his heel. So they kept on pulling and out came
the second boy. They named him Jacob, which means Heel-grabber. Years
later the name comes to mean Supplanter and Cheater.
2. Jacob is trying to be first right from the start. He has no conscious intent, but he
is reaching out for that birthright from the day of his birth, and he would not stop
until he had it, even if he had to be a heel to do it. It was his destiny for real, and
that's why the birthright he would steal by grasping Esau's heel. Esau should get
used to this, for this will not be the last time Jacob will be 'pulling his leg.' Keith R.
Krell writes, Jacob’s name later came to reflect his character. The Hebrew word
for “Jacob” is similar to “heel.” From Jacob’s grasping of Esau’s heel, at birth,
came the nickname “heel holder” (i.e., one who outwits by trickery).21 To
understand this idea better, you may want to go to your local high school and watch
a wrestling match. When high school wrestlers come out onto the mat, the intent is
to try to get the opponent down and to pin him on the mat, to trip him up somehow
or another. One of the best moves is to fake one way and then move another way,
and quickly grab the ankle of the opponent. There’s a bit of a deception, and then as
he goes for the heel he’s able to trip his opponent up. That’s really what Jacob’s
name came to mean.
3. Henry makes comments that he gives no authority to support, but reveals that he
has a high view of his spiritual life in contrast to the worldly life of Esau. I quote
him because everyone tends to want to build up Jacob so as to make it look like God
had good reason to choose him, and Henry goes the furthest in this regard. He
writes, Jacob was a man for the other world. He was not cut out for a statesman,
nor did he affect to look great, but he was a plain man, dwelling in tents, an honest
man that always meant well, and dealt fairly, that preferred the true delights of
solitude and retirement to all the pretended pleasure of busy noisy sports: he dwelt
in tents, [1.] As a shepherd. He was attached to that safe and silent employment of
keeping sheep, to which also he bred up his children, Genesis 46:34. Or, [2.] As a
student. He frequented the tents of Melchizedek, or Heber, as some understand it, to
be taught by them divine things. And this was that son of Isaac on whom the
covenant was entailed.
4. In contrast Criswell looks at this hand on the heel of his brother and sees the
negative symbolized by it, and he writes, ow, that's the first symbol. That's the
first emblem. And that is as true a picture of Jacob's life as you could have drawn

281. with a pencil in imagination, born with his hand on his brother's heel. And they
named him supplanter. Watch him. He'll cheat you out of your house, and out of
your home, and out of every acre of land you possess, and out of cow and calf and
sheep and goat. Watch him. His hand is out. Jacob, supplanter. And the rest of
that story until God changed his nature, is a story of the supplanter Jacob.
5. Criswell goes on to give his opinion as to how clever and shrewd Jacob was going
to be. He writes, Laban, Rebekah's brother, up there in Paddan-aram, up there in
the head of the Mesopotamian Valley, Laban thought he was smart. He thought he
knew how to drive a good bargain. But Laban was a child when Jacob got through
with him. This man Jacob is as shrewd and as keen and as smart, as full of guile
and shrewdness as any man you ever saw in your life. He'd come into this town in
rags, barefoot, peddling something from a load on his back. And after he'd been
here in the city of Dallas 20 years, he'd own all the banks. He'd own all the stores.
He'd own all the property. And everybody in this town would be working for
supplanter Jacob.
6. Jacob spent the rest of his life grasping for things. He was the child in the
nursery who felt every toy was his, and was constantly fighting the other children
who wanted to play with it. It is mine, would be his favorite words. He wanted
everything he could get his hands on, and so tried to get all that belonged to his
brother. He succeeded in getting both his birthright and his blessing. He had his
hand on Esau’s heel because he was always trying to get ahead of him from birth. It
is unconscious and symbolic here, of course, for the baby did not know what it was
doing. It is a picture of the future, however. Jacob means one who follows at
another’s heel. He was trying to trip Esau even as they were coming out of the
womb.
27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open
country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents.
1. Esau was a great outdoorsman, and likely admired by men more than Jacob. One
outhor wrote, His ear never slept. His foot took the firmest hold of the ground.
And his hand was always full both of skill, and strength, and success. Esau s arrow
never missed its mark. He was the pride of all the encampment as he came home at
night with his traps, and his snares, and his bows, and his arrows, and laden to the
earth with venison for his father s supper. Burned black with the sun ; beaten hard
and dry with the wind ; a prince of men ; a prime favourite both with men, and
women, and children, and with a good word and a good gift from the field for them
all. But, all the time, a heathen. All the time, an animal more than a man. All the
time, all body and no soul. All the time a profane person, who failed of the grace of
God. Adrian Dieleman writes, Today, Esau probably would be captain of the
football team and homecoming king. Look, there's Esau, people would say with
admiration. Esau was the athlete, the one with the muscles and hair. Ray Pritchard
is convinced that everyone would have chosen Esau to be the one that God would
choose too. He wrote, Suppose you looked at both boys from a human point of
view, which one would seem most successful? Which one would seem to have God's

282. favor? On whom does God's blessing rest? I think that 100 out of 100 people would
say Esau. If you asked in childhood, which boy will turn out better, the answer
would be Esau. If you asked who will be the better leader, the answer would be
Esau. If you asked which one will do more with his life, the answer would be Esau.
2. Jacob was no hunter out in the wild, but a home body who quietly did his thing
around the house to help out the family. He gave his time to thinking and planning
his future, and had no interest in the things that occupied his older brother. Adrian
Dieleman writes, Jacob was another matter. His skin was smooth and hairless. He
always smelled fresh and clean. He was on the quiet side. And, while Esau was out
hunting, Jacob hung around the tent cooking soup with his mother.This does not
mean that Jacob was a pushover, an 80 pound weakling. He just didn't care to flex
his muscles, or to do trick shots with the bow, or to chase rabbits across a field.
Instead, Jacob was devious, sly, and cunning; if he could find a shortcut he would
take it; he preferred to use his brains instead of working up a sweat in the field or
forest.
3. Server writes, In verse 27 we learn that as adults Esau was “a skillful hunter, a
man of the open country, but Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents.” The
point of this verse is not to infer that being a “manly man”, outdoor type leads to
foolish choices while being a “home body” leads to receiving the blessings of the
Lord. Jacob was no “mamma’s boy.” In a later story, Jacob lifts the lid off a well
that would normally take several men to lift! The point of this verse seems to be how
their life interest reflected their character. Esau was a hunter of wild game and
animals and in many ways he was like an unreasoning animal himself. He acted on
instinct and impulse without regard to the consequences in the future. Jacob was a
“quiet man.” The word translated as “quiet” can also be translated as “complete” or
“blameless” but you can understand why these words would not be fitting for Jacob.
In this context perhaps this word means “self-controlled” or it could also mean
“contemplative”, which characteristics Jacob did seem to exhibit, albeit for selfish
motives.
4. Keith R. Krell gives us what he thinks these two brothers were like. Esau was
what the world might label as a “man’s man.” He was an outdoors kind of guy who
loved to do the things a father could take pride in. He was a skillful hunter, and he
knew how to handle himself in the outdoors.22 He had that sort of rough, fiery
nature, liked the wild areas of the country, and liked the adventurous sort of life. I
think if Esau were around today, he’d be driving a 4 x 4 with massive tires on it and
a gun rack in the back window! If you got in Esau’s truck, you probably had to
move things off the seat and wondered where you’d put your feet on the floor,
because there’s so much stuff there. And if you went to his house, he’d have a
magazine rack filled with Field and Stream type of magazines.
Jacob, on the other hand, was orderly. He was well disposed. He was the kind of
man who liked to stay at home. He was a man of peaceful habits. If you got in
Jacob’s car, it would be neat and clean and everything would just be right. And if
you’d stop by Jacob’s house unannounced, he wouldn’t have to worry about dirty
dishes in the sink because he was that kind of guy. You just get the impression

