Genesis 15

PART THIRTY-SIX RECAPITULATION: SURVEY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE

From A Class-Book of Old Testament History, pp. 73-76

by G. F. Maclear, D.D. Published by Macmillan, London, 1881, now long out of print.

With the death of Joseph the Patriachal Age of Israel’s history may be said to close. The Family had now thrown out many branches and was now on the point of emerging into the Nation. At this juncture, then, it may be well to look back, and review some of the chief features of the Patriarchal Life.

1. And the first of these that claims attention is its Nomadic character. Unlike the founders of Egypt, of Babylon, of Nineveh, the Patriarchs were not the builders of cities and towns, but pilgrims and sojourners, dwellers in tents (Hebrews 11:9). But they were very different from rude hordes, like the Amalekites and other sons of the desert, abhorring any higher mode of life. Abraham was no stranger to the highest form of civilization that his age afforded. He was acquainted with Ur, with Nineveh, with Damascus, with Egypt; he had left his home in one of the chief cities of Mesopotamia, not from choice, but in consequence of a direct personal call from God. Moreover, so far from regarding his present mode of life as an ultimate end, he and Isaac and Jacob were ever looking forward to a time when it would close, when their descendants should be settled in the Land of Promise, and become a great nation, when the portable tent should give way to the city that had foundations (Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 11:13-16; comp. Genesis 24:7; Genesis 28:4; Genesis 49:4; Genesis 50:24). Hence, from time to time, as opportunity offered, we see the wandering life freely and willingly laid aside. Lot settled in Sodom (Genesis 13:10-12); Abraham in Egypt went direct to Pharaoh’s court (Genesis 12:14); at Hebron he settled and became a prince of God in the midst of the Hittites (Genesis 23:6); Isaac not only lived near the Philistines, but occupied a house opposite the palace (Genesis 26:8), and practised agriculture (Genesis 26:12); and Joseph’s dream of the sheaves points out that this was also continued in the time of Jacob (Genesis 37:7).

2. The Family was the center of the Patriarchal commonwealth. Its head was the source of authority and jurisdiction; he possessed the power of life and death (Genesis 38:24); he united in himself the functions of chief and priest; he offered the burnt-offering; he had his armed retainers (Genesis 14:14; Genesis 48:22; Genesis 34:25; Genesis 33:1); his intercourse with his wives (for polygamy was not forbidden) was free and unrestrained; the wife’s consent was asked before wedlock (Genesis 24:57-58); love hallowed the relations of Abraham with Sarah, of Isaac with Rebekah, of Jacob with Leah and Rachel; woman, indeed, did not occupy the position since conceded to her, but her position was far from degraded, and the sanctity of the marriage-bond was defended by severe laws, which made death the punishment for adultery (Genesis 38:24). Slavery, it is true, existed, but in the tents of Abraham the slave was ever treated with consideration, and not excluded from, but made a partaker of religious privileges (Genesis 17:13). The fidelity and attachment of Eliezer the steward of Abraham’s house, the mourning for Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Genesis 35:8), are pleasing proofs of the peace that reigned in the Patriarchal household.

3. Civilization. The life of the Patriarchs was chiefly that of the shepherd, and their wealth consisted in their flocks and their herds. But besides practising agriculture they were not unacquainted with money and the precious metals. Abraham paid for the field of Machpelah with coin (Genesis 23:9-20), and the sons of Jacob took money with them into Egypt (Genesis 42:25; Genesis 42:35); while the gold ring and armlets presented to Rebekah by Eliezer (Genesis 24:22), the bracelet and signet ring of Judah (Genesis 38:18), the ear-rings of Rachel (Genesis 35:4), the many-coloured coat of Joseph, indicate an acquaintance with the luxuries of life.

4. Religion. While other nations were rapidly learning to deify the powers of nature, the Patriarchs believed not only in a God above and beyond nature, but in a God Personal, Omnipotent, and Holy. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was. no mere abstraction, no mere law. He could and did reveal Himself by angelic appearances, by visions, by dreams; He could console, strengthen, encourage; He could punish, rebuke, and on repentance forgive. Abraham, the Friend of God (James 2:23), intercedes with Him in behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:23-33); Isaac is warned by Him against going down into Egypt (Genesis 26:2); Jacob is consoled by Him at Bethel when setting out into the land of exile (Genesis 28:13-15), and wrestles with Him by the fords of Jabbok till the break of day (Genesis 32:24); Joseph believes in His invisible but ever-present help in prison and in a strange land, and ascribes to Him all his wisdom in the interpretation of dreams (Genesis 41:16). The Divine Promise of a great future Abraham believed under circumstances of greatest trial, and his faith was counted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3). Moreover, the God of the Patriarchs was not a mere national or household God. His sphere of operation was not restricted to the Patriarchs and their families; He is the God of all the earth (Genesis 24:3), the God of Righteousness and Holiness. He punishes the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25); He plagues Pharaoh’s house (Genesis 12:17); He is the God of the priest-king Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18), and of the Philistine Abimelech (Genesis 20:3); He protects not only Isaac the child of promise, but the outcast Ishmael the child of the bond-woman (Genesis 21:13); He is with Joseph in prison, but He sends dreams to Pharaoh, and through Joseph He saves Egypt from famine (Genesis 50:20).

5. The Religious Worship of the Patriarchs was in keeping with the simplicity of their creed. The head of the family was also the priest of the family. Whenever Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, reached any new spot in their pilgrimage, they invariably erected an altar, generally of stone and on a high situation (Genesis 22:9; Genesis 26:25; Genesis 35:7); there they called on the name of Jehovah, there they presented their burnt sacrifice, there they offered up their prayers. Their history also proves the existence of offering covenant-sacrifices, and celebrating covenant-feasts (Genesis 15:9-18); the making and paying of vows (Gen. 28:23); the erection of memorial pillars, and the consecration of them by pouring upon them oil and wine (Genesis 28:18); the rite of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14); and the paying of tithes (Genesis 14:20).

6. The Character of the Patriarchs is never represented as perfect; their faults are freely exposed; theirs is no ideal history. If we compare the four most eminent amongst them, we seem to trace in (i) Abraham, the faith that can remove mountains in its power and in its fulness, revealing itself in unfaltering trust and unquestioning obedience under the most trying circumstances conceivable; in (ii) Isaac, the faith that can possess itself in patience, and discharge the ordinary duties of life in quietness and waiting; in (iii) Jacob, the violent contest of faith with the flesh, the higher with the lower nature, till by hard discipline the latter is purified, and the Sup-planter becomes the Prince, the Prevailer with God; in (iv) Joseph, the fidelity and perseverance of faith, revealed not only in the patient endurance of the most grievous trials, but in energetic action, and at length crowned with victory. He unites in himself the noble trust and resolution of Abraham, with the quiet perseverance of Isaac, and the careful prudence of Jacob. He is moreover an eminent historic type of Christ, in (1) his persecution and sale by his brethren, (2) his resisting temptation, (3) his humiliation and exaltation, and (4) his dispensing to a famine-stricken people the bread of life, and (5) in the fulness of his forgiving love.

ADDENDA [Volume 3] LANGE: ON THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH

(CDHCG, 389-390, verbatim)

Between Abram’s connection with Hagar and the next manifestation of Jehovah there are full thirteen years. But then his faith is strengthened again, and Jehovah appears to him (Genesis 17:1). The most prominent and important theophany in the life of Abram is the appearance of the three men (ch. 17). But this appearance wears its prevailing angelic form, because it is a collective appearance for Abram and Lot, and at the same time refers to the judgement upon Sodom. Hence the two angels are related to their central point as the sun-images to the sun itself, and this central point for Abram is Jehovah himself in his manifestation, but not a commissioned Angel of the Lord. Thus also this Angel visits Sarah (Genesis 21:1; compare Genesis 18:10). But the Angel appears in the history of Hagar a second time (Genesis 21:17), and this time as the Angel of God (Maleach Elohim), not as the Maleach Jehovah, for the question is not now about a return to Abram’s house, but about the independent settlement with Ishmael in the wilderness. The person who tempts Abram (Genesis 22:1) is ElohimGod as he manifests himself to the nations and their general ideas or notions, and the revelation is effected purely through the word. Now, also, in the most critical moment for Abram, the Angel of the Lord comes forward, calling down to him from heaven since there was need of a prompt message of relief. In the rest of the narrative this Angel of the Lord identifies himself throughout with Jehovah (Genesis 22:12; Genesis 22:16). To Isaac also Jehovah appears (Genesis 26:2), and the second time in the night (Genesis 26:24). He appears to Jacob in the night in a dream (Genesis 28:12-13). Thus also he appears to him as the Angel of God in a dream (Genesis 31:11), but throughout identified with Jehovah (Genesis 31:13). Jehovah commands him to return home through the word (31:3). Laban receives the word of God in a dream (Genesis 31:24). The greatest event of revelation in the life of Jacob is the grand theophany, in the night, through the vision, but the man who wrestles with him calls himself God and man (men) at the same time. According to the theory of a created angel, Jacob is not a wrestler with God (Israel), but merely a wrestler with the Angel. It is a more purely external circumstance which God uses to warn Jacob through the word to remove from Shechem (Genesis 35:1). In the second-’ peculiar manifestation of God to Jacob after his return from Mesopotamia (Genesis 35:9), we have a clear and distinct reflection of the first (Genesis 32:24). In the night-visions of Joseph, which already appear in the life of Isaac, and occur more frequently with Jacob, the form of revelation during the patriarchal period comes less distinctly into view. But then it enters again, and with new energy, in the life of Moses. The Angel of Jehovah (Exodus 3:2) is connected with the earlier revelation, and here also is identified with Jehovah and Elohim (Exodus 3:4). But he assumes a more definite form and title, as the Angel of his face, since with the Mosaic system the rejection of any deifying of the creature comes into greater prominence, and since it is impossible that the face of God should be esteemed a creature.

The reasons which are urged for the old ecclesiastical view of the Angel of the Lord, are recapitulated by Kurtz in the following order: 1. The Maleach Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah. 2. Those to whom he appears recognize, name, and worship him as the true God. 3. He receives sacrifice and worship without any protest. 4. The biblical writers constantly speak of him as Jehovah. We add the reasons. 1. The theory of our opponents opens a wide door in the Old Testament for the deifying of the creature, which the Old Testament everywhere condemned; and the Romish worship of angels finds in it a complete justification. 2. The Socinians also gain an important argument for their rejection of the Trinity, if, instead of self-revelation of God, and of the self-distinction included in it in the Old Testament, there is merely a pure revelation through angels. As the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament, so no one can remove from the Old Testament the beginnings of that doctrine, the self-distinction of God, without removing the very substructure on which the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity rests, and without obscuring the Old Testament theology in its very centre and glory. 3. It would break the band of the organic unity between the Old and New Testaments if it could be proved that the central point in the Old Testament revelation is a creature-angel, and that the New Testament revelation passes at one bound from this form to that of the God-man. The theory of the creature-angel in its continuation through a colossal adoration of angels, points downwards to the Rabbinic and Mohammedan doctrine of angels which has established itself in opposition to the New Testament Christology, and is bound together with that exaggerated doctrine of angels in more recent times, which ever corresponds with a veiled and obscure Christology. On the other hand, it removes from the New Testament Christology its Old Testament foundation and preparation which consists in this, that the interchange between God and men is in full operation, and must therefore prefigure itself in the images of the future God-man. 4. The doctrine of angels itself loses its very heart, its justification and interpretation, if we take away from it the symbolic angel-form, which rules it, as its royal centre, i.e. that angelic form which, as a real manifestation of God, as a typical manifestation of Christ, as a manifestation of angels, has the nature and force of a symbol. But with the obliteration of the symbolic element, all the remaining symbolic and angelic images, the cherubim and seraphim, will disappear, and with the key of biblical psychology in its representation of the development of the life of the soul, to an organ of revelation, we shall lose the key to the exposition of the Old Testament itself. 5. Augustin was consistent when, with his interpretation of the Angel of Jehovah as a creature-angel, he decidedly rejects the interpretation which regards the sons of God (ch. 6)as angel-beings; for the assumption of angels who, as such, venture to identify themselves with Jehovah, and notwithstanding they are in peril, abandon themselves to lustful pleasures and a magical transformation of their nature, combines two groundless and intolerable phantoms. We hold, therefore, that Old Testament theology, in its very heart and centre, is in serious danger from these two great prejudices, as the New Testament from the two great prejudices of a mere mechanical structure of the Gospels, and of the unapostolic and yet more than apostolic brothers of the Lord. (See the defence of the old ecclesiastical view in the Commentary by Keil, also with a reference to Kahnis, de Angelo Domini diatribe, 1858. The assertion of the opposite view held by Delitzsch in his Commentary, meets here its refutation).

6. The aspect of all theophanies as visions. It is a general supposition, that divine revelation is partly through visions, or through inward miraculous sights and sounds. We must, however, bring out distinctly the fundamental position, that every theophany is at the same time vision, and every vision a theophany; but that in the one case the objective theophany and in the other the subjective vision, is the prevailing feature. The subjective vision appears in the most definite form in dream-visions, of which Adam’s sleep, and Abram’s night-horror (chs. 2 and 15.), are the first striking portents. It develops itself with great power in the lives of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and is of still greater importance in the lives of Samuel and Solomon, as also in the night-visions of Zechariah. We find them in the New Testament in the life of Joseph of Nazareth and in the history of Paul. It needs no proof to show that the manifestations of God or angels in dreams, are not outward manifestations to the natural senses. In the elements of the subjective dream-vision, veils itself, however, the existing divine manifestation. But what the dream introduces in the night-life, the seeing in imagesthat the ecstasy does in the day or ordinary waking life (see Lange: Apostolic Age). The ecstasy, as the removing of the mind into the condition of unconsciousness, or of a different consciousness, is the potential basis of the vision, the vision is the activity or effect of the ecstasy. But since the visions have historical permanence and results, it is evident that they are the intuitions of actual objective manifestations of God. Mere hallucinations of the mind lead into the house of error, spiritual visions build the historical house of God. But in this aspect we may distinguish peculiar dream-visions, night-visions of a higher form and power, momentary day-visions, apocalyptic groups or circles of visions, linked together in prophetic contemplation, and that habitual clear-sightedness as to visions which is the condition of inspiration. But that theophanies which are ever at the same time Angelophanies and Christophanies, and indeed as theophanies of the voice of God, or of the voice from heaven, of the simple appearance of angels, of their more enlarged and complete manifestations of the developed heavenly scenethat these are always conditioned through a disposition of fitness for visions, is clear from numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments (2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10:7; John 12:28-29; John 20:10-12; Acts 9:8; Acts 12:7-12; Acts 22:9-14).

---

THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE

(by H. Christopher, The Remedial System, pp. 146-150)

The promise that God would bless the whole world through him [Abraham] had reference to Christ, the son of Abraham, through whom God would fulfill his promise of blessing the whole world through the offspring of Abraham. Whilst it was the first and chief promise made to Abraham, it was the last in fulfillment. Nearly two thousand years intervened. It was ratified and covenanted by the blood of Christ, and looked to the possession of the heavenly Canaan, and to a circumcision that cut off the heart from all that is worldly and sensual, and to a seal that became the pledge of the purchased possession, and its settlement in the heavenly Canaan, by the resurrection from the dead, when the spiritual people of God cross the Jordan of death, and take possession of the land of promise, for which even Abraham looked, when he sought a city whose maker and builder is God. This promise and its blessings have no connection with the others made to Abraham. They differ as widely as flesh and spirit, and as earth and heaven. They connect or coalesce no where. The first were but preparatory and necessary to the last. When the last appeared, the first had served their chief, if not all their, purpose. The first had chief reference to man’s body, while the last has chief reference to man’s spirit. And as the spirit of man is superimposed, as it were, upon the body, and is capable of a separate and independent existence, so was the last promise superimposed upon the first, and is capable of existing, and does exist, independently of it. Hence, the promises and the covenants by which they were ratified, connect with each other only as the flesh connects with the spirit. Between them lies an impassable gulf. There is no possible passage from the first to the last. The Jew has no rights and privileges under Christ by virtue of his being the son of Abraham according to the flesh; for the promise was; In Isaac shall thy seed be called, and he was the child of promise and of faith. The Christian is the child of promise and of faith, and hence is reckoned through Isaac as a special creation of God, and is, therefore, himself a new creation. The last creation supersedes all former ones, and by this supersession abrogates them. The adoption of the children of Abraham as the special and peculiar people of God, set aside the adoption by creation, and during the time of their adoption, the natural adoption was set aside, and the rest of mankind ignored, and treated as an uncovenanted people. So when the Christian adoption came in, the Jewish was set aside, and all the rest of mankind, not embraced in the new adoption, were ignored and treated as uncovenanted. Hence, under Christianity there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither circumcision nor uncircumcision; but all the families, nations, and races of mankind are one in Christ, in perfect fulfillment of the promise: In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

All this is necessarily true. The Remedial System is developed by differentiations which mark the boundaries of the development. The patriarch had no privileges, special and peculiar, after the calling of Abraham. By that call God isolated a part from the whole, and made this part his special care. By the new creation through Christ another isolation was made, which placed Jew and Greek on the same plane before God, and abrogated all special and peculiar rights or privileges claimed by the Jews. This is necessarily true from another consideration. The claim of the Jew rested on an explicit covenant. That covenant recognized him as the chosen of God, through a means wholly different from that by which he had recognized the patriarch, and does now recognize the Christian. This consideration or means was his birth. He was the son of Abraham according to the flesh, and entitled, consequently, only to the rights and privileges guaranteed by the covenant ordained to grant and secure these. He could claim only under the stipulated grants of his covenant. Under other and different covenants, and made with other people, he could, of course, have no claim or right whatever. His circumcision effected all it was designed to effect, and meant more than the Jew was willing to accept. It cut him off from all the rest of the world, and also from all other covenants of God, but according to the flesh. His circumcision bound him down to the provisions and obligations of that covenant, and confined him within its prescribed limits. What claim, therefore can a Jew have to the grants and blessings of a covenant that has no special reference to him whatever, and that was not made with him as a Jew? The European had as well claim equal rights with the American under the constitution of the United States. The Jew was the chosen of God only according to the flesh, and entitled only to blessings of his covenant. He is not the chosen of God according to the spirit, or the seed of Isaac according to the promise, and hence he can have no right with those who are.

There are four things necessary to make a nation the peculiar and chosen people of God, and all these obtained in the case of the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh. These things are, 1. A creation. This we have in the birth of Isaac. His conception was a miracle, and hence a creation. 2. A seal. This we have in circumcision. 3. A purchase. This we have in the deliverance of this people from Egypt. And 4. A covenant. And this we have in the covenant made before Mt. Sinai. All these are peculiar and consistent, and perfectly harmonious with all that God has promised, or has done for, the Jews. They were all equally necessary, and they follow each other as necessary results one of the other. The seal came to ratify the creation, the purchase, in demonstration of the fulfillment of the promise, and the covenant, in order that the people might also pledge themselves by covenant. By this the people became cemented and organized into a nation. As such they needed laws and institutions for their government and welfare as a people; and as the people of God, religious institutions for the various purposes which God had in view with that people. It will be observed that this covenant made with Abraham’s descendants arose under that which covenanted them as the peculiar people of God, and was, consequently, entirely Jewish. The covenant of Mt. Sinai was made with that people, and the institutions subsequently given, were given to that people, and to no other. The Jewish institution, in all its entirety, was as verily circumcised as were the people for whose benefit it was ordained. It was as completely isolated from all other religions and peoples, as were that people. Hence, it had no connection with any other, nor relation, except that of opposition. The covenant stipulated and embraced no more than did the promise under which it was made. It was a ratification, or acceptance on their part, of the stipulations of the promise. It was the covenant by which God renewed his promise to be their God, and by it the people accepted the offer, and covenanted to be the people of God. This covenant bound both parties to their pledgeGod to be their God, and them to be his obedient people. It did not, and could not stipulate and grant more than did the promise; hence, all these were temporal in their nature. This completed all that God had to provide for that people. Henceforth there was naught for either party to do, but to carry out the provisions of the covenant which formulated the promise. But this covenant was not only temporary as respects the rights, privileges, and blessings which it secured to that people; but it was also temporary in its duration. The people broke that covenant: and a covenant broken on one side, is broken on both. It was faulty in that it only contemplated and provided for man’s temporal wants. Indeed, this was the fault of the whole Jewish fabric, from the inception to the close. This was foreseen; and not only foreseen, but the whole structure was but a means to an end; a measure to give time for the preparation and institution of a better. The promise of God under which the whole Jewish structure arose, was not the first and chief promise that God made to Abraham, nor his chief purpose in calling him. This chief and greatest promise was that through him he would bless the whole human family. This promise the apostle interprets as having reference to Christ, and consequently, it was sooner or later, to take precedence of all others. It could not be annulled by any subsequent promise, unless that promise annulled, at the same time, all former ones. But this the subsequent promises did not do, as is affirmed by the people. The promise which had reference to Christ, preceded the ratification of that concerning the land several years, and antedated the covenant of circumcision twenty-four years. The covenant at Mt. Sinai followed the latter four hundred and six thereafter. So that nothing which transpired under the later promises could annul the first. The first and chief promise which contemplated spiritual blessings and a spiritual offspring through Isaac, was not ratified, fulfilled, or covenanted, for nearly two thousand years. All that has grown out of this promise has no connection with what arose under the others. It differs from them in every respect. It differed from them in the beginning. It came into the world through a different line. There were two lines of descendants in Isaac, as two promises were fulfilled in his descendants. The one line was the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and the other the seed according to the spirit, the latter of which is reckoned the true line under the covenant of the first promise. This excludes the children according to the flesh from all rights and privileges pertaining to the children according to the spirit. As respects, therefore, their nature, rights, and privileges, the Jewish and Christian institutions differ radically and entirely; to that degree as to exclude the one wholly from the other. The creation, the circumcision or seal, the purchase, and the covenant, that made the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh the people of God, have no place nor value under the Christian institution. The latter has its own creation, seal, purchase, and covenant, all of which are spiritual and eternal, and these give the Christian no rights or privileges under the former. Hence, as respects institutions differing so completely and widely, there can be no community of rights and privileges; nor can the one flow out of the other so as to establish any genetic connection between them. As the spiritual and the eternal necessarily supersede the fleshly and temporal, so does the Jewish institution, in whole and in part, give way to the Christian. Under the latter arises a people of God as distinct from the former as spirit is from flesh. The Christian is a new creation, and all that pertains to his creation is new. Before it the Jew and Gentile stand on the same ground. Both must become the subjects of this new creation before they can be regarded as belonging to the people of God. All the claim which the Jew once preferred, goes for naught under the operation of the new creation. A new birth is just as essential for the Jew as for the Gentile. Hence, the Jew’s creation, seal, purchase, and covenant are all naught when he stands before the Christian’S. His birth of the flesh avails nothing, and neither does his circumcision, Nothing is now acceptable to God but the new creation in Christ. These things being true, all that is Jewish has passed away. The Jews are no longer the people of God. Their whole religious service has perished; and what purpose God has now with that people remains to be seen. That he has no further purpose with them in regard to the fulfillment of his promise of blessing the world through them by Christ, is evident from the fact that Christianity has superseded Judaism, and that the whole religious service of that people perished with the total destruction of their temple. Christ is the end of the law, and of all that pertained to it. It was but a pedagogue to lead the Jews to Christ; so that when he came all that was Jewish was set aside, and the pedagogue was dismissed. All now become the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither bond nor free; neither male nor female; but all are one in Christ Jesus. And all who are Christ’s by virtue of the new creation, the spiritual seal, the eternal purchase, and the everlasting covenant, are the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise: In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (N. B. After hunting several years for a copy of Christopher’s book, I found it in the Dallas Christian College LibraryC. C.)

---

THE EXCELLENCE OF FAITH

(Read Romans 5:1-11).

In the study of First Principles the term which first engages our attention is faith. We shall find that it occupies a prominent place in connection not only with conversion, but also with every phase of Christian activity and growth.

Faith is one of the most far-reaching words in the vocabulary of inspiration. Without faith none of the blessings of the spiritual realm would be available to man. Contrariwise, on the ground of faith, such blessings as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived (1 Corinthians 2:9), are within his power to appropriate and enjoy.

Faith is an oft-recurring word in the New Testament. Jesus had much to say about it, and the word is used repeatedly in the Epistles. Paul states expressly that we are justified by faith (Romans 5 :).

The excellence of faith is indicated in scripture by the following representations:

1. Faith is superior to things and circumstances of this material world.

When given full sway in the human heart it rises above the circumstances of life and controls them. The power of faith is described in such scriptures as Matthew 17:20, Mark 9:23; Mark 11:23, Luke 17:6. Christians of this materialistic age, in bondage as they are to the tyranny of things, are inclined to look on these sayings of the Master with more or less skepticism. The tragedy is that we have never really learned to walk by faith. We cannot testify that these sayings are true for the simple reason that we have never learned to stand on God’s promises. True, we claim to do so, and we sing Standing on the Promises, but always with mental reservations. It is only through the exercise of implicit faith that we can throw off the fetters of anxiety and fear which enslave us to this present evil world. We are willing to obey the Lord in confession and baptism, but we certainly fall far short of His teaching in regard to such everyday matters as fear, worry, forgiveness, humility, and the like. (See Matthew 5:3-12; Matthew 5:21-26; Matthew 5:38-42; Matthew 6:25-33; Matthew 7:1-5; Matthew 7:7-12, etc. Cf. 1 John 4:18) He might well say to us as to His disciples of old, O ye of little faith!

2. Faith is the ground of our justification.

Being therefore justified by faithnot by faith alone, or mere intellectual assent (the theologians have added the word alone)we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Not by faith alone, because faith apart from works (i.e., works of faith) is dead (James 2:26). The faith that is unto the saving of the soul (Hebrews 10:39) expresses itself in works of obedience, sacrifice and service (Romans 12:1-2). To walk by faith is to live by the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25). God so loved us that He gave His only begotten Son as a propitiation for our sins (John 3:16), but we must appropriate this matchless Gift by faith. By true faith in Him we have access into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:2). For by grace ye have been saved through faith, and that (i.e., that salvation) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

3. Faith is the motivating principle of all Christian worship and service.

True worship is (1) communion of the human spirit with the Divine Spirit, (2) on the terms of the truth as revealed in scripture (John 4:24). This can be realized only through faith. Repentance is faith choosing; the confession is faith speaking; baptism is faith obeying; the Lord’s Supper is faith remembering; liberality is faith acknowledging God’s ownership; prayer is faith communing; meditation is faith pondering; and. the whole Christian life is faith serving. Therefore we are justified by faith. From the day of conversion to that of the putting, on of immortality, the actuating principle in the life of every true Christian is faith.

4. Implicit faith, along with obedience, is a necessary, condition to the answer of prayer (John 14:12-15; John 15:5-10, etc.).

(1) Acts 12:1-17. We read here that many of the early disciples were gathered together in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, praying for Peter’s deliverance from prison. Yet they were amazed when their prayer was answered and Peter stood in their midst. Most of our praying is of this kind; it has little conviction back of it. (Matthew 21:22).

(2) The prayer of faith, i.e., the petition offered in harmony with the teaching of God’s word, will not go unanswered.

Unanswered yet? The prayer your lips have pleaded

In agony of heart these many years?

Does faith begin to fail? is hope departing?

And thing you all in vain those falling tears?

Say not the Father hath not heard your prayer,

You shall have your desire, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Tho-’ when you first presented

This one petition at the Father’s throne,

It seemed you could not wait the time of asking

So urgent was your heart to make it known.

Tho-’ years have passed since then, do not despair;

The Lord will answer you, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Nay, do not say -ungranted-';

Perhaps your part is not yet wholly done;

The work began when first your prayer was uttered,

And God will finish what He has begun;

If you will keep the incense burning there,

His glory you shall see, sometime, somewhere.

Unanswered yet? Faith cannot be unanswered;

Her feet are firmly planted on the Rock;

Amid the wildest storms she stands undaunted,

Nor quails before the loudest thunder-shock.

She knows Omnipotence has heard her prayer, And cries, -It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!-’ And cries, -It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!-'

5. The blessings and rewards of the gospel are all received and realized through faith.

Among these are: (1) salvation from the guilt of sin (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18); (2) spiritual life (John 20:31; John 6:40, John 3:16; John 3:36; 1 John 5:12); (3) spiritual light (John 1:9; John 8:12; John 12:36); (4) heavenly adoption (Galatians 3:26); (5) the indwelling Spirit (John 7:39, Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:14); (6) justification (Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16): (7) true righteousness (Romans 1:16-17; Romans 10:6; Romans 3:22); (8) true worship (John 4:24, Ephesians 3:12); (9) providential oversight (1 Peter 1:5); (10) eternal rest (Hebrews 4:3). In fact the inheritance of all the promises of God is to be realized through faith (Hebrews 6:12).

Conclusion: No wonder then that faith is represented to be the foundation which supports the entire pyramid of Christian virtues that true disciples build, one stone upon the other, and upon which they climb heavenward (2 Peter 1:5-7). True Christians walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).

Faith, hope and love, according to Paul, constitute the abiding trinity of spiritual virtues (1 Corinthians 13:13). Of these three, love is greatest; because, in the home over there, faith will have given way to spiritual knowledge, and hope to fruition, leaving only love to consummate the blissful intercourse of the redeemed with their heavenly Father (Revelation 21:1-5).

THE NATURE OF FAITH

(Read Hebrews, ch. 11, esp. Hebrews 11:1.)

The eleventh chapter of Hebrews has been called Israel’s Roll of Honor. It is the great faith chapter of the Bible. It is an inspired discourse on the subject of faith. The discourse begins properly with the last three verses of ch. 10, in which the writer speaks of a faith that is unto the saving of the soul. The subject-matter which follows, in ch. 11, is an analysis of that kind of faith, what it is, whence it is obtained, and how it operates unto salvation, as exemplified in the lives of many illustrious believers of olden times. The writer proves to be an excellent sermonizer, as we might expect in view of his having been inspired by the Spirit of God. He states his text in v. 1, and then proceeds to develop it with appropriate illustrations drawn from Old Testament history. His concluding exhortation follows, in ch. 12, Genesis 12:1-2. We shall attempt here to evaluate the teaching of this great chapter on the nature (i.e., the original and essential characteristics) of faith.

Let me repeat that the kind of faith under consideration here is the faith that works unto the saving of the soul. By some this has been called saving faith. Not that faith of itself will save any one, because it will not; but that the right kind of faith will motivate the believer to such intelligent and sincere cooperation with God, on God’s terms and according to His plan, that He may consistently save the one who so believes. It is God who pardons and saves, but always through Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

What is faith? Considering the excellence of faith, it is exceedingly important that we know what faith is. I am profoundly thankful that the Holy Spirit has not left us in darkness regarding this essential matter. Nor has he left it to our finite minds to formulate a definition. We are not compelled to go either to philosophy or to theology for a definition of faithwe have it in clear, unmistakable terms, in the Christian Scriptures.

What, then, are the essential characteristics of faith? This question is fully answered in the words of our text, as follows:

1. Faith is assurance. Assurance is defined as confidence inspired or expressed, that which produces certainty. It connotes positiveness, certainty, even boldness.