283. everything’s going to have its place, and it’s going to be in its place; he was neat and
he was orderly. His house was a quieter sort of place. If you went there maybe you’d
have some nice background music. There is a real contrast between these two. Jacob
is the homebody; Esau is the hunter.
28 Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob.
1. It is a major mistake of parents to be divided in the love they express toward their
children. If these two brothers were enemies and in constant conflict you can blame
the parents for it. They forces competition by their preferences of one over the
other. Each had to fight for the affection of the parent that preferred the other
brother. This is a good example of a dysfunctional family. Clarke wrote, This is an
early proof of unwarrantable parental attachment to one child in preference to
another. Isaac loved Esau, and Rebekah loved Jacob; and in consequence of this the
interests of the family were divided, and the house set in opposition to itself. The
fruits of this unreasonable and foolish attachment were afterwards seen in a long
catalogue of both natural and moral evils among the descendants of both families.
Gill adds, Isaac's taste buds determined which of his sons he liked best. He loved
wild game and so his son Esau who brought home the game got the love of Isaac.
This was not wrong to love what a son provides, but to love another less is what is
wrong. Parents can have favorites in the sense of a deeper appreciation for the gifts
of one over the other, but to show that favoritism in a way to make the other feel
unloved is bad news.
2. Calvin has some harsh things to say of Isaac for his preferring Esau over Jacob.
He wrote, That God might more clearly show his own
election to be sufficiently firm, to need no assistance elsewhere, and
even powerful enough to overcome any obstacle whatever, he permitted
Esau to be so preferred to his brother, in the affection and good
opinion of his father, that Jacob appeared in the light of a rejected
person. Since, therefore, Moses clearly demonstrates, by so many
circumstances, that the adoption of Jacob was founded on the sole good
pleasure of God, it is an intolerable presumption to suppose it to
depend upon the will of man; or to ascribe it, in part, to means, (as
they are called,) and to human preparations. But how was it possible for
the father, who was not ignorant of the oracle, to be thus predisposed
in favour of the firstborn, whom he knew to be divinely rejected?. It
would rather have been the part of piety and of modesty to subdue his
own private affection, that he might yield obedience to God. The
firstborn prefers a natural claim to the chief place in the parent's
affection; but the father was not at liberty to exalt him above his
brother, who had been placed in subjection by the oracle of God. That
also is still more shameful and more unworthy of the holy patriarch,
which Moses adds; namely, that he had been induced to give this
preference to Esau, by the taste of his venison. Was he so enslaved to
the indulgence of the palate, that, forgetting the oracle, he despised
the grace of God in Jacob, while he preposterously set his affection on

284. him whom God had rejected? Let the Jews now go and glory in the flesh;
since Isaac, preferring food to the inheritance destined for his son,
would pervert (as far as he had the power) the gratuitous covenant of
God! For there is no room here for excuse; since with a blind, or, at
least, a most inconsiderate love to his firstborn, he undervalued the
younger. It is uncertain whether the mother was chargeable with a fault
of the opposite kind. For we commonly find the affections of parents so
divided, that if the wife sees any one of the sons preferred by her
husband, she inclines, by a contrary spirit of emulation, more towards
another. Rebekah loved her son Jacob more than Esau. If, in so doing,
she was obeying the oracle, she acted rightly; but it is possible that
her love was ill regulated. And on this point the corruption of nature
too much betrays itself. There is no bond of mutual concord more sacred
than that of marriage: children form still further links of connection;
and yet they often prove the occasion of dissension. But since we soon
after see Rebekah chiefly in earnest respecting the blessing of God, the
conjecture is probable, that she had been induced, by divine authority,
to prefer the younger to the firstborn. Meanwhile, the foolish affection
of the father only the more fully illustrates the grace of the divine
adoption.
3. Criswell can see perfectly why Isaace loved Esau. He wrote, o wonder his
father loved him. There's not a man in this earth that doesn't like a big, vigorous
outdoor he-man of a boy. Run a race like a deer. Throw a discus a hundred yards:
Shoot an arrow straight through to a deer's heart. Stalk the prey. A board hunter.
A man of the field, knows exactly how to fish. Big, fine strapping fellow and the
best scout in the world. Make you mad just like that; get over it just like that.
Volatile, lovable, easy going --you couldn't help but love Esau. Esau was the finest
animal you ever saw in your life.
Had we been a newspaper reporter at that time, to pick out Heaven's favorite, we
would have chosen Esau. ow, you look at it a moment. Esau was broad-shouldered,
not feminine like Jacob, who lived at the house and stayed around the
skirts of his mother, Rebekah. He was broad-shouldered. He was a red-headed
huntsman. He was a man of the field. He was a man of action. He was affectionate
to his aged father Isaac. He was forgiving to his brother Jacob. He was a chieftain
of great renown (Genesis 36). Last, he was the founder of the princely line of twelve
dukes. He was so rich that he could make light of Jacob's presence. He was so
powerful that Jacob was helpless in his hands. His territory was rich. He and his
people were settled in it. While the children of Israel were groaning in Egyptian
bondage, the Edomites, the Esauites, were prospering in peace and comfort. We are
like Samuel. When we looked at Esau, we would have said, Surely, the Lord's
anointed is standing before me.
4. Calvin was not sure about the love of Rebekah, but Henry had no doubt when he
wrote, Rebekah was mindful of the oracle of God, which had given the preference
to Jacob, and therefore she preferred him in her love. And, if it be lawful for

285. parents to make a difference between their children upon any account, doubtless
Rebekah was in the right, that loved him whom God loved. Criswell agrees with
Henry, but for other reasons, and he writes, His mother loved Jacob. He was
always drying the dishes for her. He was always sweeping out the house for her. He
didn't go swimming; he might get drowned. He didn't go hunting; he might get
hurt. He didn't play with the boys; he might pick up bad language. He was a
smooth-skinned--not hairy, like Esau--delicately-shaped, beautiful child who
followed his mother around, and his mother loved him. Well, I don't blame
Rebekah for loving Jacob. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a boy that would dry
the dishes for you and like it? Make up the bed for you and enjoy it? Sweep out the
house for you and delight in it? Run errands for you to the grocery store and not
grumble? Wouldn't that be wonderful to have a boy like that? And Rebekah loved
him.
5. Brueggemann writes, the two parents who prayed so passionately for a son have
now chosen sides. Isaac's passions are directed toward the oldest, because we learn
of his sensual appetites. Isaac has a taste for game (lit. for the game in his
mouth). The Hebrew is unclear as to whether the idiom suggests Esau as a kind of
lion bringing home game in its mouth or rather bringing game to put in his father's
mouth. In either case, the point is clear: Isaac's love is based on sensual appetites
that seem to have dangerously taken root in his old age. Rebekah, on the other hand,
loves Jacob. The narrator carefully omits the reason for this, but it takes little
conjecture to speculate that the divine oracle has done much to shape her affections.
So these two twins not only have different passions, they have divided their parents'
loyalties. Favoritism on both sides will leave a legacy of damage for more than one
generation.
6. Esau provided Isaac with his favorite food and so he was the son he most loved.
The favoritism of this family was not good, however, and you had two sides forming
that can only lead to trouble. Each of them selects the one they favor, and a house
divided cannot stand, but the amazing thing is that it did not lead to divorce. These
loving parents had conflict, but they never left each other.
Isaac no doubt felt the Esau was the man to carry on his seed of promise, for he was
a man’s man, and not a mommy’s boy like Jacob. He was the most likely to succeed
rather than the boy who helped his mom around the house. Jacob fled from his
brother for it was obvious that he was the stronger in battle, and dad thought that
was the asset most needed. But God is always choosing the least likely that it might
be clear that it is Him and not man that is working out His plan in history. There is
not place for pride, for God can and does choose the younger, weaker, and least
likely to be His tools in history.
Isaac’s value system was based on his taste buds, and his son became like him, and
was willing to sell his birthright for a taste of pottage. Sensual people get a lot of
pleasure out of things like food, but they are not the best judge of who is most useful
for God’s purpose.

286. 29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country,
famished.
1. Calvin writes, Jacob is cooking pottage; his brother returns from
hunting weary and famishing, and barters his birthright for food. What
kind of bargain, I pray, was this? Jacob ought of his own accord to have
satisfied the hunger of his brother. When being asked, he refuses to do
so: who would not condemn him for his inhumanity? In compelling Esau to
surrender his right of primogeniture, he seems to make an illicit and
frivolous compact. Calvin usually defends Jacob, but here he get in a negative
punch. But he comes right back with a defense of Jacob based on an assumption
that he only cooked enough stew for one person, and he gave it to Esau. It sounds
like a kind and sacrifical move, but it can be seen as selfish on Jacobs part for
making just one bowl of stew when he lived with mom and dad, and they were still
eating too. Calvin says, Jacob, denying himself his own food, patiently
endures hunger, except that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he
raises himself above the world and aspires to a heavenly life?
2. Gill gives us an interesting sidelight on why Jacob may have been cooking. He
writes, And Jacob sod pottage,.... Or boiled broth; this he did at a certain time, for
this was not his usual employment; the Targum of Jonathan says, it was on the day
in which Abraham died; and whereas this pottage was made of lentiles, as appears
from Ge 25:34; this the Jewish writers {i} say was the food of mourners; and so this
circumstance furnishes out a reason for Jacob's boiling pottage of lentiles at this
time: and hence also they {k} gather, that Jacob and Esau were now fifteen years of
age; for Abraham was an hundred years old when Isaac was born, and Isaac was
sixty at the birth of his sons; and Abraham lived to be one hundred and seventy five,
and therefore Esau and Jacob must be fifteen years old when he died. If this is so,
then we are dealing with two 15 year old teenagers, and this gives us a better
understanding of the foolish actions of each of them. Verse 27, however says they
were grown up and were called men, and so this may be doubtful.
3. Jacob was really a home boy and mother's boy for we see him cooking stew
while his he man brother is out hunting. He may have shot the very animal that
Jacob is cooking up in his stew. He was the provider of the family and Jacob was the
cook. Men do cook. I have a son who cooks almost all of the meals for his family. He
loves it and is good at it. My wife and him share recipes. I know of other men who
do the same. But what we see here is just how different twins can be. They look
different and act different and have different values. But we see that Esau also
cooked-Evidently both Jacob and Esau learned to cook. In verse 29, we find Jacob
cooking some lentil soup. Later in chapter 27 of Genesis, Jacob and his mother will
be involved in a scheme to deceive Isaac, using Esau's venison dish.
4. Jacob takes advantage of Esau's hunger and makes a bargain with him. It was
lets make a deal, and Jacob said, “I will give you what is behind pot no. 1 if you give
me your birthright.” A brother should give food to a starving brother, but that is
not how sibling rivalry works. You have to pay for their help. I got my brother to
pay me every time I had to go out and trade comic books so he would have

287. something to read. I got a lot of his stuff that way, and if we had a birthright to fight
over I think I could have gotten that too. Jewish people are not the only ones who
can make a good bargain, but they got their heritage from the best of the schemers,
which was Jacob.
30 He said to Jacob, Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I'm famished!
(That is why he was also called Edom.)
1. Edom means red, and possibly Esau was a redheaded man and his nickname was
red. He was sort of obsessed with red. An author by the name of James C. wrote:
Edom had red hair and ate some red stew and lived in a place called red.The more
Esau's lust for things red (wild game, lentils, flesh) ruled him, the more alienated he
became from the blessing of the Lord, in effect banishing himself to the difficult life
of the red mountains. The poetic tie-in mocks the enslavement of Esau by the lusts of
his own red flesh. The funny thing is that while Jacob, Rebecca, ultimately even
Israel and we can see Esau's problem so clearly, Esau does not recognize his own
raging red lust and its pathetic result. It was probably no accident that Jacob was
cooking something red that day, for he was out to entice Esau to make a major
decision. Jacob was a cook and shows how valuable it can be to have the ability to
make a good meal, for by means of it he purchased what no amount of money could
purchase.
2. Brian Morgan writes, While Esau is out on the hunt, Jacob prepares a meal for
the hungry hunter. But his is not an act of hospitality such as was characteristic of
his grandfather, but a manipulative act to acquire what he desperately wants. Esau
arrives exhausted and spent from the hunt. He is portrayed as coarse and crude,
and though his address is polite (please), he can't even express the proper word
for stew. He grunts, caveman style, Let me gulp down some this red red stuff.[9]
Like an animal, this young man is governed solely by his appetites.
3. Ray pritchard writes, I've already said that Esau was the hunter, but in this
story the hunter becomes the hunted as Jacob springs the trap on his unsuspecting
brother. Please note something. There are no heroes in this episode. o one looks
very good. There are moral problems on every hand. The Bible puts the emphasis
on Esau's worldly decision, but that doesn't make Jacob look any better. His hunger
was genuine and his request for the red lentil stew was sincere. But the text also tips
us off about his basic nature by the words it uses. Liter-ally, it reads Quick, give
me some of that red stuff! The verbs line up boom, boom, boom. In other places the
word means to gulp. The word was also used of forcing food down the throat of a
reluctant animal. Esau is here revealing the truth about himself. He cares for
nothing but filling his stomach, cramming the food in, gulping it down as fast as he
can. It's a picture of his basic animalistic nature. On the outside he seems like a
wonderful fellow, but when you get to the inside, there's not much there. He looks
good but he's empty and shallow and totally controlled by his physical desires.

288. 31 Jacob replied, First sell me your birthright.
1. We do not know for sure whether Jacob had planned this scene all along knowing
his brother often came back from hunting famished, or if the idea just came to him
on the spot when it dawned on him that he had something that Esau desperately
needed, and Esau had something that he desperately wanted. Either way he was
ready to take advantage of the situation.
2. Dr. Mickey Anders give us an excellent summery in contemporary language of
what motivated Jacob to do what he did. He writes, “First, we are left to wonder
what was the significance of this birthright. Apparently, this was a very ancient
custom in which the oldest son received twice as much inheritance as the youngest
son. At Isaac's death, Esau would have received 2/3 of Isaac's properties, and Jacob
would have received 1/3. For those of us who are interested in calculating Individual
Retirement Accounts and long-term stock options, we are quick to see that this
birthright arrangement was a bonanza for the oldest brother.
But Esau was a simple man, a man's man who loved to hunt and fish. He drove a
pick-up truck and loved to wear flannel shirts. He wasn't really in to stock options
or long-term return on investments. He was more interested in the here and now.
And right now, he was famished. He had been out hunting all day. On this day, he
apparently returned empty handed, and hungry.
Jacob, on the other hand, was a shrewd businessman. He usually stayed at home,
talking to his mother about the rise in the stock market and the current margins on
pork bellies. While his pot of stew boiled, Jacob had been calculating the net worth
of his father's estate and projecting its value several years down the road. Then he
calculated the difference between Esau's 2/3 of the estate and his paltry 1/3. The
figures spoke for themselves and the more he and the pot stewed, the madder he got.
That's when Esau returned from the hunt slinging smelly camouflage clothing in the
corner, and griping about how hungry he was. Well, it was just the wrong time for
Esau to be asking his younger brother for a favor, but Esau asked for a bowl of stew
anyway. How was he to know what Jacob had been working out in his mind?
Jacob's silent response was, Hey, he's the one with the big bucks coming to him.
Why should I share my stew with a guy that's going to inherit 2/3 of everything our
father has?
David Legge writes, So he decides to blackmail Esau to become the spiritual leader
of his tribe, his family and his clan. ow obviously Jacob only did this because he
knew it would work with Esau, he wouldn't have tried it if he thought he wouldn't
get away with it, but obviously Jacob realised from growing up with this young man
that Esau had no wealth and value and respect in his birthright. He couldn't have
respected it enough to give it away for a mere bowl of lentil soup! He is taking
advantage of a weakness in time of desperation, and this toward a brother is low
behaviour.
3. Clarke gives us this summery of what the birthright involved.
What the birthright was, has greatly divided both ancient and modern
commentators. It is generally supposed that the following rights were attached to the

289. primogeniture:
1. Authority and superiority over the rest of the family.
2. A double portion of the paternal inheritance.
3. The peculiar benediction of the father.
4. The priesthood, previous to its establishment in the family of Aaron.
Calmet controverts most of these rights, and with apparent reason, and seems to
think that the double portion of the paternal inheritance was the only incontestable
right which the first-born possessed; the others were such as were rather conceded
to the first-born, than fixed by any law in the family. However this may be, it
appears,
1. That the first-born were peculiarly consecrated to God, Exo_22:29.
2. Were next in honor to their parents, Gen_49:3.
3. Had a double portion of their father’s goods, Deu_21:17.
4. Succeeded him in the government of the family or kingdom, 2Ch_21:3.
5. Had the sole right of conducting the service of God, both at the tabernacle
and temple; and hence the tribe of Levi, which was taken in lieu of the first-born,
had the sole right of administration in the service of God, um_8:14-18; and hence
we may presume, had originally a right to the priesthood previous to the giving of
the law; but however this might have been, afterwards the priesthood is never
reckoned among the privileges of the first-born.
That the birthright was a matter of very great importance, there can be no room to
doubt; and that it was a transferable property, the transaction here sufficiently
proves.
4. There is much debate as to which brother was the worst in character, and there
are strong opinions on both sides, but God seems to clearly take the side of Jacob,
and this is a major problem for many who think he is the worst of the two. Great
Texts gives us the gist of the problem that many face here. He prefers the subtle
shepherd to the bold hunter. That is to say, the Divine Ruler of men appears to place
Himself on the side of cowardice, dissimulation, treachery ; and to oppose Himself
to manliness, veracity, courage. And even if we are quite sure that He must be right,
we can hardly make out where and how we are wrong : we cannot vindicate His
ways to these two boys and men. The question will rise: Must not morality suffer,
must not our faith in goodness be put in jeopardy, if He who is the very Fountain of
truth and righteousness favours the man whom in our conscience we condemn, and
condemns the man whom in our conscience we approve ? I know at least one man
of some culture and distinction, a perfectly sane and reasonable man, too, in all
other respects, who in his earlier days was so disgusted by this apparent Divine
preference for the meaner character of the two that he broke with religion
altogether, and has never since been quite reconciled to it. It is easy to question
God at this point, for he seems to be choosing the wrong side. A woman once said to
the great Charles Spurgeon, “I cannot understand why God should say that He
hated Esau.” Spurgeon replied, “That is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to
understand how God could love Jacob.”
There are many others who also have a very negative impression of God based on
his love for Jacob, and they write things like this: Is this another wholesome, moral