2. Faith is assurance of things hoped for. That is, faith is the foundation of hope.

(1) Authorized Version: the substance of things hoped for. The word substance means in our language the stuff, material, or matter of which anything is composed. It is used here, however, in its derivative sense. It is derived from the Latin prefix, sub (under) and the Latin participle stans (standing). Substance, then is that which stands under. Faith is that which stands under hope. Cf. Living Oracles: faith is the confidence of things hoped for. Moffatt: faith means we are confident of what we hope for. Weymouth: faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope. Goodspeed: faith means the assurance of what we hope for.

(2) Faith is the foundation of hope. This is true in every department of human activity. It is true in the business world. I visited a friend on one occasion to solicit a contribution from him for a worthy cause. Having heard my case, his reply was: I believe in your proposition, and I am sorry that I am not in a position to help just at this time. But I will do something later. I have invested a considerable sum of money in an oil well in Texas, and I am expecting returns from this investment within a few months. If you will come back about a year from this date, I will give you a substantial donation. I thanked him, and departed. About a year later I called at his office a second time, and as soon as I entered he looked at me and exclaimed: I know what you have come for, but I can-’t do anything for you. What is the trouble? I asked, didn-’t the oil well turn out satisfactorily? And in extreme disgust he said: I wish I had the money back that I sank in that hole in the ground. The first time I called he was extremely hopeful, because he believed in the enterprise in which he had invested; the second time I found him with hopes blasted, because he had lost all faith in it. Where there is no faith, there is no hope.

(3) This is also true in the social realm. In the course of time a young couple will fall in love, marry, and establish a home. The success of their undertaking will depend largely on their faith in each other. On this foundation of faith they will erect a structure of dreams and plans and hopes. But let the confidence of one in the other be destroyed and this structure will fall to the ground. Both marriage and home are erected on a foundation of faith.

(4) So, in the realm of spirit, as elsewhere, hope rests upon faith. Every act of worship and service we perform is motivated by faith. Faith underlies the pyramid of Christian virtues (2 Peter 1:5-7). And all our aspirations and hopes respecting the home over there, the inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away (1 Peter 1:4) rest on faith. In everything faith is the foundation of hope.

(5) Illustrations from the chapter (Hebrews 11). (a) Abel’s hope that his offering would be acceptable to God rested on faith, Hebrews 11:4. (1 John 3:12) (b) Enoch’s walk with God was a walk of faith, Hebrews 11:5. (c) Faith was the foundation of Noah’s hope of deliverance from impending judgment, Hebrews 11:7. (d) Abraham’s hope of attaining the far country which he was to receive for an inheritance was founded on faith, Hebrews 11:8. Also, his hope of receiving Isaac back from the dead was inspired by faith, from whence he did also in a figure receive him back, Hebrews 11:17-19. (e) Sarah’s expectation of a son, the child of promise, rested on faith, Hebrews 11:11. (f) Joseph’s hope that the children of Israel would ultimately take possession of the land of promise rested upon his faith, Hebrews 11:22. (g) The aspirations, hopes and plans of Moses for his people, and his matchless efforts in their behalf, were all inspired by his faith, Hebrews 11:24-29. In every example cited, faith is presented as the foundation of hope.

3. Faith is a conviction … A conviction is defined as a strong belief, something firmly believed. The faith which operates unto the saving of the soul is something more than a passive intellectual assent. It is a conviction. It must be a conviction, one that takes hold of the soul and determines the course of one’s life. In the light of this definition, it is obvious that faith is precisely the thing that is lacking in the modern church.

4. Faith is a conviction of things not seen, i.e., a conviction with respect to things not seen.

(1) Authorized Version: the evidence of things not seen. Moffatt: Faith means. we are convicted of what we do not see. Weymouth: a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see. Goodspeed: our conviction about things we cannot see.

(2) Note that faith is a conviction with respect to things not seen. I have never seen Paris, but I have a conviction that there is a city by that name and that it is the capital of France. My conviction is the result of satisfactory evidence. Things which are seen are matters of observation and knowledge, but things that are not seen belong to the realm of faith. God who is a Spirit (John 4:24) cannot be seen, and is therefore to be apprehended only by faith. Angels, spirit, resurrection, immortality, heaven, etc., all these realities of the unseen world are matters of faith. Faith pertains not to the things that are illusive and transitory, but to the things which are abiding. For the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18).

(3) We have never seen God, but we believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him (Hebrews 11:6). We were not present to see the worlds created, but our conviction is that they were framed by the word of God (Hebrews 11:3). We have never seen Christ, our Elder Brother, but we believe in Him as the One who is abundantly able to save us from sin and mortality. We have never had a glimpse of heaven, but we believe that the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in us, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to our mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in us (Romans 8:11). Therefore we are exhorted to live by faith, to walk by faith and to die in the faith.

(4) Illustrations from the chapter (Hebrews 11). (a) Abel brought his offering to the altar with the conviction that the God whom he had never seen, but in whom he believed, would accept it, Hebrews 11:4. (b) In Noah’s heart there was an overwhelming conviction that judgment would come upon the antediluvian world because of its wickedness. Although summer and winter, and seedtime and harvest, continued to come and go as usual for one hundred and twenty years, he never faltered. Through all the trying experiences of this period of grace he retained his conviction. Because that during all these intervening years there was no evidence in nature of the impending catastrophe, it was a conviction with respect to things not seen, Hebrews 11:7. (c) Abraham left home and kindred and friends, and started on a strange journey to a land both unknown to him and unseen by him. He had no idea how far he would have to travel in order to reach it. All that moved him was a conviction with respect to the far country and a conviction that God would give it to him for an inheritance. Hebrews 11:8-12. (d) These fathers of Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all died in the faith, having never received the literal fulfilment of the promises. So far as we know they all died without possessing a single acre of the land of promise save the few square feet they had purchased for a burial ground. It seems that as they continued in their pilgrimage their faith became clearer, and they began to look beyond the literal to the spiritual fulfilment of the promise, in the city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God, Hebrews 11:13-16. (e) Joseph’s conviction with respect to the exodus of his people from Egypt pertained to an event far in the future, an event not seen, Hebrews 11:22. (f) Moses, the man who saw an undying flame, chose to share ill treatment with the people of God, above the temporary enjoyment of the pleasures of sin, because he endured as seeing him who is invisible (Hebrews 11:23-29). In all these cases, faith was a conviction with respect to things not seen.

(5) As in the various cases cited from Old Testament history, so it is with respect to faith in the present dispensation and under the new covenant: (a) our faith must be something more than mere assent; (b) it must be genuine conviction in order to work unto the saving of the soul; (c) it must be conviction with respect to things not seen, viz., God, the Son of God, the Spirit of God, the future life, heaven, etc.; (d) this faith undergirds all our spiritual blessings, aspirations and hopes (1 Corinthians 2:6-10).

Conclusion: 1. This inspired definition of faith is perfect and complete. Nothing can be taken from it without weakening its import. Nothing can be added to it that would give it greater force.

2. Christian faith takes in all those convictions with respect to God, the Son of God, the Word of God, the Spirit of God, immortality, heaven, and the like; all of which are eternal realities above and beyond the realm of time and space. Like Moses, we endure as seeing him who is invisible, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Like Abraham, we realize that we are pilgrims and strangers upon this earth, that our present dwelling places are but the tabernacles of a night-time; and, like him, we anticipate a more glorious fulfilment of the promises than would be possible in this world of places and things (1 Corinthians 2:9-10). Our ultimate goal is that heavenly country towards which he made his pilgrimage. In the words of Emily Dickinson:

I never saw a moor, I never saw the sea, Yet know I how the heather looks, And what a wave must be. I never spoke with God, Nor visited in heaven; Yet certain am I of the spot As if the chart were given.

---

THE SOURCE OF FAITH

(Read Romans 10:1-17).

Having ascertained the essential nature of faith (1) the assurance of things hoped for, and (2) a conviction with respect to things not seen, we shall now turn our attention to the source of faith. Whence is the faith obtained that is unto the saving of the soul? We may find the answer to this important question by turning again to the cases cited in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews:

1. Abel, Hebrews 11:4. Whence did Abel obtain his conviction that the offering of a sacrifice of blood would be pleasing to God and would bring him God’s blessing? Evidently from the word of God. It seems obvious that God laid down the law of sacrifice as soon as man fell, in order to establish the principle that apart from shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). Abel, in bringing an offering in which blood was shed, obeyed the law; Cain, in bringing the fruit of the ground, disobeyed it (1 John 3:12). This explains why Abel’s offering was accepted and Cain’s rejected.

That this institution was of divine origin is evident from several considerations: I. We learn from Hebrews 11:4, that Abel offered his sacrifice in faith. But in Romans 10:17, we are told that -faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.-’ And hence it follows that Abel could not have offered in faith without a command from God. II. It could not have been a human invention, because Reason can perceive no connection between the means and the end. It is evidently a positive and not a moral or natural institution. III. Its universality is another proof of its divine origin. Mr. Faber says that -throughout the whole world there is a notion prevalent that the gods can be appeased only by bloody sacrifices. There is no heathen people,-’ he adds, -that can specify a time when they were without sacrifice. All have had it from a time which is not reached by their genuine records. Tradition alone can be brought forward to account for its origin.-’ IV. The distinction between clean and unclean beasts even in the time of Noah (Genesis 7:2) proves also the divine origin of sacrifice. This is a distinction which is altogether positive, and which has no foundation in either reason or philosophy (Milligan, SR, 67).

2. Enoch, Hebrews 11:5.Enoch’s walk of faith was evidently inspired and directed by the word of God (Genesis 5:24).

3. Noah, Hebrews 11:7. How did Noah obtain his conviction that an overwhelming deluge would come upon the antediluvian world? How did he obtain the conviction that in the building of the ark a means of deliverance would be provided him and his family? Evidently from the word of God. God told him the flood would come in due time. God told him to build the ark and how to build it. God gave him the plans for it. God promised him deliverance through the instrumentality of the ark. And Noah believed God. His conviction was inspired not by any manifestation in nature, but solely by the word of God. See Genesis 6:13-22; Genesis 7:1-5; Genesis 8:15-17.

4. Abraham, Hebrews 11:8-19. Whence did Abraham obtain his conviction regarding the land to which he journeyed? Whence did he obtain his belief that this land would be given him for an inheritance? From the word of God. See Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 13:14-18, etc. It was God who told him about the far country and promised it to him for an inheritance. Whence did Abraham and Sarah obtain their conviction regarding the birth of the child of promise? From the word of God (Genesis 17:15-21). Whence did Abraham obtain his conviction that God would not allow Isaac to suffer an untimely end (Hebrews 11:19)? From the word of God. Had not Isaac been miraculously conceived and born? Were not the details of the Abrahamic promise to be worked out through him? (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 13:16; Genesis 17:19, Hebrews 11:18). Cf. Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23.

5. Joseph, Hebrews 11:22. Whence did Joseph obtain his conviction that his people would leave Egypt and repossess Canaan? Evidently from God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 13:14-18; Genesis 17:15-21; Genesis 26:2-5; Genesis 28:12-17).

6. Moses, Hebrews 11:22-29. From whom did Moses receive his commission to lead his people out of bondage? From whom did he receive the Law ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator (Galatians 3:19)? From God Himself. See Exodus 3:1 to Exodus 4:17, Exodus 20:1-26, Deuteronomy 5:1-33, etc. Who was his constant Guide and Protector through all those terrible marches in the wilderness? Who rained manna from heaven upon the starving people? Who guided them by means of a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night? Moses constantly endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

7. Joshua, Hebrews 11:29. Whence did Joshua obtain his confidence that the walls of Jericho would fall? From Jehovah’s word. He went to God for a war program, in his extremity, and God supplied it (Joshua 6:1-20).

8. Rahab, Hebrews 11:30. Whence did Rahab obtain her belief that she should give aid and succor to the men of Joshua’s army? Evidently from her knowledge of God’s promises and judgments (John 2:9-21; John 6:22-25, James 2:25).

9. The creation, Hebrews 11:3. Whence do we obtain our belief that our physical universe was the materialization of God’s word? Our conviction that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear (i.e., that this universe was not fashioned out of pre-existing materials, as the evolutionists and materialists contend)? From the word of God. (See Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Psalms 148:5, etc. Note that the expression, God said, is found ten consecutive times in Genesis 1. Cf. also John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, 2 Peter 3:5-8, etc.).

10. Other great heroes and heroines of faith, Hebrews 11:32-39. All received their inspiration to deeds of heroism from the attractions and impulsions of God’s word. So, then, belief cometh of hearing the divine word, as our text says. Believers in all ages endure as seeing Him who is invisible.

Conclusion: So much for the examples from Old Testament history. But what about the faith that operates unto the salvation of the soul, in the present dispensation, under the new covenant?

1. From what source do we obtain our belief that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him (Hebrews 11:6)? From the testimony about Him as revealed and recorded in Scripture. From the complete and perfect revelation of Him afforded us in the person and work of Jesus Christ, whom to know aright is eternal life. John 15:9-11, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 1:3-12, etc.

2. From what source do we obtain our conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God? From the testimony presented in the Scriptures, particularly that of the gospel records. This is our only source of accurate information about Him, See John 17:20, John 20:30-31, Acts 15:7, Acts 17:11-12, etc. Why should me reject the testimony of these competent eye-witnesses, these men who walked and talked and supped with Him, and listen to the quibblings of half-baked professors removed from Him by a span of twenty centuries?

3. Whence do we obtain our convictions respecting the future life and its rewards and retributions? From the testimony of Scripture? From the great and exceeding precious promises of God.

4. Romans 10:17. Hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Faith does not come by feeling, nor by a direct operation of the Spirit, nor in answer to prayer, but faith does come by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:6-8, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

---

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH

(Hebrews 11:1-19, esp. Hebrews 11:13)

One of the most illustrious characters of ancient times to whom our attention is called by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people.

Abraham’s life and walk were so eminently motivated by faith, that his name has gone down in sacred history as the Father of the Faithful, and as the Friend of God (Romans 4:17, Galatians 3:29, Isaiah 41:8, 2 Chronicles 20:7, James 2:23).

1. Note, in the first place, that Abraham’s whole life was a pilgrimage of faith.

(1) It was by faith that he first went out from his native home, Ur of the Chaldees. As faith comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17), so he went out in response to God’s command (cf. Genesis 12:1-3). He did not go out in consequence of any urge within himself, but solely in obedience to God. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance (Hebrews 11:8).

(2)* By faith he made his initial pilgrimage from Ur of Chaldea to the land of promise.* As faith is a conviction with respect to things not seen (Hebrews 11:1), he therefore went out not knowing whither he went (Hebrews 11:8). Commenting on this verse, Milligan says: Here we have given the fact that Abraham received a call from God; that by his call he was required to leave his home and kindred in Ur of Chaldea, and go out into a strange land; that this land, though promised to his posterity, was wholly unknown to him at the time; and that he nevertheless obeyed God, and went out of his own country, not knowing whither he went (Milligan, NTCH, in loco.)

(3) By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, etc. It would seem from this that Abraham never regarded Canaan as his home. He knew of course, by faith, that when the Canaanites should have filled up the cup of their iniquity to the full, in the fourth generation, the land would be given to his posterity for an everlasting possession, as indeed it was in the time of Joshua (Genesis 15:12-21). But until that time neither he nor his seed, he realized, had any rights or privileges there beyond what might have been accorded other strangers under like circumstances. (Cf. Acts 7:5). Hence Abraham died without owning a foot of the land other than the cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite for a burying-ground (Genesis 23:3-20); and hence, also, neither he, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, ever established a permanent residence in the country. They were satisfied to live in movable tents, feeling assured that according to the promise, they were to fall heir to a better inheritance than any that is to be found on this earth.