290. God model? Jacob duped his father Isaac and stole Esau’s birthright. Jacob proves
to be a thief, a liar and a con-man. Doesn’t God's hero serve as a model and show
the impressionable that if you want something bad enough, you lie, cheat and steal
for it? Doesn’t it show that God will bless you for it, especially if your mom, whom
God has talked to, is your accomplice? What we need to keep in mind is that God
does not have a choice between choosing a perfect man or an imperfect man to be
the line to the Messiah. He has only one choice and that is to use an imperfect man.
This means all his choices are of those who are sinners who do negative and sinful
things. Jacob was not an ideal person, but he was the best of the two for God's
purpose, and so there is no reason to be angry at God for choosing a deceiver like
Jacob.
5. Is Jacob being honest? Is he being a good businessman? Do we really get ahead
by taking advantage of others' weaknesses and shortsightedness? Are we obligated
to disclose to them their potential mistakes? How can we love our neighbor as
ourselves in business? Jay Conrad Levinson has written a whole series of books
beginning with Guerrilla Marketing based on the hypothesis that business is war
and conflict, and that the little guy can gain advantage by being smarter, quick on
his feet -- and ruthless. Somehow, I think Jesus calls us to a higher standard in our
business practices. He would be much more pleased by the win-win deal than the
one that took advantage of the weakness of a brother.
6. Jacob commited here simony of sorts (see Acts 8:18-19), buying the blessing of
God with a bowl of stew. However, you cannot buy the blessings of God. They are
freely received and freely given. There was no need for any of this conniving. The
birthright was already Jacob's: God had promised as much. The schemings of Jacob
demonstrated a lack of faith in God's ability to carry out what He promised. As it
happened, and as it usually does happen in such cases, Jacob's conniving served to
delay the promise of God in being fulfilled, rather than bring it about more quickly.
As we shall see, the episode in this chapter and the one in chapter 27 caused such a
conflict between Jacob and Esau that Jacob was forced to flee from his own family.
He did not enter into his inheritance until many years later.
7. Jacob was an opportunist. He was taking advantage of his brother’s situation.
He saw his chance to make a great bargain and get gain from his brother’s pain.
Someone wrote, “Esau, faint from the chase, falls an easy prey to the warier hunter,
who stays at home and, spider-like, spins a web for his brother.” People are
constantly taking advantage of other people’s pain and problems in order to get all
they can from them.
The birthright was to go to the eldest son because it was felt the firstborn had more
of the father’s nature, and so deserved more of the father’s estate. It insured a
double portion of wealth. He automatically became the successor of the father as
ruler and priest of the household. He could not leave the promise of God to be
worked out by God in His time, but had to figure out a way to make sure God did
not blow it and miss such an opportunity. He was always trying to help God out,
and by so doing did foolish things. People do this all the time, and try to get God’s

291. will to happen by their own plans. His plan led to him leaving the whole estate to
Esau as he had to flee with nothing. His plan backfired.
32 Look, I am about to die, Esau said. What good is the birthright to me?
1. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. That is the philosophy of Esau, and
in many situations that is good thinking. In this situation it was pure folly. In the
first place he was not dying but just starving to death, as the saying goes. He would
have a point if he was really going to die, for most would agree it would be wise to
give up all that the future held for him if there was no future. The fact is, he lived
for many years, and he gave up a unique role in the plan of God for the sake of a
meal. He said, Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. The problem
is we do not die tomorrow, and so we have to live with the consequences of a bad
decision.
What Esau had Jacob wanted to steal,
For to Esau it was a value not real,
And so to him it had no appeal;
That was why he was willing to deal
And sell his birthright for only one meal.
2. Steven Cole gives us some examples of how we can be equally foolish in our
choices today. He wrote, For example, a man decides to trade family time for
business success. He loses his wife and children. Bad bargain! A Christian leader
decides to exchange some of his time for sexual pleasure outside of his marriage. It
costs him his ministry, a lot of family pain, and greatly damages the cause of Christ.
Really bad bargain! It costs far more than it provides. Every day you’re trading
your life-your soul-for something. The question is, For what? When it’s all over and
you’ve cashed in all the time and abilities which have been allotted to you, what will
you have to show for it? If you trade it in for fleeting pleasure, to gratify your
immediate needs, you’ll come up empty. But if you trade your life for God’s
kingdom and righteousness, to fulfill His purpose, you’ll be satisfied with that which
no one can take from you. Esau’s life is the story of a man who traded his soul for
fleeting pleasure. He sold his birthright, which included not only material benefits
and family privileges, but spiritual blessings as well, for a bowl of soup. It says that
“he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way” (25:34). He didn’t have a second
thought about what he had done. He did it, it felt good, and only much later did he
come to regret it.
3. In a book called Bible Characters an unknown author writes about how Esau did
not learn anything from his parents and grandparents about the spiritual heritage
he should have treasured, and he is an illustration of those who grow up in
Christian homes who go astray and become worldly people in thought and action.
He writes,
Esau, alas ! was all the time himself a
true Canaanite at heart. Son of Isaac and Rebekah,

292. and grandson of Abraham and Sarah, as he was,
Esau had nothing of his forefathers or his fore-mothers
in him, unless it was some of the dregs of
their remaining vices; and, as the apostle has it,
some of their springing up roots of bitterness. All
that Abraham and Sarah, and Isaac and Rebekah,
had passed through ; all their trials, and all their
triumphs, and all their attainments of faith and of
obedience, had left no mark at all on Esau, their so
profane descendant. And everything that Esau did,
every step that he took in life, every choice that he
made in life, and every bargain that he struck, only
made that more and more manifest. A man s choice
in his marriage, more than anything else in this life,
makes it manifest what that man is, and where his
heart is. ow, Esau s marriage, fatal step as it also
was, was not the passionate impulse of a moment,
any more than his sale of his birthright had been.
Esau had hunted for years with the brothers of
Judith and Bashemath. He had eaten and drunken
and danced with the Hittite inhabitants of the
land. He had sacrificed and sworn and vowed to
their false gods of the fields, and of the streams,
and of the unclean groves. Like every reprobate
from a better life, Esau had far outdone the sons of
Beeri and Elon in their impieties and debaucheries.
Till, at last, and in open defiance of all decency and
religion, he brought home two Canaanite wives to
his father s covenanted camp. * ow, all these
things happened unto them for examples, and they
are written for our admonition, upon whom the
ends of the world are come. And thus it is that
we see the same things in the end of the world that
has come upon ourselves. A child is born and
baptized in a God-fearing house ; and yet, by some
fatality, or what shall we call it, he grows up as much
outside the best life of his father s house as Esau all
his days was outside the best life of Isaac s house.
He is a little heathen among his brothers and
sisters and school-fellows. His birthright is the
Sabbath-day, and the Lord s table, and the society of
the best people in the city, and, first a youthhood,
and then a manhood, of purity and piety and the
service of Christ in His church. But his first act
of free and independent life is to sell all that, some
times for a better salary ; sometimes for the smile
and the patronage of the open enemies of his

293. father s faith ; and sometimes for a coarser mess
than even that. Years pass on till Esau sets up an
openly heathen household in defiance of father and
mother and all, which is ever after a grief of mind
to Isaac and Rebekah. The tragedy is not so
patent to us because we do not have Moses to write
out our household histories, and Paul to comment
on the writing, as in Esau s case ; but to those who
train themselves and accustom themselves to look
on the world around them in this one single view
as God s world, there is plenty of such profanity
and self -reprobation going on among us every
day.
4. Mackintosh comments, Here his fallacious reasoning, Behold, I am at the point
to die; and what profit shall this birthright do to me? What strange reasoning? The
present is slipping from beneath my-feet, I will therefore despise and entirely let go
the future? Time is fading from my view, I will therefore abandon all interest in
eternity! Thus Esau despised his birthright. Thus Israel despised the pleasant
land; (Ps. 106: 24) thus they despised Christ. (Zech. 11: 13) Thus those who were
bidden to the marriage despised the invitation. (Matt. 22: 5) Man has no heart for
the things of God. The present is everything to him. a mess of pottage is better than
a title to Canaan. Hence, the very reason why Esau made light of the birthright was
the reason why he ought to have grasped it with the greater intensity. The more
clearly I see the vanity of man's present, the more I shall cleave to God's future.
Thus it is in the judgement of faith. Seeing then that all these things shall be
dissolved, what manner of persons ought we to be, in all holy conversation and
godliness; looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the
heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat? evertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new
earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Peter 3: 11-13) These are the thoughts of
God, and, therefore, the thoughts of faith. The things that are seen shall be
dissolved. What, then, are we to despise the unseen? By no means. The present is
rapidly passing away. What is our resource? Looking for, and hasting unto, the
coming of the day of God. This is the judgement of the renewed mind; and any
other judgement is only that of a profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of
meat sold his birthright. (Heb. 12: 16) The Lord keep us judging of things as He
judges. This can only be done by faith.
Fools there are many, but very few
Would give up heaven for a bowl of stew.
So it turns out that this son Esau
Is one of the biggest fools we ever saw.
5. In Bunyan’s fascinating allegory, Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian meets two
interesting characters in the House of the Interpreter. Their names are Passion and
Patience. Passion is all upset; Patience seems calm and composed. It turns out that