(4) By faith he looked beyond the literal to the spiritual fulfilment of the promise. For he looked for the city which hath the foundations, etc. (Hebrews 11:9-10). From this and other like passages we are constrained to think that God had given the patriarchs information with regard to the heavenly country, far beyond what is now recorded in Genesis or any other part of the Old Testament. What we find there at present was written for our instruction, as well as for the benefit of the ancients (Romans 15:4). But much may have been said to them which would in no way benefit us; and which was, therefore, excluded from the Canon by Moses, Ezra and other inspired writers. The origin of sacrifice, for instance, is nowhere expressly mentioned in the Old Testament; nor is there anything said in it respecting the origin of the Patriarchal priesthood. Information, clear, full, and explicit, on all such matters, was of course needed by the ancients; but for us the more general instructions of the Bible are quite sufficient. And so, also, we think it was with respect to the heavenly country. The Patriarchs seem to have received revelations concerning it which have never been transmitted to us; for it is obvious that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, lived in constant expectation of entering it at the close of their earthly pilgrimage. They were satisfied to live here as strangers and pilgrims, knowing that they had in heaven a city having permanent foundations whose Architect and Framer is God. This city is manifestly the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:28, Hebrews 12:22; Hebrews 13:14), which for the present is located in heaven, but which will hereafter descend to the earth after the latter shall have been renovated by fire (Revelation 21). Then will be fulfilled in its full and proper sense the promise made to Abraham, that he and his seed should be the heirs of the world (Romans 4:13) (Milligan, ibid.).

In the land of fadeless day,

Lies -the city four-square-';

It shall never pass away,

And there is -no night there.-'

God shall -wipe away all tears,-'

There’s no death, no pain nor fears,

And they count not time by years,

For there is -no night there.-'

(5) By faith he anticipated the birth of the child of promise (Hebrews 11:11-12, Galatians 4:23, Genesis 17:15-21; Genesis 18:9-15; Genesis 21:1-7). The miraculous conception and birth of Isaac, typical in respect to its supernaturalness of that of Jesus, were direct fulfilments of the promise of Jehovah which Abraham believed. In this respect Abraham’s faith was even greater than Sarah’S, who, on being told, at ninety years of age and long after she had passed the age of child-bearing, that she should give birth to a son, received the announcement at first with considerable incredulity (Genesis 18:9-15).

(6) By faith he offered up Isaac on Mount Moriah, accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a figure receive him back (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham’s faith was such that he knew that the promise of God (Genesis 17:21; Genesis 21:12) could not and would not fail, and as he could not anticipate that God would interfere, as He did, so as to prevent the immolation of his son, there was really left for him no alternative other than simply to conclude that God would restore Isaac to life. This conviction seems to be implied in the remark which he made to his servants, -Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again.-’ The word rendered come again (we will return) is in the plural number, and seems to indicate a belief on the part of Abraham, that God would immediately raise Isaac up again from the dead (Milligan, ibid.) The account of this, the severest trial and consequently the supreme manifestation of Abraham’s faith, is related in Genesis 22:1-14).

(7) Having walked in faith, he likewise died in faith, not having received the promises but having seen them and greeted them from afar, etc. What were the promises? (a) That Abraham should have a, numerous offspring (Genesis 13:16; Genesis 15:3-5; Genesis 17:2-4; Genesis 22:16); (b) that God would be a God to him and to his seed after him (Genesis 17:1-8); (c) that He would give to him and his seed an everlasting inheritance (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:18-21; Genesis 17:8); (d) that through him and his seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed (Genesis 2:3; Genesis 22:18). With respect to these four details, Abraham looked beyond their literal to their spiritual fulfilment. To each of these God attached a double significance.. They each consisted, so to speak, of two elements, one of which had reference to the carnal side of the covenant, and the other to the spiritual side; one to the type, and the other to the antitype. Thus Abraham was made the honored father of two families: to each of which an inheritance was promised, and through each of which the world was to be blessed (Milligan, ibid.). Abraham, it would seem, understood all this, understood by faith that the spiritual side of the promise would be realized through his seed, the Messiah, and consequently rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it, and was glad (John 8:56). (Cf. Galatians 4:21-31; Galatians 3:6-13, etc.) Hence, he died in faith, knowing that the promise in its various details would be worked out according to God’s eternal purpose and plan. Hence, too, by his constant life and walk of faith, he admitted that he did not seek a home on this earth, that here he considered himself merely a stranger and sojourner, that he did not expect to enter into possession of his true home until he should have reached the end of his pilgrimage and been received into a better country than this, i.e., heaven itself. Wherefore God approved and rewarded the faith of Abraham, and of Isaac and Jacob as well, by preparing for their inhabitation, and for all the redeemed of all ages, a city whose foundations had, even in their day, been laid prospectively in the blood of Jesus Christ (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24).

2. Note, in the second place, that Abraham’s pilgrimage of faith was designed to be typical of the believer’s journey.

(1) A voyage to a distant landsuch is the life of every Christian believer.

Our life is like the hurrying on the eve Before we start on some long journey bound, When fit preparing to the last we leave, Then run to every room the dwelling round, And sigh that nothing needed can be found; Yet go we must, and soon as day shall break; We snatch an hour’s repose; when loud the sound For our departure calls; we rise and take A quick and sad farewell, and go ere well awake.

(2) Here we walk by faith, and not by sight, if we are true Christians. Though in the world, we are not of the world. The worldly spirit deals with things present, but the spirit of faith anticipates the more glorious things to come. The worldly spirit is neither far-reaching nor far-sighted. Its range is bounded by the horizon of time and sense. It has no wings with which to soar into realms invisible. It is of the earth, earthly. Whence comes the manna? why gushes the water from the rock? whither guides the pillar of cloud and fire?these are questions it never asks. It knows not how to soar, how to anticipate and trust and wait, how to endure as seeing Him who is invisible, how to repose under the shadow of His wings, unmindful of the dangers of the wilderness and unalarmed by foes. But the heavenly-minded man walks by faiththat faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and a conviction with respect to things not seen. And, among all the great verities which possess his soul there is none greater, none nobler, none surer, than his conviction with respect to the saints-’ everlasting home. All the circumstances of his present journey, all the remembrances, all his reasonings, all his aspirations, point to a Better Land. By faith he sings:

There is a land of pure delight,

Where saints immortal reign,

Infinite day excludes the night,

And pleasures banish pain.

There everlasting spring abides

And never-withering flowers;

Death, like a narrow sea, divides

This heavenly land from ours.

(3) We realize that as far as this present life is concerned we are but strangers and sojourners on the earth. We dwell in tents, as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; in the tabernacles of a night-time. We are here today, and gone tomorrow. There is nothing that we possess here that we can really call our own. All that we shall have in the end is a few square feet of earth in which our mortal remains will be laid away to mingle with the dust. This is not sentimentaityit is plain fact. We can-’t take anything material with us into the next world, for the simple reason that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. No matter how diligently we may toil and strive to accumulate houses and lands and worldly goods, of what value will these things be when we reach the end of the road? We are pilgrims, nothing more, walking by faith in the direction of the heavenly country which we expect to reach beyond the swelling of the Jordan, the country that will truly be, Home, Sweet Home. The true Christian philosophy is expressed by Phoebe Carey in these lines:

One sweetly solemn thought

Comes to me o-’er and o-’er:

I am nearer my home today

Than I have ever been before.

Nearer my Father’s house

Where the many mansions be;

Nearer the great white throne,

Nearer the crystal sea.

Nearer the bound of life,

Where we lay our burdens down;

Nearer leaving the cross,

Nearer gaining the crown.

(4) Observation teaches us that much in this life is inequality and injustice. As far as this world alone is concerned, honesty is not always the best policy, Judas fares about as well as John, and Nero quaffs more of the wine of living than Paul. The voice of experience speaks to us that if this life is all, it is scarcely worth the living. In the words of Robert Browning:

Truly there needs be another life to come! If this be all And another life await us not for one, I say, -Tis a poor cheat, a stupid bungle, A wretched failure, I for one protest Against, and I hurl it back with scorn.

(5) Life as we live it here is largely illusion. (See F. W. Robertson, Sermons, The Illusiveness of Life). Our senses deceive us. They deceive us with respect to distance, shape, and color. That which, afar off, seems to be oval, turns out to be circular when modified by the perspective of distance; that which appears to be a speck, becomes a vast body, on nearer approach. Stand in the middle of a railroad track, and look in either direction, and the rails appear to converge; but they do not actually do so. Look at what we call the horizon and it seems that the earth and sky meet, but they do not actually, meet. The beautiful berry turns out to be bitter and poisonous; that which apparently moves is in reality at rest; that which seems to be stationary is in perpetual motion; the earth moves, but the sun, which appears to be moving, stands still. All experience here is but a correction of life’s illusionsa modification or reversal of the judgment of the senses. Our natural anticipations deceive us. Every human life starts out bright with hopes that will never be realized. These hopes may be different in nature: finer spirits may look on life as an arena for good deeds, while the more selfish regard it as a place only for personal enjoyment; but the results are usually the same. Regardless of the nature of these hopes, the majority will fail of fruition. It would seem almost a satire on life to compare the youth in the outset of his career, flushed and sanguine, with the aspect of the same man when he is nearly done, worn, sobered, covered with the dust of life, confessing that its days have been few and evil. Where is the land flowing with milk and honey? Not on this earth. With our affections it is even worse. Man’s affections are but tabernacles of Canaan, the tents of a nighttime, never the same, always changing. Where are the charms of character, the perfection and purity and truthfulness which seemed so resplendent in our friend? Association has rendered them sordid. They were only our conceptions and they proved false; hence we outgrow friendships. Life as we live it here is an unenjoyable Canaan with nothing real or substantial about it. Our expectations, resting on divine revelation, deceive us. For example, the attitude of the church with respect to the second coming of Christ. The apostles expected Him to return while they were yet here, and the early churches were vitalized by this hope of seeing the great and notable day of the Lord. John, in penning the last words of the New Testament, expressed this hope, Come, Lord Jesus. The church, throughout the centuries of the Christian era, has revived and revitalized this hope many times; in fact it has never died away. And even today, if it should turn out that we who are alive shall remain unto the coming of the Lord, we would consider ourselves fortunate indeed. However, He has not come. He will comebut not as yet. The promise, This Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven, remains unfulfilled. What is the meaning of all this illusiveness of earthly life? Faith replies that it is not delusion, but illusion; that the non-fulfilment of the promises literally, is a pledge of their spiritual fulfilment later; that God, by their very non-realization, lures us onward and upward to nobler things. Suppose, for instance, that the spiritual side of the Abrahamic promise had been revealed to ancient Israel at first; suppose they had been informed at the outset that God’s rest is inward, that the land of promise is to be found only in the Jerusalem which is above; not material, but immaterial; not visible, but invisible. That rude, gross people, yearning after the flesh-pots of Egypt, willing to go back into slavery so only they might have enough to eat and drinkwould they have quitted Egypt on such terms? Would they have taken one step on that pilgrimage which was to find its meaning in the discipline of the ages? Nothey had to be lured on by something visible, something tangible. So we are lured on through life as upon a journey. Could man see the route before hima flat, straight road, unbroken by tree or eminence, with the sun’s heat burning down upon it, stretching out in dreamy monotonyhe could scarcely find either the inclination or the energy with which to begin his journey. It is the very uncertainty of that which is not seen, that which lies just around the bend, that keeps expectation alive. The view we think we may get from yonder summit, the landscape that may be glimpsed as the road winds around yonder knoll, hopes like these beguile the weary traveler on. So our heavenly Father leads us on, educating us day by day, and hour by hour, to walk in faith, ever holding up the seen as an incentive to the unseen. So He deals with us, luring us on by means of life’s unsatisfactory and illusive rewards, ever schooling us in the art of waiting, of enduring as seeing Him who is invisible. Canaan first; then the hope of a Redeemer; and finally the Better Land. It was in this manner that the ancient saints interpreted this mystery of the illusiveness of life. They did not regard life as a dream, nor as a bubble, nor as a delusion. Though they no doubt felt as keenly as any moralist could feel; the brokenness of its promises, yet by faith they pressed on, confessing that they were pilgrims and strangers here, that they had no continuing city, never mournfully moralizing about it, but admitting it cheerfully and even rejoicing that it was so. They felt that all was right; they knew that the promise had a deeper than material significance; so they looked for the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. They even died in faith, not having received the promises, not expecting to receive them here, but hereafter. Now observe the glorious result that comes from the indestructible power of believing and continuing on, in spite of apparent failure. The primitive Christians, for instance, believed in their day that the millennium was at hand. They had heard the apostolic warning, brief and clear, to watch. Now suppose, instead of this, they had been able to look into the future and see all the dreary pages of church history unfolded, with its heresies, its apostasy and divisions; suppose they could have known that even after two thousand years the world would scarcely know the alphabet of the Christian religion; knowing all these things, what would have become of their gigantic and heroic efforts, their sacrifices, their persecutions and their martyrdoms? With such knowledge of the future, do you suppose there ever would have been what we consider the heroism, the sacrifice, the passionate zeal of primitive Christianity? It is in this way that God leads His children on, on to realization and achievement through the illusiveness of the past; as a father educates his child, holding up the seen, all the while nurturing the thought of the unseen. Thus we shall continue to the endto that day when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. Thus the non-fulfilment of God’s promises becomes to the man of faith an earnest of their deeper and nobler fulfilment.

(6) Finally, as in Abraham’s case, heaven is the goal of our pilgrimage. We expect to find illusion here, and we expect to find reality hereafter. We know that things here are seen and temporal, and we know, too, that the things we shall enjoy hereafter, the things that are now unseen, will be eternal. Interpreted, then, in the light of faith, life’s illusions are not disappointing; in fact nothing is disappointment if spiritually discerned. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called our God; for he hath prepared for us a city (Hebrews 11:16).

There’s a land that is fairer than day,

And by faith we can see it afar,

For the Father waits over the way,

To prepare us a dwelling-place there.

Just recently Dr. F. B. Meyer, one of England’s greatest preachers, entered into rest. Writing to a friend just three days before his death, this is what he said: Dear Friend: I have just been told, to my surprise, that my days on earth are numbered. It may be that before you receive this letter, I shall have passed within the Palace of the King. Do not trouble to write. I will meet you in the morning. Yours, with much love, F. B. Meyer. I will meet you in the morningwithin the palace of the King. This is Christian faith. This is conviction. Death isn-’t the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of greater growth, greater progress, greater service, and greater joy. As Louise Chandler Moulton has written:

At the end of Love, at the end of Life, At the end of Hope, at the end of Strife, At the end of all that we cling to so The sun is settingmust we go?

At dawn of Love, at Dawn of Life, At dawn of Peace that follows Strife, At dawn of all we long for so The sun is rising*let us go!

Conclusion:* Wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city. This is the promise! And God keeps His promises!

How beautiful to be with God,

When earth is fading like a dream,

And from this mist-encircled shore

To launch upon the unknown stream!

No doubt, no fear, no anxious care,

But, comforted by staff and rod,

In the faith-brightened hour of death,

How beautiful to be with God.

Beyond the partings and the pains,

Beyond the sighing and the tears,

Oh, beautiful to be with God

Through all the endless, blessed years

To see His face, to hear His voice,

To know Him better day by day,

And love Him as the flowers love light,

And serve Him as immortals may.

My sinner friend, will you not turn now, and start upon your pilgrimage of faith?