294. Passion is unhappy because he has learned that he has to wait for something until
the next year. You know, he can’t open his presents until Christmas. Passion keeps
on storming until finally someone brings him a bag of treasure. Then he leaps in the
air for glee and laughs at poor Patience who doesn’t have anything like that. But
soon, as we might expect, Passion has thrown it all away. He’s broken all his toys,
and he has nothing left to look forward to. Can you identify at all with this figure
Passion and with Esau? Can I? Sometimes we have to have something right now,
don’t we? I’ve got to have my fun, my kicks now. I’ve got to get money, big money,
right away. My spouse has to satisfy my needs immediately. I’ve got to get what I’m
after and I don’t want any delays. I want this and I mean to have it now. The
problem with this impatience that must have everything right away, these
demanding wants of ours, is that they often blind us to far more important things.
We think of present satisfaction and not of long-range health. We think of having
our desires gratified, not of building deep, loving relationships. We think of present
fun, not future usefulness.That was the deeper tragedy of Esau’s impatience. It
revealed a sadly misguided sense of values.
33 But Jacob said, Swear to me first. So he swore an oath to him, selling his
birthright to Jacob.
1. His folly of selling his birthright for such a trifle made him one of the most foolish
men of the Bible, and he is seriously condemned for being so godless in his concern
for one of the greatest privileges God afforded any man. Here is what Heb.12:16-
has to say of him, “See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who
for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17Afterward, as you
know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring
about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears.” Some
translations have it that Esau was a profane person, and Great Texts explains it like
this: Profaneness: that was Esau's sin. What is it that we properly mean by
profaneness ? It is when people know in their hearts that a thing is holy, and ought
to be treated with religious reverence, and yet they treat it as a cheap and ordinary
thing.
Dr. Mickey Anders said, “Esau was the personification of those who seek instant
gratification at the expense of future health, safety, or reward.” Great Texts gives
warning to all who neglect present opportunities to secure a greater future:
Wasted time, misused opportunities, are gone, never to return. The boy, who at
school idles away his time, learns too late, as man, that he cannot make up for the
precious hours of youth mis spent. The poor slave to intemperance finds, even when
most eager to cast the snare from him, that not all his efforts can bring back the
fresh innocence and manly energy he had before he fell. It is one of the most awful
consequences of sin that, even when the sin itself is repented of, its effects remain,
dogging a man's footsteps, seemingly utterly unable to be wholly cast off. As the
poet Longfellow puts it
Wounds of the soul, though healed, will ache,
The reddening scars remain, and make

295. Lost innocence returns no more;
We are not what we were before.
2. It would be hard to find another example more foolish than letting one of life’s
highest values be given up for the gratifying of one’s appetite. Bishop Hall said,
“There was never any meat, except the forbidden fruit, so dear bought, as this broth
of Jacob.” ot too many are willing to sell their destiny for a dinner. His value
system was upside down, for he exaggerated his present need, and depreciated his
future seed.
3. Pastor Sarah Buteux has a note that probably represents the thinking of many.
She writes, “ow, in all honesty, I always thought Esau was joking, exaggerating,
and just being careless. I don't believe he was really dying from hunger when he
came home from hunting, and he probably didn't either. And I'm sure that when he
sold his birthright for the bowl of lentil stew, he wasn't being entirely serious. But
Jacob chose his words carefully and spoke in earnest. He made Esau swear to the
exchange. Jacob understood the power of words and took them extremely seriously.
He seems to have understood that words don't necessarily have to be uttered with
thoughtfulness or sincerity to have an effect. Words, in and of themselves, are
extremely powerful.” His words of oath were like signing the contract. The spoken
word then was like the written word now. He swore an oath to Jacob, and those few
words uttered with thoughtless haste changed the course of history for him and his
brother. As Dr. Mickey Anders said, “The phrase, which would forever be passed
on, would be: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob instead of The God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Esau.
David Legge points out what Esau gave up. ow don't misunderstand what this
means, for Esau to give up his birthright. We think of this birthright in terms of
earthly prosperity, worldly goods and wealth of his father - and to a large extent
that's what it was, because the son who was blessed, and Esau was to be blessed,
that son would be blessed with a double portion of his father's goods. But the
inheritance and the birthright is much more than earthly possessions and worldly
wealth, but it is spiritual prosperity. It was speaking of the spiritual blessing of
being the next patriarch in line; the one who would be the head spiritually of the
tribe, the family and the clan; the one who would be the priest and come before God
for his family and for his tribe. Ultimately in the Old Testament, especially in the
book of Genesis, to be the one who received the birthright and the spiritual blessing
and inheritance, was to ultimately be a link in the chain that would bring Messiah!
You see the importance of that, all the earthly and worldly wealth pales into
insignificance.
PARADOXICAL JUDGMETS O JACOB
Bob Sanders gives us an idea of just how paradoxical Jacob can be. He writes, I
love the fact that the Bible doesn’t whitewash its characters. They don’t come
across as superheroes, and they certainly don’t come across as holier-than-you’ll-ever-
be saints. They come across as very real men and women, sometimes funny
and sometimes tragic, but always very human. And I can’t think of anyone the

296. Bible treats with more unvarnished honesty than the Old Testament character
named Jacob. As Frederick Buechner puts it, “The Book of Genesis makes no
attempt to conceal the fact that Jacob was, among other things, a crook. What’s
more, you get the feeling that whoever wrote up his seamy adventures got a real
kick out of them.” A crook? Well, yes, that’s Jacob. He is, as we’ll see, a crook, a
con artist, and a cheat. But guess what? He winds up being remembered as nothing
less than one of the Old Testament patriarchs! If there was a Mt. Rushmore in
Israel, Jacob would be up there along with Abraham and Isaac and Moses as one of
the founding fathers of Judeo-Christian belief.
4. We want to give a number of quotes on Jacob to show how hard it is to evaluate
this man, for he has the most negative things said of him, and also the most positive
things said of him. Clarence Macartney in Old Testament Heroes says, “Jacob is the
best and worst man in the Old Testament.” Abraham and Isaac and other heroes
excite our admiration, but we cannot be like them, but we can identify with Jacob in
all his weaknesses. In him we see the dual nature we see in ourselves. Both good and
bad mixed together. Michael Esses in The Phenomenon of Obedience writes, “o
other Bible character represents more fully the conflict between the lower nature of
man and the higher nature of man than Jacob.” “He began as a supplanter, a
conniver, a deceiver, and was transformed into Israel’s prince and ruler with God.”
Brueggemann . states that what is implied in these passages is that while Jacob may
well be a conniving scoundrel, he also evidences belief in a future and the sureness
of God's promise, things to which Esau is totally indifferent. Lest we be tempted to
take pity on Esau for being just a big, dumb oaf who didn't have any better sense,
Williams reminds us that According to the rabbis, Jacob was not the only tricky
brother. Esau is described by them as a trapper as well as a hunter. He would trap
people with leading questions so that any answer would ensnare the answerer. In
other words, he was bad, but no worse than his brother.
5. In contrast to most, Calvin defends the action of Jacob as he writes, Jacob did
not act cruelly towards his brother, for he took nothing from him, but only desired a
confirmation of that right which had been divinely granted to him; and he does this
with a pious intention, that he may hereby the more fully establish the certainty of
his own election. The majority are more likely to go along with the author who
wrote, Jacob was honing his sales skills and his first victim was his brother, Esau.
Taking the birthright, Jacob was a traitor toward his brother and faithless towards
God. The Lord had already gone on record that the elder shall serve the younger.
Jacob could not wait on the Lord. Rather than trust in God's Word, God's ways,
God's timing, Jacob took matters into his own hands.
6.Criswell sees Jacob as a paradox, for he was a low down worm, and yet a great
hero. He writes, Jacob is as sorry a prospect as is any one of us. In the 41st
Chapter of Isaiah and the 14th Verse, God calls Jacob a worm. Thou worm
Jacob. Because of his groveling, and his crookedness, and his chicanery, and his
cheating, and his worthlessness, God calls Jacob a worm. Yet by the grace of God,
through a long and wearisome pilgrimage, he made of the worm Jacob, the prince
Israel. This man Jacob is more like us in infirmity, his humanity, his weakness than

297. any other patriarchs; and yet of the patriarchs, it is this man that truly and actually
heads the people of God. They're not called Abrahamites. They're not called Isaac-ites.
But the chosen family and race and nation of God is called Israelites after
Jacob's new name. I think Criswell read more bad into the worm comment of
Isaiah than was his intention, for it appears that he was just saying he was lowly and
small and of not much account in comparison with other more powerful nations.
7. Rosalind Brown has a negative view of Jacob, but traces it back to his heritage
and then on to his postrity revealing that deceitfulness was a family trait. She writes,
The problem is that Jacob is just the sort of lying, deceitful person the Psalm is
about. He seems congenitally unable to tell the truth. I don't think he knew how to
speak without deceiving the other person, and it ran in the family. His grandfather
Abram told Pharaoh that his wife was his sister thus saving his skin but putting her
at risk of ending up in Pharaoh's harem. It was half true: she was his half sister so
he didn't exactly lie but it wasn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth. Isaac later did much the same with Rebekah. But when it gets to Jacob, he
has deception down to a fine art. In an early case of identity theft he impersonated
his older brother Esau, apparently deceived his blind father, and stole Esau's
birthright blessing. Although he met his match in his uncle Laban and was tricked
into marrying the wrong sister, he manipulated things with Laban's sheep - his
source of wealth - to prosper at Laban's expense before doing a midnight flit, and
his wife then deceived her father when he came in search of them. When he met up
again with his wronged brother he was sweetness and light to his face but deceived
him again, saying he'd go in one direction but actually going in the other. And he
passed the trait on to his children: his sons deceived him about Joseph's fate, one of
his sons who had not fulfilled a promise to his daughter in law was deceived and
made a public fool of by her, and finally Joseph his favourite son deceived his
brothers when they come to Egypt to buy grain. It is a sordid story of half truths
and straightforward trickery that runs in the family but finds its apogee in Jacob.
This is almost like saying he did not have a chance to be other than a deceiver, for it
was in his blood, and so blame his heritage and not him. This will not fly, for all of
us have a heritage of sinfulness, and we are still held accountable for the choices we
make.
8. Watchman ee writes, “Everything Jacob set his hand to went wrong, even from
his birth. When the twins were born, we are told that ?Jacob’s hand was found to be
holding his brother’s heel; nevertheless she was not born the elder son. He sought by
guile to secure the birthright, but it was he who in fact had to leave home and flee.
He had set his heart on Rachel as his bride, but he found himself first of all married
to Leah. He set out eventually from Paddan-Aran with much wealth, most of it
gained by questionable means, but he had to be prepared to give it all away to his
brother Esau on the journey home in order to save his own life. Here is the
discipline of the Spirit. God’s hand is in judgment upon everything Jacob does while
relying upon his own craftiness. People who are specially clever have to learn, if
necessary through suffering, that it is not by the wisdom of men that we live, but by
God.” Jacob was judged for his evil some think, for he did not live as long as
Abraham or Isaac. Gen. 25:8; 35:29 and 47:9 He paid for his deception and lies.

298. Joseph Hoffman Cohn in I Have Loved Jacob goes so far as to say it was really
Jacob who got cheated. “It can plainly be seen that instead of Esau being cheated
out of his birthright, he got the better of Jacob by selling him something that
already belonged to him!
9. Jacob is both good and bad in different contexts, but the good news is that even
though he is bad in many ways, God finds he is a tool that can be used for the
progress of his kingdom. The imperfections of the saints of the Bible should make us
realize that no person is above folly, and all can do stupid and evil things, and have
bad attitudes. But also it means that those with the most defective personalities can
become tools that God can use for His purposes. Jacob had his defects, but he was
one who had ambition and perseverance and these are qualities the God can and
does use. Most call Jacob a rascal and other bad names, but some dispute it for they
point out that there are no words of condemnation of his acts anywhere. We just
read them in because they seem bad to us, but God had not a word of condemnation.
10. Henry tries to straddle the fence and both praise and condemn Jacob in the same
paragraph, for the paradox is real, and both are justified. He wrote, Jacob's pious
desire of the birthright, which yet he sought to obtain by indirect courses, not
agreeable to his character as a plain man. It was not out of pride or ambition that he
coveted the birthright, but with an eye to spiritual blessings, which he had got well
acquainted with in his tents, while Esau had lost the scent of them in the field. For
this he is to be commended, that he coveted earnestly the best gifts; yet in this he
cannot be justified, that he took advantage of his brother's necessity to make him a
very hard bargain. Henry goes on to tip the balance in favor of Jacob being
justified, however, and all he has to do is speculate on what might have been said
before this event. He writes, Probably there had formerly been some
communication between them about this matter, and then it was not so great a
surprise upon Esau as here it seems to be; and, it may be, Esau had sometimes
spoken slightly of the birthright and its appurtenances, which encouraged Jacob to
make this proposal to him. And, if so, Jacob is, in some measure, excusable in what
he did to gain his point. ot impossible to be so, but it is also so that God did not
see fit to tell us so.
11. David Legge sums up the paradox of Jacob as he writes, Jacob is their father,
the father of the Jews, but as we look at the Jews and we look at Jacob tonight we
see that there are a great deal of parallels with the Jew and with their father Jacob.
The extremes in the life of the Israelites that we find in the Old Testament
Scriptures that startle us and offend us and make us balk at this people, can also be
seen in life of their father Jacob. Yet to the other extreme, not only do we see the
failure of the Jewish people in life of Jacob, but we also see their spirituality. We can
see the richness in their faith, the deepness in their devotion toward God - both
extremes in the Jewish people are mirrored in their father Jacob.
I think this cannot be put better than the words of F. B. Meyer, listen to what he
says about the parallels between Jacob and ourselves as we begin this study tonight:
'Jacob's failings speak to us. He takes advantage of his brother when hard-pressed
with hunger. He deceives his father. He meets Laban's guile with guile. He thinks to

299. buy himself out of his troubles with Esau. He is mean, crafty and weak. At times we
can apply all these terms to him, but who is there among us who does not feel the
germs of this harvest to be within our own breast? Who of us cannot say, when we
look at Jacob, there but for the grace of God go I?'. His failings, then there are his
aspirations, they speak to us. F. B. Meyer says: 'We too have our angel-haunted
dreams. We make our vows when we leave home. We too cling in a paradox to the
yearning of departing angels, that they should come and stay with us and bless us
before they go. We too get back to our own Bethels and bury our idols. We too
confess ourselves pilgrims and strangers on the earth. We too recognise the
shepherd care of Almighty God. We too wait for God's salvation'.
12. The single best message I have read that gives us an overall picture of Jacob's
life is the one by Dr. Ray Pritchard. I quote most of it, for it just an ideal summary
that is too well done to miss. He writes, Beyond all question, he is one of the most
human characters in all the Bible. As we trace his life, we will discover that he
had as many defeats as victories. Unlike some other Bible characters who seem to
march from victory to victory, Jacob's life is a struggle from the very beginning. He
comes out grabbing his brother's heel and dies settling old scores with his children.
In between he knows more than his share of sorrow and heartache. He cheats and is
cheated, deceives and is deceived, angers and is made angry, shocks and is shocked.
In short, here is man who lives life the way most of us do—two steps forward and
one step back.
•He was a schemer and a dreamer.
•He had an eye for business and a heart for God.
•He was a businessman who was also a man of faith.
•He cheated his brother and he wrestled with an angel.
•He deceived his father and he heard the very voice of God.
His life is a paradox, an enigma, a riddle and a mystery. He is a man with warts,
with scars, a man who has known the detours of life. He never had it easy, he never
made it easy on himself, he made a thousand mistakes, and yet at the end he dies in
the faith, which is why Hebrews 11 lists him as one of the heroes of the faith. There
is both warning and encouragement in his life—much to follow and much to avoid.
Consider his life in summary:
He is born clutching his brother's heel.
He cheats his brother out of the birthright.
He deceives his father in order to obtain the blessing.
He spends 20 years in Haran where his uncle Laban cheats him.
He tries to bargain his way back into Esau's good graces.
His children are involved in rape and murder.
His oldest son sleeps with his maidservant Bilhah.
His favorite son Joseph is kidnapped by his other sons.
His heart is broken by sorrow.
In his youth he was a schemer.

300. In his middle years he was a hireling to Laban.
In his old age he was depressed and discouraged.
And he died in Egypt—not in the Promised Land.
If you looked at his story from that perspective, it would appear that his life was a
failure. But it wasn't. It's his name that ends up in Hebrews 11—not Esau's. That's
the wonder and glory of his life. Jacob was a man of faith.
If you need any other proof, consider this: When God wanted to identify himself to
his people, do you know what he called himself? I am the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob. That encourages me. I'm so glad our God is the God of Jacob, too. ot
just of Abraham and Isaac. He's also the God of Jacob. He doesn't just run with the
winners. Our God is also the God of those who struggle and scrap their way through
life, sometimes barely making it, other times hanging on for dear life. That's the
kind of God he is—He's the God of Jacob.
34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and
then got up and left.
So Esau despised his birthright.
4. Talk about an eat and run situation! Esau gulped down some bread and stew, and
off like the wind he flew. His stomach was full and that is all that mattered, he cared
nothing for the fact that his future was shattered. The future of God’s people was
now revised, for Esau had his birthright despised.
5. Calvin wrote, For what reason are these four things stated? Truly, that we may
know what is declared immediately after, that he accounted the incomparable
benefit of which he was deprived as nothing......Esau having satisfied his appetite,
did not consider that he had sacrificed a blessing far more valuable than a hundred
lives, to purchase a repast which would be ended in half an hour. Thus are all
profane persons accustomed to act: alienated from the celestial life, they do not
perceive that they have lost anything, till God thunders upon them out of heaven. As
long as they enjoy their carnal wishes, they cast the anger of God behind them; and
hence it happens that they go stupidly forward to their own destruction.
6. Henry Morris agrees and places all the blame for evil here on Esau as he writes,
“Why do people so often consider Jacob the culprit in this transaction? Scripture
does not offer one word of condemnation or criticism of Jacob. Instead, it condemns
Esau unequivocally. ‘Thus Esau despised his birthright’ (Gen 25:34) “Lest there be
any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his
birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the
blessing, he was rejected.” To put it another way, the Bible never says that “Jacob
stole Esau’s birthright”, but instead it says twice-over that, “Esau despised his
birthright.” Esau is the immoral and godless one, not Jacob. Esau was not forced
or compelled to sell his birthright. Esau willingly gave up these blessings, and got
essentially nothing in return.