Genesis 15:1-21

PART TWENTY-EIGHT THE STORY OF ABRAHAM: DIVINE ELABORATION OF THE PROMISE AND THE COVENANT

(Ch. 15)

1. The Biblical Account (ch. 15)

1. After these things the word of Jehovah came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2 And Abram said, O Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? 3 *And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4 And, behold, the word of Jehovah came unto him, saying, This man shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. 8 And he said, O Lord Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? 9 And he said unto him, Take me a heifer three years old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. 10 And he took him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half over against the other: but the birds divided he not. 11 and the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses and Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 and also that nation whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces. 18 In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, 20 and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, 21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite. 2. The Unity of Chapter 15*

The analytical critics have tried to tear this chapter into shreds from three points of view, namely, 1. That there is discrepancy in respect to time. According to Genesis 15:5, it is in the night and the stars are visible; but Genesis 15:7-11 imply that it is in the day; in Genesis 15:12 a, the sun is setting, and in Genesis 15:17, it has gone down. Green (UBG, 202-203): But it is not easy to see how anyone can imagine a difficulty here. The transaction described required time. The vision (Genesis 15:1) occurred in the night or in the early morning when the stars still appeared in the sky (Genesis 15:5). A fresh communication was made to Abram (Genesis 15:7 ff.) which, whether it followed the preceding one immediately or after an interval, contained directions that could only be executed in the daytime. Five animals were to be taken and slain, properly prepared and divided, and the parts suitably adjusted. This would occupy a portion of the day, and during the remainder of it he guarded the pieces from the birds of prey. Then came sunset with the prophetic disclosure (Genesis 15:12-16), and finally darkness with the symbolic ratification of the covenant. The narrative is consistent throughout and develops regularly from first to last. 2. That a vision is announced in Genesis 15:1, but it cannot possibly be continued through the chapter, Green (ibid., 203): Knobel thinks the vision does not begin till Genesis 15:12, and ends with Genesis 15:16. This is plainly a mistake; the communication in Genesis 15:1 is expressly said to have been made in a vision. Whether all the communications in the chapter were similarly made, and only Genesis 15:10-11 belong to Abram’s ordinary state, or whether the vision is limited to Genesis 15:1-6, as Wellhausen supposes, it may be difficult to determine, and it is of no account as nothing is dependent on the mode in which the revelation was given. 3. That Genesis 15:8 is inconsistent with Genesis 15:6. In the latter Abram is said to have believed the Lord; and yet he asks in the former for a visible token of the truth of God’s word. Green (ibid., 203): But this request does not indicate doubt or distrust, but rather a desire for a more complete assurance and a fresh confirmation of his faith in the fulfilment of promises so far transcending all natural expectation. (ibid., p. 208): It is plain enough that no partition of the chapter has been found possible. The signs of its composite character are hard to discover. Its lack of conformity to any one of the so-called documents discredits these documents, not the unity of the chapter. (Butcan any measured time sequence be ascribed to prophetic vision?) Again, we have an instance in which the ultra-intellectualized mentality is unable to see the forest for the trees: unfortunately, this defect is, in most cases, a manifestation of the will to find discrepancies (where none actually exist) for the ultimate purpose of discrediting the trustworthiness of the Bible.

The content of this chapter (15) divides naturally into four parts: the Promise, the Sign, the Oracle, and the Covenant. 3 Abram’s Dialogue with God (Genesis 15:1-4).

Leupold (EG, 470): In a very particular sense this is a monumental chapter, monumental in the testimony that it bears to saving truth. It is for this reason that Paul alludes to a word from this chapter when he establishes the truth concerning salvation (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6). It is nothing short of amazing to find in the patriarchal age so clear-cut an answer to the question: How can a man be justified in the sight of God? The way of salvation was one and the same in the old covenant as well as in the new. (That is, by the obedience of faith to the terms prescribed by the Divine Will in either case.) Skinner (ICCG, 280) rightly refers to his incident (esp. Genesis 15:6) as a remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith (cf. Romans 4:3; Romans 4:9; Romans 4:22; Galatians 3:6).

Genesis 15:1the word of Yahweh. The first occurrence of this remarkable phrase, afterward so common in the Hebrew Scriptures (Exodus 9:20, Numbers 3:16, Deuteronomy 34:5, 1 Samuel 3:1, Psalms 33:6, et passim). That this was a personal designation of the pre-incarnate Logos, if not susceptible of complete demonstration, yet receives not a little sanction from the language employed throughout this narrative (cf. Genesis 15:5; Genesis 15:7; Genesis 15:9; Genesis 15:13-14, etc.) At least the expression denotes -the Lord manifesting himself by speech to his servant-’ (Whitelaw, PCG, 216; Murphy, MG, 295). Note that the word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision, that is, a night vision, not in a dream (cf. Genesis 15:5). Whitelaw (ibid., 216): Biblically viewed, the vision, as distinguished from the ordinary dream, defines the presentation to the bodily senses or to the mental consciousness, of objects usually beyond the sphere of their natural activities; hence, visions might be imparted in dreams (Numbers 12:6) or in trances (Numbers 24:4; Numbers 24:16-17).

Genesis 15:1Fear not, Abram, etc. Was this fear anxiety about his defenseless position among the surrounding Canaanite tribes, many of whom probably were growing envious of his increasing power and prosperity, and by the possibilitycertainly not to be ruled outof a retribution descending on him from the Eastern powers? Or, was it a kind of mental dejectionnot necessarily distrust of God, but melancholycaused by the fact of his continuing to remain childless? Skinner (ICCG, 279): To die childless and leave no name on earth (Numbers 27:4) is a fate so melancholy that even the assurance of present fellowship with God brings no hope or joy. This: was considered a tragedy indeed, in the thinking of the ancient world! Leupold et all affirm that this fear of remaining childless is what Abram and the Lord alone refer to. With this view we are inclined to agree, from the fact that this constitutes the subject matter of the dialogue that follows between Abram and Yahwe. Note the divine reassurance, Genesis 15:1I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. Murhpy (MG, 293): The word -I-’ is separately expressed, and therefore emphatic, in the original. I, JEHOVAH, the Self-existent, the Author of existence, the Performer of promise, the Manifester of myself to man, and not any creature however exalted. This was something beyond a seed, or a land, or any temporal thing. The Creator infinitely transcends the creature. The mind of Abram is here lifted up to the spiritual and the eternal. 1. Thy shield. 2. Thy exceeding great reward. Abram has two fearsthe presence of evil, and the absence of good. Experience and conscience had begun to teach him that both of these were justly his doom. But Jehovah has chosen him, and here engages Himself to stand between him and all harm, and Himself to be to him all good. With such a shield from all evil, and such a source of all good, he need not be afraid. The Lord, we see, begins, as usual, with the immediate and the tangible: but he propounds a principle that reaches to the eternal and the spiritual. We have here the opening germ of the great doctrine of -the Lord our righteousness,-’ redeeming us on the one hand from the sentence of death, and on the other to a title to eternal life. In the vision the intelligent observer passes from the merely sensible to the supersensible sphere of reality. (SIB, 236):* Fear not,* indulge no slavish or excessive terror on account of thine enemies, wants, or dangers, or on account of the awful appearances of God, Isaiah 43:1; Isaiah 41:10; Matthew 28:5; Revelation 1:17-18. I am thy shield, infallibly to protect thee, Psalms 3:3; Psalms 84:11; Psalms 91:4, and thy exceeding great but gracious reward of thy piety and love, giving myself, in all that I am and have, to thee, as thine everlasting all and in all, Proverbs 11:18; Psalms 19:11; Psalms 16:5-6; Psalms 42:5; Deuteronomy 33:26-29, Isaiah 41:10; 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 3:15-23, Colossians 2:9-10. Abram’s Reply (Genesis 15:2-3). What avails it in the way of external prosperity and comforts, as long as I have no child of my own, but only this Syrian servant, Eliezer of Damascus, to be my heir? Again (SIB, 236): The full force and meaning of Abram’s words can only be seen by considering his position in connection with the promise originally given to him. He was not only childless, but to all human appearance hopelessly so. God had promised him that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude. As yet there was no sign, as he thought, no hope of its fulfilment. Consequently, when the Lord now says, -I am thy shield,-’ etc., Abraham replies in the bitterness of hopelessness, -What wilt thou give me? What can make up for the want of a child?-’ -The heir of my house is this Damascus-Eliezermy slave must be my heir.-’ Abram’s complaint amounts to just this: All gifts and promises are nothing to me since a child is withheld. Special notice should be taken of Abram’s form of address here: O Lord Jehovah. This is the first time the name Adonai appears in the divine records. This address, comments Leupold (EG, 473), represents a very respectful and reverent address and shows Abram as one. who was by no means doubtful of God’s omnipotence. But, at the same time, Abram voices the natural misgivings of the limited human understanding. Certainly this limitation God Himself recognized: hence His reiteration of the subject-matter of Gen 12:2-3 and Genesis 13:16, coupled with a reply to Abram’s particular complaint.

4. The Divine Promise of an Heir (Genesis 15:4-6).

(HSB, 25): The concern of Abraham here is made intelligible by the Nuzi tablets. From these tablets we learn that childless couples used to adopt a slave on condition that he would care for them and give them a proper burial. If a natural son should be born later, the slave heir was disinherited to a great extent. Speiser (ABG, 112): We know now that in Hurrian family law, which was also normative for the patriarchs, two types of heir were sharply distinguished. One was the aplu or direct heir; and the other was the ewuru or indirect heir, whom the law recognized when normal inheritors were lacking. Such an ewuru could be a member of a collateral line, and at times even an outsider, depending on the circumstances. Consequently, our Dammesek Eliezerwhoever he may have been and whatever the first word might meanwas juridically in the position of an ewuru. Here, then, is another instance of Hurrian customs which the patriarchs followed, but which tradition and its later expounders were bound to find perplexing. Genesis 15:6 surely indicates that a servant by the name of Eliezer, apparently a Damascene by birth, was the only prospective heir to Abram’s estate. It is significant to note that the divine promise was specific: Yahwe declared explicitly that, not Eliezer, but the one who would issue from Abram’s own body would be his heir. Thus Abram’s unwillingness to part with the hope that the Promise, however seemingly impossible, would eventually be realized, the unwillingness which caused him so pathetically to call the Divine attention to his childless condition, was recognized and rewarded by Yahwe’s assurance that the Promise would not go unfulfilledan assurance that must have thrilled his anxious heart with joy.

5. The Accompanying Sign (Genesis 15:5-6).

Apparently without any request on Abram’s part, Yahweh then proceeds to confirm the Promise with a sign: and he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. That is, since no man can put himself into a position such as to be able to count the number of the stars, it follows that Abram’s posterity likewise would be innumerable. (Cf. again Genesis 12:2, Genesis 13:16.) Genesis 15:6And Abram believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. One of the greatest words in the Old Testament is found here for the first time in Scripture; it is the word rendered believe, a word which essentially means trust: the author would indicate that the permanence of this attitude is to be stressed; not only, Abraham believed just this once, but, Abram proved constant in his faith (Leupold, EG, 477). So now, when God asks Abram to carry out certain orders, Abram unhesitatingly obeys, and this attitude is demonstration of his faith. But even more is revealed here: God’s response to Abram’s implicit obedience shows that the patriarch met with God’s favor (grace is unmerited favor); he was justified; his faith had been counted to him for righteousness. And now, in the verses following, *we see the promise and the Sign issuing forth in the Covenant.

God reckoned this abiding trust to Abram as righteousness. Righteousness* is here a right relationship to God, and it was conferred by the divine sentence of approval in response to Abram’s trust in God’s character. In Deuteronomy 6:25; Deuteronomy 24:13, this righteousness is attained by obedience to the law. Here Abraham, who had no law to fulfill, was nevertheless made righteous because of his inner attitude, a position which is approximated in Psalms 24:5 and to a lesser degree in Psalms 106:31 (IBG, 600). (JB, 31): The faith of Abraham is an act of trust in a promise which, humanly speaking, could never be realized. God acknowledges that this act is worthy-’ of reward (Deuteronomy 24:13, Psalms 106:31), accrediting it to Abraham’s -righteousness,-’ namely, to that sum of integrity and humble submission which makes a man pleasing to God. St. Paul uses this text to prove that justification depends on faith and not on the works of the Law; but since Abraham’s faith was the mainspring of his conduct, St. James is able to cite this same text when he wishes to condemn -dead-’ faith, i.e., faith without the works that spring from it. (Cf. Rom., ch. 4, James 2:14-26). Righteousness is the equivalent of measuring up to the demands of God. Righteousness here, as elsewhere in Scripture, means literally justification, that is, divinely accepted as just, good, or righteous; it follows from loving obedience to God’s way of doing things (as distinct from self’s way of doing things (cf. Matthew 3:15). Leupold (EG, 478): What God demands and expects of a sinful mortal is faith. He that has faith measures up to God’s requirements, is declared to have manifested the normal attitude pleasing to God; against such a one God has no wrath or displeasure. He counts him innocent; He gives him a verdict of -not guilty.-’ Under the old covenant salvation was the gift of the grace of God through faith as it is under the new covenant. In Romans (ch. 4) the Apostle Paul uses Abraham as an example of one whose faith, and not his works, justified him. Indeed, he argues that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, a seal that follows faith, not precedes it (HSB, 26). Cornfeld (AtD): It was the tribal practice to enter into a personal relationship, namely a covenant or agreement, with the deity, so that God would devote himself to the covenanters, in return for their exclusive agreement with him. This was not an agreement between equals, but as between a great ruler and those who promise to be his loyal subjects. So the divine protector was known to Abraham as -Your Shield-’ (Genesis 15:1), whereby Abraham was to recognize and worship no other deity and God was to protect and seek the welfare of Abraham and his family exclusively.. This closeness of man to God was a social phenomenon which will be illustrated shortly in the dialogue between God and Abraham over the fate of Sodom (Genesis 18). It is important to note that in Israel’s tradition of the divine covenant, the role of the patriarchs was twofold: (a) They stood in a covenantal relation to the Lord Yahweh; (b) They lived by faith on the one hand and experienced the faithfulness of God on the other. One point of the patriarchal narratives and their arrangement is to teach what the Bible meant by faith; an illustration is the description of Abraham as -father of faith.-’ This will make clear a most significant statement explaining Abraham’s attitude: -And he believed the Lord, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness-’ (Genesis 15:6). This implies that God required just that man should choose Him to be his God. Biblical Hebrew, be it noted, has no word for -religion.-’ The true religion is designated as the -fear of God-’ (or Yahweh).

6. The Divine Promise of the Land and the Accompanying Sign (Genesis 15:7-11).

On this occasion the Almighty not only solemnly assures His servant that he shall sire a son himself, an earnest of a seed as numerous as the stars in the heavens; but He also reiterates the Divine promise of the Land of Promise, namely, that the land on which the patriarch walks shall be his progeny’s inheritance (cf. Genesis 12:1, Genesis 13:14-17). Abram asks in reply, By what proof shall I know that I shall possess the land; that is, May I have some intimation as to the time and mode of entering upon possession of it? O Lord Jehovah: Again the same reverent address as in Genesis 15:2, in token of his faith in God’s ability to perform what He promises. But this faith seeks legitimate tokens; it is anxious to have still fuller assurance. So Abram asks, not in a spirit of doubt but with the purpose to be more solidly established in its conviction. The sign Abram asks for is in reference to concrete possession in the here and now: a perfectly reasonable and legitimate request, under the circumstances. (Cf. Gideon’s prayer, Judges 6:17 ff.; also Mary’s question, Luke 1:34.) In reply, God condescends to show him that a covenant is to be established, and tells him what must be done on his part. (Note again Cornfeld’s explanation in the paragraph above.) He bade the patriarch take a heifer, a ram and a she-goat, each three years old, together with a turtle-dove and a young pigeon, and after dividing each of them except the birds, to lay them piece by piece over against the other. This seems to have been the ancient procedure in the matter of establishing covenants, especially among the Chaldeans. Having divided the animals (cut each in two, cf. Jeremiah 34:18-19), the contracting parties would pass between the halves; this may have implied that a similar lotthat is, being killedwas to befall their own cattle in the event of their violating the covenant. However, in this case, there was a significant modification: the contracting parties were not to pass between the halves, nor is the threat implied in anything that was done. In this case, Abram did as the Lord had ordered him, slew the victims, and laid the divided parts in order. Then from morning until evening he watched them, and from time to time drove away the birds of prey which hovered over them. The proceeding in this instance, therefore, was not a sacrifice, even though the victims killed were later incorporated in the Mosaic ritual of sacrifice; rather, it was that aspect of the covenantal relationship which manifested the faith of the worshiper.

It should be noted, in this connection, that the Amorites of the Mari documents used asses for this kind of ritual, with the result that to slay an ass was in their terminology idiomatic for to enter into a compact. It was this prominence of the ass in pagan cults that caused the Israelites to proscribe that animal in their own ritual sacrifices (Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20). Archaeologists tell us also that the Hurrians (Horites) of Nuzi resorted on solemn occasions to a combination of one bull, one ass, and ten sheep. Turtle doves and pigeons are mentioned repeatedly in connection with the ritual provisions laid down in the book of Leviticus (Genesis 14:22). (HSB, 26): Cutting the animals in halves may have been part of the normal custom or ritual at a covenant sealing. The Hebrew of Gen 15:18 reads that God -cut a covenant-’ with Abraham. For a long time Old Testament scholars doubted the accuracy of this expression, but texts have been uncovered in Quatna and Mari informing us that covenants were sealed by some ritual involving the cutting up of asses. Cf. JB, 31: Ancient ritual of covenant (Jeremiah 34:18): the contracting parties passed between the parts of the slain animal and called down upon themselves the fate of the victim should they violate the agreement. The flame symbolizes Yahweh (cf. the burning bush, Exodus 3:2, the pillar of fire, Exodus 13:21; the smoke of Sinai, Exodus 19:19); He alone passes between the parts because His Covenant is a unilateral pact, the initiative is His; cf. Genesis 9:9ff. (The covenant with Noah was likewise a unilateral covenant). (Some commentators hold that this covenant was bilateral (as described in ch. 15) because Abram passed between the parts when he placed them in proper order.)

Is any symbolic significance to be attributed to the respective animals used in this covenantal response by Abram? (JB, 31): The birds of prey were a bad omen (cf. Genesis 40:17 ff.) signifying the miseries of Israel’s bondage in Egypt; the dispersal of the birds symbolizes her deliverance. (Cf. Virgil’s Aeneid, 3:225 ff.) Murhpy (MG, 298): When Abram asks for some intimation as to the time and manner of entering into possession of the Promised Land, the Lord directs him to make ready the things requisite for entering into a formal covenant regarding the land. These include all kinds of animals afterward used in sacrifice. The number three is sacred, and denotes the perfection of the victim in point of maturity. The division of the animals refers to the-’ covenant between two parties, who participate in the rights which it guarantees. The birds are two without being divided. Abram drove them away (i.e., the birds of prey). As the animals slain and divided represent the only mean and way through which the two parties can meet in a covenant of peace, they must be preserved pure and unmutilated for the end they have to serve. Skinner (ICCG, 281): The preparation for the covenant ceremony; although not strictly sacrificial, the operation conforms to later Levitical usage in so far as the animals are all such as were allowed in sacrifice, and the birds are not divided, Leviticus 1:17.

Note the elaborate symbolism suggested, SIBG, 236-237: Ver. 8-15. Moved by the Spirit of God, Abram asked this sign. The beasts he presented to God were emblems of his seed; the heifer prefigured them in their patience, labour, and proneness to backsliding, Hosea 4:16; the goat, in their mischievousness and lust, Jeremiah 5:7-9;the ram, in their strength and fortitude, Numbers 24:8-9; the doves, in their simplicity and harmlessness in their purest state, Psalms 74:19. The division of the four-footed animals (1) represented the torn condition of his seed, by the division of the kingdom, etc., 1 Kings 11:12-13; (2) ratified the covenant made with him and his seed, in God’s passing between the pieces, in the symbol of the burning lamp. The pieces being laid over against one another, imported that God would in due time join the separated and scattered Hebrews into one body, Ezekiel 37:15-22. The fowls which attempted to light on the pieces, denoted the Egyptians, and other enemies of Israel, which should in vain attempt to devour them, Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 17:7; Ezekiel 17:12. The horror of great darkness which fell upon Abram, signified their great distress and vexation in Egypt, and under their frequent oppressors, Psalms 55:3-5, Daniel 10:8; and hence they are like to a bush burning and not consumed, Exodus 3:2-3. The burning lamp denoted their manifest and joyful deliverance, Judges 6:21, Isaiah 62:1; the smoking furnace, their affliction in Egypt, Deuteronomy 4:20, Jeremiah 11:4. It should be noted again that it was the Lord Jehovah who did the promising and the revealing: all that was required of Abram was that he believe the word of God and act accordingly. This Abram did, actualizing in every detail the ritual of the unilateral covenant (which was soon to be extended to include circumcision as the divinely appointed seal).

7. The Oracle (Genesis 15:12-17).

In this connection, review Green’s analysis (supra) of the time element involved in the sequence of Abram’s experiences as related in this chapter. After keeping watch over the birds of sacrifice, driving away the birds of prey, evidently from what in his consciousness was morning until evening, the sun went down, we are told, and a deep sleep fell upon him, and a horror of great darkness gathered around him. Amidst the deepening gloom there appeared unto him a Smoking Furnace and a Burning Lamp passing along the space between the divided victims. Presently a Voice came to him telling him that his seed should be a stranger in a land that was not theirs, that there they should suffer affliction 400 years; that afterwards, in the fourth generation, when the cup of the Amorites was full, they should come out with great substance, return to the spot where the patriarch now was, and enter on their promised inheritance. Thus, amidst mingled light and gloom, the ancestor of the elect nation was warned of the chequered fortunes which awaited his progeny, while at the same time he was assured of the ultimate fulfillment of the Promise, and the actual boundaries of the lands of his inheritance were marked out from the river of Egypt to the distant Euphrates; and in this confidence Abram was content to possess his soul in patience, Luke 21:19 (COTH, 37). The present writer is inclined to the view that the time sequence of events narrated here was not that of Abram’s usual day and night, but that of his experiences of light and darkness (daylight, sunset, etc.) in his prophetic or preternatural sleep brought on by Divine influence. Many a man has experienced dreams whose content stretched over more or less extended periods of duration, only to discover on awaking that he has actually been asleep only a few minutes of humanly-measured time. Such indeed are the phenomenal powers of the Subconscious in man. We have no way of knowing how long-drawn-out the sequence of Abram’s total vision experience was. As Leupold writes (EG, 482): As far as the vision itself is concerned, it transpires in such a fashion that in the course of it Abram sees the sun at the point of setting, about as a man might dream he sees the sun setting. Such a dream or vision might occur morning, noon or night. Attempts to compute the length of time over which the experience extended by the expressions used such as -the sun was about to go down,-’ would lead to an unnaturally long lapse of time. The setting of the sun in the vision prepares for the falling of darkness upon him. But first of all comes a -deep sleep-’ which is as little a -trance-’ here as it was in Genesis 2:21. The -terror and the great darkness-’ that fall upon him are the terror which the ancestor experiences in the vision, at the revelation of the sufferings which his descendants must endure. In the vision he feels these things in anticipation, even before the revelation is imparted to him that his descendants are destined to this particular form of misery. Again, ibid., p. 483, concerning Genesis 15:13-16: Now comes the revelation in words apart from the symbolic act, which here is made to represent the same facts, but it can be understood only after the revelation thus offered by word and by symbol makes the fact involved doubly impressive; and, surely, there was need of unusual emphasis, for this word was largely to furnish the much needed light during the dark ages of the period here described. Thus Abram was to know of a surety (Genesis 15:13), that is, in a very definite way, of the bondage in which his progeny should suffer in the times ahead, of their subsequent deliverance by the mighty hand and outstretched arm of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 5:15), and of the divine judgment that was certain to fall upon their oppressors.

Lange comments as follows (CDHCG, 411), and in a somewhat different vein: V. 12. From this reference to the time, we may judge what was the marvelous attention and watchfulness of Abram. The great scene of the revelation began on the previous night; he had stood under the starry heavens as holding a solemnity; the victims were slain, and the pieces distributed, and then the watch over them was held until the setting of the sun. His physical strength sinks with it, a deep sleep overcomes him. But the disposition for visions preserves itself in the sleep, and so much the more, since it is even the deep, prophetic sleep. Abram sees himself overtaken by a great horror of darkness, which the word of Jehovah explains to him. It was the anticipation of the terror of darkness, which, with the Egyptian bondage, should rest upon the people. This bondage itself was pointed out to him, under three or four circumstances: 1. they would be oppressed and tortured in this service; 2. it would endure four hundred years; 3. the oppressing people should be judged; 4. they should come out of the bondage with great substance. It is to be distinctly observed, that the name of this people, and the land of this servitude, is concealed. Moreover, there are further disclosures which concern the relation of the patriarch to this sorrow of his descendants. He himself should go to his fathers in peace in a good, that is, great age. But his people should reach Canaan in the fourth generation after its oppression, from which we may infer that a hundred years is reckoned as a generation.

Jamieson (CECG, 145): While visions and dreams were distinct, there was a close connection between them, so close that, as Henderson (-On Inspiration-’) has remarked, -the one species of revelation occasionally merges into the other.-’ Such was the case in the experience of Abram. The divine communications first took place in the daytime in a vision, but afterwards, at sunset, they continued to be made when -a deep sleep and a horror of great darkness fell upon him.-’ -The statement of the time is meant to signify the supernatural character of the darkness and of the sleep, and to denote the difference between a vision and a dream-’ (Gerlach). That Abram saw in prophetic ecstasy the servitude of his children in Egypt, represented in a panoramic view before his mental eye, is maintained by Hengstenberg, who thinks that this scenic picture accompanied the prediction made to him, and recorded in the following versesa prediction remarkable for its specific character, and which bears upon its front the marks of having been uttered before the event to which it refers took place. God here revealed to Abram future history and events in the life of the promised seed. The bondage in Egypt is foretold and its length marked as four hundred years or four generations. The Egyptian bondage, then, was part of the plan of God for the cradling of the Hebrew race. But it also reveals the mercy and kindness of God toward the Amorites to whom He extended time for repentance before judgment should befall them (HSB, 26).

Genesis 15:15Note the personal aspects of the Divine promise. These were literally fulfilled. Abram did go to his fathers in death, his spirit to the world of spirits, and his body to the grave (dust), where theyhis fathershad gone before him (Hebrews 12:23; Genesis 25:8; Genesis 25:17; Genesis 49:29; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Numbers 27:13; Numbers 31:2; Judges 2:10; 1 Chronicles 23:1; 1 Chronicles 29:28; Job 42:17; Jeremiah 8:2). And he went in peace, without remarkable trouble of any kind: in peace with God, with his own conscience, and with his neighbors (Psalms 37:37; Isaiah 57:2; 2 Kings 22:20). And it was also in a good old age, when he was full of years, weary of this world, and ready and longing for heaven, yet free from any of the infirmities of old age, and falling like ripe fruit in the time of gathering (Genesis 25:8; 1 Chronicles 29:28; Job 5:26) (SIBG, 238). Consider carefully the promise, thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace. Is not more implied here than the return of their bodies to the dust? From the vivid portrayal of Abraham’s faith presented in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, especially Genesis 15:10, it surely would seem so. Whitelaw comments (PCG, 221): Not a periphrasis for going to the grave, since Abram’s ancestors were not entombed in Canaan; but a proof of the survival of departed spirits in a state of conscious existence after death, to the company of which the patriarch was in due time to be gathered. The disposal of his remains is provided for in what follows. Cf. Leupold (EG, 48 5): The expression -go unto thy fathers-’ must involve more than having his own dead body laid beside the dead bodies of the fathers. So we find here a clear testimony to belief in an eternal life in the patriarchal age. Coupled with this revelation from God is the assurance of a decent burial at a ripe old age, a thing desired especially in Israel, and, for that matter, among most of the nations of antiquity.

The specifics of the Divine communication (oracle) here are indeed clear, as follows: 1. The bondage of the Children of Israel in a strange (unnamed) land over a period of 400 years. (Cf. Exodus 12:40, for 430 years, the witness of Moses; Acts 7:6,for 400 years, the testimony of Stephen the martyr; Galatians 3:17, for 430 years, from the confirmation of the Promise to the giving of the Law, the words of the Apostle Paul.) (For this problem of the time span involved, see infra.) The identity of the nation involved is not disclosed, probably because Egypt was wont to serve as a place of refuge for peoples of Mesopotamia and Asia (now designated Asia Minor) when those areas were hit by famine, as had occurred already in the case of Abram (Genesis 12:10); probably because God did not want to appear to be interfering with the free volition of His creatures, who, while accomplishing his high designs and secret purposes, are ever conscious of their moral freedom (PCG, 221); conceivably, lest the fleshly seed of Abram should conceive, prematurely, an undue prejudice against the Egyptians. We must keep in mind that man is predestined to be free, hence his free choices constitute the foreknowledge of God: it follows, therefore, that the sequence of events disclosed in this oracle, although indeed foreknown by Yahweh were not necessarily foreordained by Him. Foreknowing the circumstances that would cause the migration of the Israelites into Egypt, and the bondage that would ensue with the ascent of a Pharaoh to the Egyptian throne who would be driven by jealousy to attempt what might be called a modified form of genocide, i.e., of Israel and his progeny, Yahweh, according to His own pronouncement, would effect their deliverance by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm (Exodus 1:8 ff., Deuteronomy 5:15). 2. Their delivery from this bondage with great substance, and the judgment that would be divinely imposed on their oppressors. (Cf. Exodus 12:35-36.) The God of Israel utilized the world-shaking events of the Period of Deliverance (Exodus) to demonstrate beyond any possibility of doubt His absolute sovereignty, in striking contrast to the powerlessness of pagan gods, and in particular those monstrosities which characterized Egyptian paganism. Jamieson (CECG, 145): The exodus of Israel from Egypt was to be marked by a series of severe national judgments upon that country; and these were to be inflicted by God upon the Egyptians, not only because the subjects of their grinding oppression were the posterity of Abram, but on account of their aggravated sins particularly that of idolatry. As Dr. Will Durant writes (OOH, 197-200): Beneath and above everything in Egypt was religion. We find it there in every stage and form from totemism to theology; we see its influence in literature, in government, in art, in everything except morality. The Egyptians heaped unto themselves gods of every kind and description: sky gods, the Sun-god (Re, Amon, or Ptah), plant gods, insect gods, animal gods (so numerous that they filled the Egyptian pantheon like a chattering menagerie), sex gods (of which the bull, the goat, and the snake were especially venerated for their sexual reproductive power), humanized gods (human beings elevated to godhood: even these, however, retained animal doubles and symbols). The Nile River was especially an object of veneration (with good reason, to be sure, because all life in Egypt depended on its inundations). It is a matter of common knowledge that every one of the great Plagues (Exo., chs. 7 through 12) was directed against some form of Egyptian worship. In addition to all this, phallic worship in its grossest forms characterized all aspects of Egyptian ritual and life (Cf. Romans 1:18-32). 3. Their return to the Promised Land in the fourth generation, when the iniquity of its inhabitants should be full (cf. Genesis 6:5). 4. The specific boundaries of the land: it would extend from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. This geography is further clarified by the enumeration of the Canaanite peoples who occupied the land (Genesis 15:19-21). The River of Egypt: not the Wady el Arish, at the southern limits of Palestine (Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4, Isaiah 27:12), an insignificant winter torrent designated in Scripture the brook of Egypt; not the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, from Pelusium which was from earliest times the frontier town of Egypt; but surely the Nile itself, the only river worthy of being designated the River of Egypt. This did not necessarily mean that the boundary of Israel should some day actually extend to the Nile directly; but, that in relation to the Euphrates these two great rivers were the easiest way of designating within what limits Israel’s boundaries should lie (EG, 490). Some authorities hold that at two different times in Israel’s history this extent of territorial sovereignty was realized: first, during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 4:21-25; 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chronicles 9:26) and later, in the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel (2 Kings 14:25-28). Because of the uncertainty of geographical identifications here, the present writer is inclined to agree with other authorities whose position is well stated by Jamieson (CECG, 147): The descendants of Abram, in point of fact, never extended their possessions, even in the greatest height of their national prosperity, to the full extent of the boundaries here defined. But the land of promise, as contemplated in the Divine purpose, was co-extensive with the limits specified, and the failure to realize the full accomplishment of the promise arose not from unfaithfulness on the part of God, but from the sinful apathy and disobedience of those to whom the promise was given, in not exterminating the heathen, who had forfeited the right to occupy the land (Exodus 23:31).