301. 7. Clarke points out that it is not just Esau who is guilty of folly here, for Jacob is
taking advantage of the folly of his brother, and this also demonstrates a defect of
character. He wrote, While we condemn Esau for this bad action, (for he should
rather have perished than have alienated this right,) and while we consider it as a
proof that his mind was little affected with Divine or spiritual things, what shall we
say of his most unnatural brother Jacob, who refused to let him have a morsel of
food to preserve him from death, unless he gave him up his birthright? Surely he
who sold it, in such circumstances, was as bad as he who bought it. Thus Jacob
verified his right to the name of supplanter, a name which in its first imposition
appears to have had no other object in view than the circumstance of his catching
his brother by the heel; but all his subsequent conduct proved that it was truly
descriptive of the qualities of his mind, as his whole life, till the time his name was
changed, (and then he had a change of nature,) was a tissue of cunning and
deception, the principles of which had been very early instilled into him by a mother
whose regard for truth and righteousness appears to have been very superficial.
8. Great Texts makes this comment on both brothers:But in truth neither Esau nor
Jacob can be called an ideal character. Esau is frank, straight
forward, generous, but without depth of character or farsighted
ness of aim : he is governed by the impulses and desires of the
moment; a profane person, i.e. unspiritual, a man
without love or appreciation of worthier possessions, and heed
less of what he is throwing away. Jacob is selfish, scheming,
and clutches at every advantage; but he looks beyond the
immediate moment ; he has ambition and perseverance. Jacob's
character is thus a deeper one (in both a good and a bad sense)
than Esau s; it contains sound and genuine elements, which,
when purified from purely personal and selfish aims, are capable
of consecration to the service of God and of being made subservient
to carrying out His purposes. o doubt, if history told us more
about the Edomites, we should find their national characteristics
reflected in Esau, as those of Israel are reflected in Jacob.
It is the worst side of both brothers that we see. Were this all that we
knew of them, we might be justified in saying that Jacob s was the
worse sin. But we cannot fail to perceive both from this and from their after-history
that there was in Jacob a constancy, a determination, a
perseverance, which Esau had not; and that, while Esau never
looked beyond the present, Jacob had his eye always fixed upon the
future. Jacob s faults, of course, cannot for a moment be excused.
On the contrary, they were faults deserving the strongest con
demnation, and in their own time they brought upon him the
severest punishment and shame. Yet even thus early Jacob had
become convinced that a great future was in store for him. He
saw and appreciated the blessings which belonged to the birth
right, and was determined to do all in his power to gain possession
of them. But Esau despised his birthright. His one concern

302. was with the pleasures of the moment. He could not raise his
thoughts above the excitement of hunting, or the gratification of
his bodily desires. About the future he did not trouble himself.
The present was enough for him.
He was born to an inheritance which all the world s wealth would
not buy. To be in the patriarchal succession with Abraham and
Isaac, to be the recipient of great and precious promises, to be
the founder of a holy nation, to be the minister of a covenant by
which all the families of the earth were to be blessed this was
within his reach. But Esau despised the birthright. If he had
been a religious man, if he had been in the least like his fathers,
Abraham and Isaac, he would have treasured up this promise
as they did, and would have thought it more valuable than all
his earthly possessions. But how different was his behavior
from theirs. He sold his birthright unto Jacob.
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these : It might have been I
Many Bible character have made the same mistake of Esau, and they have made
emotional decisions to choose the trivial over the tremendous, and they paid heavily
for their unwise choices. Great Texts give us these examples:
The morsel may have been sweet ; but what a price Esau
paid for it! It is easy for us, as we read the story, to cry
Fool ! but this very folly is being committed every day. It is
as old as our fallen humanity. For the sake of a piece of fruit,
our first parents sacrificed their whole inheritance, brought
death into this world, and all our woe, with loss of Eden. One
look back upon Sodom, and Lot s wife becomes a pillar of salt !
Achan covets a Babylonish garment, and a wedge of gold, and
forfeits his life in consequence. For the sake of a woman s
caresses Samson loses his hair, his strength, his sight, his all.
David, for the sake of Bathsheba, loses a year s communion with
God, and hands his name down with an ugly blot upon it to all
posterity. Ahab, coveting a pretty garden, commits murder, and
brings down Heaven s judgments on his head. Judas, for a few
shillings, betrays his Master.
To compare the characters of Jacob and Esau in a sentence is difficult, but the
contrast is instantly apparent. Let me use an illustration. You have seen a morning
of pure and perfect radiance, passing at noon into a black turbulence of wind or
tempest, or a haze of dull and heavy gloom. This is a transcript of the life of Esau.
You have also seen the troubled day breaking through thick mists, and you have
watched, with almost eager interest, the sun battling his way through heavy masses
of clouds, shining feebly at first in faint victory, but at last going down in full and
peaceful glory. Such is the life of Jacob.

303. 9. Esau demonstrates the mistake people make when they let their emotions make
decisions that are best made by reason. Had he given any thought to what he was
selling for soup he may have reasoned that the food will only meet a present need,
but the birthright will meet an eternal need. Emotions urge us to make the choice of
present gratification, but reason urges us to restrain present urges for the sake of
future values that will last, not only for time, but for eternity. Because Jacob had a
more reasoned approach to life, he comes out in the long run as the lesser of two
evils in this conflict of brothers.
Someone wrote, Esau had many not wholly ignoble
things about him. Esau was full of the manliest
interests and occupations and pursuits. He was a
very proverb of courage and endurance and success
in the chase. He was the ruggedest, the brawniest,
and the shaggiest of all the rugged, brawny, and
shaggy creatures of the field and of the forest,
among whom he lived and died. Esau had an eye
like an eagle. His ear never slept. His foot took
the firmest hold of the ground. And his hand was
always full both of skill, and strength, and success.
Esau s arrow never missed its mark. He was the
pride of all the encampment as he came home at
night with his traps, and his snares, and his bows,
and his arrows, and laden to the earth with venison
for his father s supper. Burned black with the sun ;
beaten hard and dry with the wind ; a prince of
men ; a prime favourite both with men, and women,
and children, and with a good word and a good gift
from the field for them all. But, all the time, a
heathen. All the time, an animal more than a
man. All the time, all body and no soul. All the
time a profane person, who failed of the grace
of God.
10. But let us not assume that Jacob paid no price for this deception and taking
advantage of his brother. Great Text gives us this insight:
What did Jacob gain by this offence? ot the fulfillment
of the Divine promise ; for that would have been fulfilled, had he
never sinned. What he gained by his sin was misery, shame,
fear, remorse. As the direct and immediate consequence of his
sin, he had to leave his father's tent. Without Esau's courage, he
had to face perils before which even Esau might have quailed.
He, who was destined to rule, had to serve. The cheat was
cheated year after year by Laban, by his wives, by his children.
He had to present himself, a suppliant for life, before the brother

304. he had wronged. He had to witness his daughter's irremediable
shame. He was made to stink in the nostrils of his neighbors
by the craft and ferocity of his sons. His own children repaid on
Joseph, his darling, the very wrongs, which he himself had
inflicted on Esau. As we recall all that he suffered in the course
of his long pilgrimage, we no longer wonder to hear him say at the
close of it, Few and evil have been the days of the years of my
life.
Great texts goes on to elaborate more, but the note of tragedy
goes sounding through the Hebrew story. Jacob s tricks and
deceits serve him like faithful minions, for the moment, but the
moment after, they mutiny. Their numbers swell. They become
a troop. They lie in wait for him. They chase him from home.
They follow him to his new home. They appear at his marriage.
They change the wine into wormwood. As the pages of the story
follow each other, we hear the gallop of the avengers, we catch
the whoop of their war-cry, God is not mocked. . . . The soul
that sinneth it shall die. It is strange, says Miss Wedgwood,
that the judgment on Jacob's perfidy is so constantly forgotten.
o professedly moral tale could delineate a more exact requital than
that meted out to him. A cup of cold water given to a brother in a brother's
name shall not lose its reward ; nor shall a mess of pottage, sold
to a brother at a price he cannot choose but pay, evade the
payment of that tax which law levies on selfishness. Dust shall
be the serpent's meat.
11. An unknown author writes:
There is an intellectual, and with it a
spiritual stupidity there is no other name for it
that has already taken possession of one out of every
two children that are born in our most covenanted
households. They soon declare and show themselves
to be utterly insensible to everything intellectual,
spiritual, moral, noble, and above the world that
knows not God. If they are rich and idle, they
spend their days, like Esau, hunting down creatures
of God that have more of God s image in them than
their hunters have. They eat, and drink, and dress,
and dance like Esau, with any Canaanite household
which has sons and daughters like themselves. But
they never read a good book. They never attend a
good teacher. They have neither time nor taste
for anything that pertains to the mind or the heart.
Philo calls Esau a wooden man ; and the number
of wooden men and women who sit at our dinner
tables eating venison and drinking wine, and who