The Inhabitants of the Land. The nations enumerated here as occupying the Land of Promise are ten in number. The enumeration varies in other Scriptures: in Exodus 23:28, three are mentioned as representative of all; in Exodus 3:17, six are named; most generally named are seven, as in Joshua 24:11. This variation may be attributed to two factors: the appearance of other ethnic groups in the territory between Abram’s time and the occupation under Joshua, and the obvious inclusiveness with which some of the names are vested, especially the names, Canaanite, Amorite, and Hittite, For the Kenites, see Numbers 24:21; Judges 1:16; Judges 4:11; Judges 4:17; Judges 5:24; 1 Samuel 30:29; for the Kadmonites, children of the East, Judges 6:3; Job 1:3; for the Hittites, who certainly occupied the area in the north between the Sea of Tiberias and the Mediterranean, see Genesis 23:10; Genesis 26:34; Joshua 1:4; Judges 1:26; Judges 3:5; 1 Kings 11:1; 2 Kings 7:6;2 Chronicles 8:7; Ezra 9:1; for the Perizzites, who are always mentioned along with the Canaanites, cf. Genesis 34:30; Exodus 3:8; Exodus 23:23; Joshua 17:15; Judges 1:4-5; Judges 3:5; 2 Chronicles 8:7; Ezra 9:1; for the Rephaim, see comment in Part Twenty-Seven herein, on Genesis 14:5; for the Jebusites, cf. Genesis 10:16; Exodus 33:2; Exodus 34:11; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 15:63 (here mentioned as inhabiting Jerusalem); Judges 1:21; Judges 19:11; 2 Samuel 5:8. According to Speiser (ABG, 69), the Jebusites constituted the ruling Hurrian element in Jerusalem during the Amarna age, ca. 1400 B.C. The location of the Kenizzites (mentioned only in this place) and that of the Girgashites are unidentifiable; however, cf. Genesis 10:16; Genesis 36:15; Genesis 36:42; Deuteronomy 7:1, Joshua 3:10, 1 Chronicles 1:14, Nehemiah 9:8. As for the Canaanites and the Amorites, either as an ethnic group or as a complex of ethnic groups, see any reliable Concordance.

The Iniquity of the Amorites. Amorite, normally, designates a specific nation or people, but is sometimes also used, like the name Canaanite, for the pre-Israelite population of Canaan. (Cf. all this material with the Table of Nations, ch. 10). The Amorites were so numerous and powerful throughout the land that their name was often, as is the case here, given to all the occupants (cf. Judges 6:10, Joshua 10:5; Joshua 24:15): one of their great cultural centers was Mari, on the middle Euphrates northwest of Babylon, where the archaeologist, M. A. Parrot, has dug up thousands of clay tables from the archives of an Amorite king. In the Oracle of Gen 15:16,we are told that the occupancy of the Promised Land by the Israelites was to be delayed four hundred years because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full, that is, had not reached such a state that there was no one righteous among themno, not one! As a matter of fact, that the Canaanites were not yet vessels fit only for destruction is proved by the courtesy of Abimelech toward Abraham, and of one of his successors toward Isaac later (chs. 20, 26). Jamieson (CECG, 146), concerning Genesis 15:16: The statement implies that there is a progress in the course of sin and vice among nations as well as with individuals, and that, although it be long permitted, by the tolerant spirit of the Divine government, to go on with impunity, it will at length reach a culminating point, where, in the retributions of a righteous Providence, the punishment of the sinner, even in this world, is inevitable. Iniquity is full, when it is arrived at such a number of acts, such a degree of aggravation, and time of continuance, that God, in consistence with, his purpose or honour, can no longer forbear to punish it (SIBG, 238). (Cf. Genesis 6:3, Jeremiah 5:13, Daniel 8:23, Joe 3:12, Matthew 12:32, 1 Thessalonians 2:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, Revelation 19:15-16).

Murphy (MG, 299): For the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. From this simple sentence we have much to learn. 1. The Lord foreknows the moral character of men. 2. In his providence he administers the affairs of nations on the principle of moral rectitude. 3. Nations are spared until their iniquity is full. 4. They are then cut off in retributive justice. 5. The Amorite was to be the chief nation extirpated for its iniquity on the return of the seed of Abram. Accordingly we find the Amorites occupying by conquest the country east of the Jordan, from the Arnon to Mount Hermon, under their two kings Sihon and Og (Numbers 21:21-35). On the west of Jordan we have already met them at En-gedi and Hebron, and they dwelt in the mountains of Judah and Ephraim (Numbers 13:29), whence they seem to have crossed the Jordan for conquest (Numbers 21:26). Thus had they of all the tribes that overspread the land by far the largest extent of territory. And they seem to have been extinguished as a nation by the invasion of Israel, as we hear no more of them in the subsequent history of the country. No nation is destroyed until its iniquity becomes intolerable to Absolute Justice. (Cf. Genesis 18:22-23, 1 Kings 19:18, Romans 11:4, Exodus 17:14, Deuteronomy 25:17-19; Matthew 23:37-39; Ezekiel 21:27I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, that is, Jerusalem.) History proves that there are times when the destruction of a nation’s power, even of the nation itself, becomes a moral necessity. National sin prevented the Israelites from possessing the whole country originally promised to Abraham (Exodus 23:20-33, with Joshua 23:11-16, Judges 2:20-23). The country as promised here to Abraham was much more extensive than that described by Moses in Numbers 34 (SIBG, 238).

The Time-Span Problem: four hundred years, in the fourth generation (Genesis 15:13; Genesis 15:16; Acts 7:6),vs. four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 12:40, Galatians 3:17). These phrases have given rise to much computation and differences of interpretation. The Septuagint gives Exodus 12:40 as follows: The sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was 430 years. The Samaritan Version reads: The sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years. Whitelaw (PC, Exodus, Vol. I, Intro., p. 17): If the Hebrew text is sound we must count 430 years from the descent of Jacob into Egypt to the Exodus; if it is corrupt, and to be corrected from the two ancient versions, the time of the sojourn will be reduced one-half, for it was a space of exactly 215 years from the entrance of Abraham into Canaan to the descent of Jacob into Egypt. From the entrance of Abraham into Canaan to the birth of Isaac was twenty-five years (Genesis 12:4; Genesis 17:1; Genesis 17:21); from the birth of Isaac to that of Jacob was sixty years (Genesis 25:26).Jacob was 130 years old when he went into Egypt (Genesis 47:9). Thus 25plus 60 plus 130 equals 215 years-’ (ibid.) In refutation of this view, it should be noted that according to the Hebrew text the Children of Israel were to be afflicted four hundred years. But there is no evidence that the seed of Abraham suffered affliction of any unusual kind at the hands of the Canaanites: indeed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob seem to have been treated with considerable courtesy by their Canaanite neighbors (chs. 20, 26; esp. ch. 34, the account of the perfidy of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, toward the Hivite princes). In fact none of the statements with reference to the nation oppressing the Israelites (Genesis 15:13-14) can apply to the Canaanites. Moreover, the longer period is most consonant alike with the estimate formed of the entire number of the grown males at the time of the Exodus (600,000, Exodus 12:37), and with the details given of particular families in the Book of Numbers, as especially those of the families of the Levites, in ch. Genesis 3:21-24 (ibid.). It seems obvious that the account which is given in the Hebrew text is the authentic one: this is supported by the fact that there are signs that the Septuagint and Samaritan texts are interpolated, and by the additional fact that it is only the length of the sojourn in Egypt that is in the writer’s mind at this point of his narrative (ibid.).

Leupold (EG, 484): The whole experience of being sojourner, being enslaved, and being oppressed shall involve -four hundred years.-’ To make the whole sojourn one continuous oppression is completely at variance with the facts. In fact, computing according to the life of Moses, we should be nearest the truth if we allot the last century to the oppression. The four hundred years mentioned are, of course, a round number, which is given more exactly in Exodus 12:40 as 430 years. Keil and Delitzsch (BCOTP, 216): That these words had reference to the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt, is placed beyond all doubt by the fulfillment. The 400 years were, according to prophetic language, a round number for the 430 years that Israel spent in Egypt. Jamieson (CECG, 145): -Four hundred years.-’ The statement is made here in round numbers, as also in Acts 7:6,but more exactly 430 years in Exodus 12:40, Galatians 3:17. Whitelaw (PCG, 221): Three different stages of adverse fortune are describedexile, bondage, and affliction; or the two last clauses depict the contents of the first. Four hundred years. The duration not of their affliction merely, but either of their bondage and affliction, or more probably of their exile, bondage, and affliction; either a round number for 430, to be reckoned from the date of the descent into Egypt, as Moses (Exodus 12:40) and Stephen (Acts 7:6)seem to say, and to be reconciled with the statement of Paul (Galatians 3:17) by regarding the death of Jacob as the closing of the time of promise; or an exact number dating from the birth of Isaac, which was thirty years after the call in Ur, thus making the entire interval correspond with the 430 years of Paul, or from the persecution of Ishmael which occurred thirty years after the promise in ch. Genesis 12:3. Gosman (CDHCG, 413): The genealogical table, Exodus 6:16 ff., favors a much shorter residence than four hundred years; since the combined ages of the persons there mentioned, Levi, Kohath, Amram, including the years of Moses at the time of the exodus, amount to only four hundred and eighty-four years, from which we must take, of course, the age of Levi, at the entrance of Jacob into Egypt, and the ages of the different fathers at the birth of their sons. It is better, therefore, with Wordsworth, Murphy, Jacobus, and many of the earlier commentators, to make the four hundred years begin with the birth of Isaac, and the four hundred and thirty of the apostle to date from the call of Abram. Again, Leupold (EG, 484): The four hundred years mentioned are, of course, a round number, which is given more exactly in Exodus 12:40 as 430 years. Michell’s computations agree with these figures, making the year of Jacob’s going down into Egypt to be 1879 B.C. and the year of the Exodus 1449. Since this latter year, or perhaps 1447 B.C., is now quite commonly accepted, we may let these dates stand as sufficiently exact for all practical purposes. How Moses arrived at the computation 430 in Exodus 12:40 need not here concern us. Other instances of exact predictions in numbers of years are found in Jeremiah 25:11; Jeremiah 29:10, in reference to seventy years; and Isaiah 16:14, for a matter of three years. As for the Apostle’s time-span, Galatians 3:17, this would simply show that, in writing to Greek-speaking Jews, whose only Bible was the Septuagint version, he made use of that translation. It would not even prove his own opinion upon the point, since the chronological question is not pertinent to his argument, and, whatever he may have thought upon it, he would certainly not have obtruded upon his Galatian disciples a wholly irrelevant discussion (PC, Exodus, Vol. I, Intro., p. 18).

Genesis 15:16. In the fourth generation. This should probably read the fourth generation shall return, etc. Here the original word, dor, translated generation, means circle. turning, age. Jamieson (CECG, 146): the revolution or circle of human years; an age or generation. Like genea among the Greeks, and saeculum among the Romans, its meaning, as to extent of time, differed at different periods. In the patriarchal age it denoted a hundred years (cf. Genesis 15:13 with Exodus 12:40). In later ages its signification was more limited, as it is used to describe a period of from thirty to forty years (Job 42:16). And on the ground of this ordinary import borne by the word -generation,-’ a recent writer has founded an objection to the historical truth of this history. But he draws an unwarrantable conclusion; for, as there are only two modes of computing a -generation,-’ the original rate of calculating it at from thirty to forty years, and the patriarchal usage to which, in accordance with Abram’s habits of thought, the Divine Revealer accorded his words, it is evident that the -fourth generation-’ is to be taken in the latter sense, as is distinctly intimated in Genesis 15:13. Keil and Delitzsch (BCOTP, 216): The calculations are made here on the basis of a hundred years to a generation: not too much for those times, when the average duration of life was above 150 years, and Isaac was born in the hundredth year of Abraham’s life. Speiser (ABG, 113): As in Genesis 6:9,Heb. dor signifies, -duration,-’ -age,-’ -time span,-’ and only secondarily -generation-’ in the current use of the term. The context does not show specifically how the author used the term in this instance; it could have been any of the several round numbers of years. No conclusion can therefore be drawn from this passage in regard to the date of the Exodus. Murphy (MG, 299: In the fourth age. An age here means the average period from the birth to the death of one man. This use of the word is proved by Numbers 32:13-He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed.-’ This age or generation ran parallel with the life of Moses, and therefore consisted of one hundred and twenty years. Joseph lived one hundred and ten years. Four such generations amount to four hundred and eighty or four hundred and forty years. From the birth of Isaac to the return to the land of promise was an interval of four hundred and forty years. Isaac, Levi, Amram, and Eleazar may represent the four ages. Again, on Genesis 15:13, Murphy (ibid., p. 298): Four hundred years are to elapse before the seed of Abraham shall actually proceed to take possession of the land. This interval can only commence when the seed is born; that is, at the birth of Isaac, when Abram was a hundred years of age, and therefore thirty years after the call. During this interval they are to be, first, strangers in a land not theirs for one hundred and ninety years; and then for the remaining two hundred and ten years in Egypt: at first, servants, with considerable privilege and position; and at last, afflicted serfs, under a hard and cruel bondage. At the end of this period Pharaoh and his nation were visited with a succession of tremendous judgments, and Israel went out free from bondage with great wealth (Exo. chs. Genesis 12:14).

Leupold (EG, 486): Another factor enters into these computations and readjustments-the guilt of the Amorites.-’ All the inhabitants of Canaan are referred to by the term -Amorites,-’ the most important family of the Canaanites (see on Genesis 10:16). The term is similarly used in Genesis 48:22; Numbers 13:29; Numbers 21:21, etc., Deuteronomy 1:7; Deuteronomy 1:19. These aboriginal inhabitants of Canaan had heaped up a measure of -guilt-’ by this time. The measure was not yet -complete-’ (shalem), that is, they were nearing the point where divine tolerance could bear with them no longer, but they had not yet arrived at this point. God’s foreknowledge discerned that in a few more centuries these wicked nations would have forfeited their right to live, and then He would replace them in the land of Canaan by the Israelites. Passages bearing on the iniquity of the Canaanites are Leviticus 18:24 ff; Leviticus 20:22 ff.; Deuteronomy 18:9 ff. So God will allow the children of Israel to be absent from the land while the Canaanites continue in their-’ evil ways. When He can bear the Canaanites no longer, He will have another nation ready wherewith to replace them. Thus far we have encountered no direct evidence of Canaanite iniquity but shall soon see the starting examples offered by Sodom.

It seems to us that the following summarization of the time-span problem here under study is by far the most satisfactory (from PC, Exodus, Vol. I, Intro., p. 19):

From the descent of Jacob into Egypt

to the death of Joseph

71 years

From the death of Joseph to the birth

of Moses

278 years

From the birth of Moses to his flight

into Midian

40 years

From the flight of Moses into Midian

to his return to Egypt

40 years

From the return of Moses, to the Exodus 1 year

Total

430 years

(For a thoroughgoing explanation of these figures, see Keil and Delitzsch (COTP, 371, and 414, art., Chronological Survey of the Leading Events of the Patriarchal History; also Kalisch, Comment on Exodus, Introduction, pp. 11-13). Finally, Lange (CDHCG, 413): The difference between the four hundred years, Genesis 15:13, and Acts 7:6,and the four hundred and thirty years, Exodus 12:40, is explained, not only by the use of round, prophetic numbers here, but also from the fact that we must distinguish between the time when the Israelites generally dwelt in Egypt, and the period when they became enslaved and oppressed. Paul counts (Galatians 3:17) the time between the promise and the law, as four hundred and thirty years, in the thought that the closing date of the time of promise was the death of Jacob (Genesis 49). (See also, on Exodus 12:40, Haley, ADB, 418.)