305. are then driven all the noisy night after to our city
assemblies, far outnumber those people who are
made of any finer or more spiritual material. Put
off the wood and the earth, put off the insensi
bility and the profanity that are still in you all,
my brethren. And put on mind, and heart, and
understanding, and consideration, and imagination.
Choose your reading. Choose your company.
Choose your husband and your wife. Choose your
birthright. Choose life, and not death ; blessing,
and not cursing ; heaven, and not hell. You can,
if you choose. You can, if you like. Only, lay
this to heart with all holy fear, that there is insensi
bility, and stupidity, and profanity enough in you
by nature, and up to this day, to make you, amid
all your covenant surroundings, a reprobate of a far
worse kind than ever Esau was, unless, with tears,
you seek a place of repentance. And it will take
all your tears, and all your time, and all the repent
ance, and all the remission of sins, that Christ can
give you out of His place of exaltation, to enable
you to escape his end at last who ate and drank,
and despised his birthright.
12.
He had a future he never knew,
For he sold it for a bowl of stew.
Later he came to feel quite blue,
But there was nothing he could do,
But use foul language and curses spew
For it was his own dreams he slew
By failing to his God be true
In cherishing the birthright he was due.
13. We get into some profound theology here when we go to the ew Testament and
discover that because Esau despised his birthright, God despised him, and the text
in Rom. 9:13 actually says, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. That is a radical
statement by God and has caused many to question how the God of love could say
that he hated anybody. The Bible is full of very evil people that God never said he
hated, but he chose to reveal that he hated Esau. Some say it means that compared
to Jacob whom he favored, he hated Esau. In other words, he loved him much less.
We are told that we are to hate our mother and father in comparison to our love and
loyalty to Christ, and this does not mean to have any negative feelings toward them,
but just to put them on a lesser level of love and loyalty that we have for God.
The fact remains that God does hate sinners enough to cast them out of his kingdom
and into the kingdom of the lost, and so the question arises as to who is really to

306. blame for anyone being lost? Spurgeon deals with this issue in a profound way that
very few have considered, and so I want to quote a large portion of what he said, for
it is extremely helpful in defending the grace and glory of God from the views that
make God out to be the one who chooses to damn people. He writes, Why did God
hate Esau? . Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but
this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true.There are some
who answer, “Divine sovereignty”; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the
face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignty—it is the
same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him?
Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well,
if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should
think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever.
You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God
does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why
God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man
deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, “O
Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve”! But every lost spirit will be made
to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at
the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the
Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own
head, as the result of his own evil works. Justice is that which damns a man; it is
mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice
holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to
libel God and to dishonor him; ow, let us look at Esau's character, says one, did
he deserve that God should cast him away? I answer, he did. What we know of
Esau's character, clearly proves it. Esau lost his birthright. Do not sit down and
weep about that, and blame God. Esau sold it himself; he sold it for a mess of
pottage.
Oh, Esau, it is in vain for thee to say, I lost my birthright by decree. o, no. Jacob
got it by decree, but you lost it because you sold it yourself—didn't you? Was it not
your own bargain? Did you not take the mess of red pottage of your own voluntary
will, in lieu of the birthright? Your destruction lies at your own door, because you
sold your own soul at your own bargain, and you did it yourself. Did God influence
Esau to do that? God forbid, God is not the author of sin. Esau voluntarily gave up
his own birthright.
And the doctrine is, that every man who loses heaven gives it up himself. Every man
who loses everlasting life rejects it himself. God denies it not to him—he will not
come that he may have life. Why is it that a man remains ungodly and does not fear
God? It is because he says, I like this drink, I like this pleasure, I like this Sabbath-breaking,
better than I do the things of God. o man is saved by his own free-will,
but every man is damned by it that is damned. He does it of his own will; no one
constrains him.
And I say, if Esau sold his birthright he did deserve to lose it; and, therefore, am I

307. not right in saying, that if God hated Esau, it was because he deserved to be hated.
Do you observe how Scripture always guards this conclusion? Turn to the ninth
chapter of Romans, where we have selected our text, see how careful the Holy Spirit
is here, in the 22nd verse. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. Rom.9:22-23. But it does not say
anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that:
God had nothing to do with it. But when men are saved, God fits them for that. All
the glory to God in salvation; all the blame to men in damnation.
Summary.
If any of you want to know what I preach every day, and any stranger should say,
Give me a summary of his doctrine, say this, He preaches salvation - all of grace,
and damnation - all of sin. He gives God all the glory for every soul that is saved,
but he won't have it that God is to blame for any man that is damned. That
teaching I cannot understand. My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the
blood of man's soul at God's door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least
any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that. I delight to preach this
blessed truth—salvation of God, from first to last—the Alpha and the Omega; but
when I come to preach damnation, I say, damnation of man, not of God; and if you
perish, at your own hands must your blood be required.
There is another passage. (See Matt. 25:32-46) At the last great day, when all the
world shall come before Jesus to be judged, have you noticed, when the righteous go
on the right side, Jesus says, Come, ye blessed of my father,—(of my father,
mark,)—inherit the kingdom prepared—(mark the next word)—for you, from
before the foundation of the world. What does he say to those on the left? Depart,
ye cursed. He does not say, ye cursed of my father, but, ye cursed. And what else
does he say? into everlasting fire, prepared—(not for you, but)—for the devil
and his angels. Do you see how it is guarded, here is the salvation side of the
question. It is all of God. Come, ye blessed of my father. It is a kingdom prepared
for them. There you have election, free grace in all its length and breadth. But, on
the other hand, you have nothing said about the father—nothing about that at all.
Depart, ye cursed. Even the flames are said not to be prepared for sinners, but for
the devil and his angels. There is no language that I can possibly conceive that could
more forcibly express this idea, supposing it to be the mind of the Holy Spirit, that
the glory should be to God, and that the blame should be laid at man's door.
14. Ron Thomas points out that Esau did not lose material prosperity by giving up
his birthright, but he lost spiritual prosperity, and that is a far greater loss. He had
everything timecould offer, but nothing of eternal value. Thomas writes, Losing his
birthright did not diminish his prospect for worldly possessions. Esau lost his
birthright, yet went on to be a man of wealth and influence. All of Edom was at his
disposal. otice Genesis 36:6-8. And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his
daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all
his substance, which he had got in the land of Canaan; and went into the country

308. from the face of his brother Jacob. 7 For their riches were more than that they
might dwell together; and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them
because of their cattle. 8 Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom. Later
when he and Jacob were reconciled, Esau had no need for the presents and gifts sent
by the hand of his brother Jacob. Genesis 33:9. And Esau said, I have enough, my
brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.
Thomas goes on to compare Esau with Moses. What a contrast we see with Moses.
Hebrews 11:24-27 says, By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be
called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the
people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;26 Esteeming the
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect
unto the recompence of the reward.27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the
wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing Him who is invisible. Here is a young
man who possessed spiritual sight. He saw the big picture. Moses was tuned in to
SPIRITUAL REALITIES and he ordered his life, made his choices, invested his life
accordingly.
15. Criswell gives us the bottom line on these two brother when he writes, And that
was the difference. It didn't matter to Esau, not at all. He despised his birthright,
and Jacob wanted it, coveted it, longed for it, desired it. And when he had an
opportunity to strike a bargain with Esau, he obtained it for a mess of pottage. You
can debate on which brother was the worst and which was the most evil in their
actions, but the fact is, one did not care for the birthright, and the other cared
enough to play dirty to get it, and it was the very desire or lack of desire that made
the difference in the destiny of these two men. Motivation matters to God.
16. This was the act that earned him such a bad reputation as we see in Heb. 12:16.
The word profane means outside the temple, and so lacking in religious insight and
interest. He was not an atheist but just indifferent to God and His will. Some feel
the birthright is the wealth doubled from Isaac’s estate, but others feel it is the
privilege of fulfilling the mission of Abraham. It was the right to become God’s
servant and messenger. Jacob desired to be a channel of blessing to the human race,
but Esau had not such desire, and God goes by the desire of the heart. Jacob was
not yet a fit tool, but God mended him and then accomplished His purpose through
him.