8. The Covenant (Genesis 15:17-21)

The Divine promisesof a seed and of a landwith the accompanying signs are now brought up into the Covenant, i.e., subsumed therein. The Divinely appointed sign of the Covenant as an ethnic; and later a national, institution (that is, with Abraham and his fleshly seed) is to be disclosed in the 17th chapter.

Stages of the Promise. Lange (CDHCG, 412): The stages of the promise which Abram received, viewed as to its genealogical sequence, may be regarded in this order: 1. Thou shalt be a man of blessing, and shalt become a great people (Genesis 12:2); 2. To thy seed will I give this land (Genesis 12:7); 3. To thy seed the land, to thy land thy seed (Genesis 13:14 ff). Here (Genesis 15:18) the promise of the seed and the land was sealed in the form of a covenant. 4. The promise of a seed advances in the form of a covenant to the assurance that God would be the God of his seed (Genesis 17:7). 5. The promise is more definite, that not Ishmael but the son of Sarah should be his heir (Genesis 17:15 ff.). 6.The heir was promised in the next year (Genesis 18:10). 7. The whole promise in its richest fullness was sealed by the oath of Jehovah (ch. 22).

God’s Covenants, it must be understood, are not like compacts or contracts between men. The covenant with Noah, of course, was absolutely unilateral (Genesis 9:8-17), that is, the obligation (promise) was solely on the Divine side; nothing is required of mankind. The two great Covenants of the Bible, with the fleshly seed and the spiritual seed of Abraham respectively, of which the Old and New Testaments are the permanent or stereotyped records (Galatians 3:15-29), strictly speaking are likewise unilateral in essence but conditioned upon man’s response by the obedience of faith (Galatians 3:2). That is to say, God overtures, states the terms upon which the Divine promises will be fulfilled; man must hear, accept, and obey the terms or conditions, whereupon he will receive the fulfillment of the Divine promises. Hence, not even the great Covenants are, strictly speaking, bilateral. Whatever may have been the supposed relative standing of the two parties to the covenant [in pagan cults]. in the Israelite tradition it was no agreement between equals. The terms of the covenant were not the result of negotiation: they were imposed by the Lord (cf. Exodus 34:10-11; Exodus 24:7); and the covenant was inaugurated at the foot of the flaming mountain (cf. Exodus 19:18). The commentator here is assuming the premise that the Old Covenant of the Bible was a borrowing from the cult of Baal-berith at Shechem. The theory is absurd for two reasons: (1) the ethical purity of the Covenant with Israel as compared with that of the pagan cults; (2) the name of Deity (I AM) of the Covenant with Israel expresses pure personality in striking contrast to the names of pagan gods and goddesses which are simply personifications of natural forces. The difference between pure personality and mere personification is the difference between heaven and earth, the divine and the human. The NAME of the Old Covenant God is a revealed name; the names of pagan gods and goddesses were all of human origin. (There is no word for goddess in the Hebrew language.) It is inconceivable that any human being could ever have conjured up out of his own imagination the great and incommunicable NAME by which God revealed Himself to His ancient people (Exodus 3:14-15), and especially any member of a nation surrounded on all sides by nothing but pagan idolatrous cults with their gross immoralities as was ancient Israel. We now quote the remainder of the comment in which the writer (IBG, 603) emphasizes the ethical superiority of the Covenant with Israel. Israel made the covenant idea, he goes on to say, the vehicle of their faith in the dependability of God. He was no capricious despot but a God of righteousness and order who respected human personality. He would not change: his favor was sure. But Israel would benefit by that favor only in so far as they were obedient to the divine will. With these statements we agree wholeheartedly. The commentator continues as follows concerning Genesis 15:18: In this passage, stating God’s promise to Abraham in covenant terms, no conditions are imposed. But the implication of the narrative in its present and final form would seem to be that the covenant would stand so long as Abraham’s descendants continued to follow the example set by him when he believed the Lord (Genesis 15:6). Biblical covenants are not agreements between equals: hence can hardly be designated bilateral in the strict sense of the term. In all such covenants, Grace promises and provides, but human faith must accept and obey in order to enjoy.

Genesis 15:17. R.S.V.A smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces (cf. Jeremiah 34:18-19) of the various sacrificial creatures arranged in proper order. Keil-Delitzsch, (COTP, 216-217): In this symbol Jehovah manifested Himself to Abram, just as He afterwards did to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire. Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which He had made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in fire and smoke, the product of the consuming fireboth symbols of the wrath of God, whose fiery zeal consumes whatever opposes it. (Cf. Exodus 3:2; Exodus 13:21; Exodus 19:18; Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 10:31; Psalms 18:9.) Continuing (ibid.): To establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened by destruction, and to execute judgment on their oppressors (Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:2). In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in ch. Genesis 22:16, or by His life in Deuteronomy 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:8 and Jeremiah 51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offered was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of the covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfill the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace. (Italics mineC. C.) Skinner (ICCG, 283): This ceremony constitutes a Berith, of which the one provision is the possession of -the land.-’ A Berith necessarily implies two or more parties; but it may happen that from the nature of the case its stipulations are binding only on one. So, here: Yahweh alone passes (symbolically) between the pieces, because He alone contracts obligation. The land is described according to its ideal limits. Keil-Delitzsch, on Genesis 15:18-21 (ibid., p. 217): In Genesis 15:18-21 this divine revelation is described as the making of a covenant. the bond concluded by cutting up the sacrificial animals, and the substance of this covenant is embraced in the promise, that God would give that land to the seed of Abram, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates. The river of Egypt is the Nile, and not the brook of Egypt, Numbers 34:5, i.e., the boundary stream Rhinocorura, Wady el Arish. According to the oratorical character of the promise, the two large rivers, the Nile and the Euphrates, are mentioned as the boundaries within which the seed of Abram would possess the promised land, the exact limits of which are minutely described in the list of the tribes who were then in possession. With these concluding statements the present author finds himself in complete agreement.

Schultz (OTS, 34): The covenant plays an important role in Abraham’s experience. Note the successive revelations of God after the initial promise to which Abraham responded in obedience. As God enlarged this promise, Abraham exercised faith which was reckoned to him as righteousness (Genesis 15). In this covenant the land of Canaan was specifically pledged to the descendants of Abraham. With the promise of the son, circumcision was made the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17). This covenant promise was finally sealed in Abraham’s act of obedience when he demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice his only son Isaac (Genesis 22).

In its present fused form, ch. 15 consists of two interrelated parts. The first (Genesis 15:1-6) has to do with the increasingly urgent matter of Abraham’s heir. The patriarch’s original call (Genesis 12:1 ff.) implied that the mandate was to be taken over by Abraham’s descendants. Thus far, however, Abraham has remained childless. The ultimate success of his mission was therefore in danger. Moreover, he had cause for personal anxiety, for in ancient Near Eastern societies it was left to a son to ensure a restful afterlife for his father through proper interment and rites (-he shall lament him and bury him,-’ say the Nuzi texts). God’s reaffirmed promise of a son now sets Abraham’s mind at rest on both counts. The remainder of the chapter (Genesis 15:7-21) places the preceding incident in a broader perspective. Above and beyond personal considerations, the birth of an heir to Abraham is essential to God’s scheme of things. It involves a nation to be, and its establishment in the Promised Land. That land shall extend from Egypt to Mesopotamia (Genesis 15:18). The emphasis shifts thus to world history, and the importance of the episode is underscored by the conclusion of a covenant. In secular practice, this is normally a binding compact between states. This time, however, we are witnessing a covenant between the Creator of the universe and the ancestor of a nation ordained in advance to be a tool for shaping the history of the world. Small wonder, therefore, that the description touches on magic, and carries with it a feeling of awe and mystery which, thanks to the genius of the narrator, can still grip the reader after all the intervening centuries (ABG, 115).

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING What God Did Through the Children of Israel

(1 Corinthians 10:1-13, Romans 15:4, Galatians 3:24-25)

We often hear the question, Why did not God send His Son into the world to redeem mankind immediately after the disobedience of our first parents? Why did He not send Him in the time of Abraham or Moses or the Prophets, etc.? Why did He wait so long before inaugurating the redemptive phase of His Eternal Purpose? (Cf. Ephesians 3:8-13, 1 Peter 1:10-12, Galatians 4:4.)

We might counter these questions with the following: Why did not God so constitute the acorn that it would grow into an oak instantaneously? Or, why did He not so create the infant that it would grow into a man or woman in a few minutes, weeks or months? The answer seems to be that sundry matters had first to be practically demonstrated before the Gospel could be fully and properly revealed to mankind as the power of God for the salvation of every true believer (Milligan, SR, 73). In the Purpose of God, it was left to the Gentiles to demonstrate by their numerous failures in theoretical and practical wisdom, such as, for example, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc., and indeed all schools of philosophy, the sheer inadequacy of human speculation to fathom the mysteries of Being; and by their equally numerous failures in trying to establish an adequate system of religion with only the dim light of nature to guide them (cf. Romans 1:20-32). The history of philosophy shows that man’s greatest problem has ever been that of relating, in any satisfying way, the mystery of life to the supreme and inevitable frustration, death. Philosophy has ever been concerned, above all other things, with death.(By way of contrast, Jesus had little to say about deaththe theme that was on His lips at all times was life: Matthew 25:46; John 5:40; John 10:10.) As Immanuel Kant has put it, the three great problems that have always engendered human speculation are God, freedom, and immortality; it will be noted that these have to do with the origin, nature, and destiny of the person. The outstanding fact that has to do with human life in its fullness is that the question voiced by Job in the early ages of the world (Job 14:14) remained unanswered until it was answered at Joseph’s tomb (1 Corinthians 15:12-28).

What ends, then, did God achieve through His ancient people, the fleshly seed of Abraham, the Children of Israel? The following:

1. The continuance and increase of the knowledge of Himself, His attributes and His works, among men. Through the Patriarchs He revealed His self-existence, unity and personality. Through Moses and the demonstrations in Egypt, He revealed His omnipotence. Through the Prophets especially He revealed His wisdom and holiness. Throughout the entire history of the People of Israel He revealed His infinite justice, goodness, and righteousness. Through His Only Begotten He revealed His ineffable love and compassion (John 14:9, 1 Corinthians 1:21, Hebrews 1:1-4). How utterly absurd for any human being to try to apprehend and worship God aright from the revelation of nature! Hence it was that God put His Old Testament people in the pulpit of the world to preserve monotheism, the knowledge of the living and true God, HE WHO IS (Jeremiah 10:10, Matthew 16:16, John 17:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 John 1:20), by way of contrast to the coldly intellectual God, THAT WHICH IS, of human philosophy. This God, the pantheistic God of human philosophy, will never suffice to meet the institutions, aspirations, and needs of the human spirit (cf. Romans 8:26-27).

2. The perpetuation and development of the essential principles, laws, and institutions of true religion. These are, as we have learned already, the Altar, the Sacrifice, and the Priesthood. (Cf. Genesis 8:20; Genesis 12:7-8; Genesis 13:18, etc.; Exodus 20:24-26; Hebrews 9:22; Leviticus 17:11; Exodus 12:5; Romans 3:24-26; Revelation 5:9; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:11-28; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:6.)

3. The revelation of the essential principles of moral conduct, and of national and social righteousness. There were many noted lawgivers in the ancient world: Minos and Rhadamanthus of Crete, Hammurabi of Babylon, Numa Pompilius of Rome, Solon of Athens, Lycurgus of Sparta, etc. Undoubtedly there was a strain of Semitic moral (and civil) lawnorms of right and wrong conducthanded down by word of mouth from generation to generation (Romans 2:14-15). The apostle tells us that under conscience, however, as educated by tradition alone, man became more and more sinful; hence the necessity of incorporating these basic norms into a permanent code: this was done through the mediatorship of Moses (Galatians 3:19). There can be no doubt, in the minds of honest intelligent persons that if all men could be induced to shape their lives by the two Great Commandments as incorporated in the Decalogue (cf. Matthew 22:34-40, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, Exodus 20:1-17) this temporal world of mankind in which we are living today would be a very different world. H. A. Overstreet (The Mature Mind, 96)points up the superiority of the Mosaic Code to all other legal codes of antiquity, in these words: The Decalogue remains for us the first great insight of our culture into man’s moral nature. There had been other -codes-’ before this one, but they had lacked the consistency of moral insight conveyed in the Decalogue. One and all, they had been class codes, making arbitrary discriminations between human beings; assigning more rights to some than to others. Thus, they were not yet moral because they failed of moral universality. They belonged to cultures that had not yet emerged from the stage of many gods and many different truths: one truth for the highborn, another for the lowborn. The Decalogue was the first statement of the oneness of all who are human: oneness in rights and oneness in obligations. The Decalogue is God’s Mandate to Humanity: to prince, scholar, commoner, rich man, and pauper alike. (See also Romans 3:20, Ecclesiastes 12:13, Proverbs 14:34, Psalms 111:10, Amos 5:11, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 1:15-17, Jeremiah 25:5-6, etc.)

4. The fact of the inadequacy of law to save people from their sins. (See Romans 7:7-8; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10:1, 1 Corinthians 15:56, John 1:17, 1 John 3:4). It is not the function of law to save or redeem: law serves only to distinguish right conduct from wrong conduct. The Children of Israel were specially called and used of God to demonstrate the exceeding sinfulness of sin, our inability to save ourselves through works of the moral law, and consequently the need of every accountable human being for personal regeneration and holiness (John 3:1-8). (Romans 4:2; Romans 5:1; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:11, etc.)

5. The development of a system of type, symbol, and prophecy that would serve to identify the Messiah at His coming, and to establish the divine origin of the entire Christian System. (1 Corinthians 10:11, Romans 15:4, Hebrews 10:1, etc.) Most of the characters, institutions and events of the Old Covenant were designed to be types (shadows) of Christ and His Church. Adam, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Jonah, etc., were all typical of Christ in certain respects. The deliverance of Noah from the ungodly antediluvian world, through water as the transitional element, was typical of our deliverance from the bondage and corruption of sin, through baptism, again the transitional element through which deliverance is consummated (1 Peter 3:20-21, Galatians 3:27, John 3:3-5). The Tabernacle and the Temple were successively types, in even their minute details, of the Church. The Paschal Lamb, the Smitten Rock, the Brazen Serpent, etc., were metaphors of Christ. The Levitical Priesthood was typical of the priesthood of all Christians. In fact the entire Mosaic System was, in its essential features, typical of the Christian System. Typology is a most convincing proof of the divine origin of the Scriptures, for it must be admitted that the points of resemblance between the types and their corresponding antitypes were designed and preordained by the same God who established them and revealed them through His Holy Spirit. In addition to the types and symbols, there are some three hundred prophetic statements in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus and in the details of the constitution of His Church and His Kingdom. What more evidence could any honest and intelligent person require, to convince him that Jesus is truly the Christ, the Son of the living God? (Matthew 16:16.)

6. Finally, the giving to the world of the Messiah Himself, the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David, through the Virgin Mary, by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. (Galatians 3:16, Luke 1:26-38; Genesis 22:18, Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17, Revelation 22:16, Hebrews 7:14, Revelation 5:5; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-2; Romans 1:1-4, Matthew 1:1, Hebrews 7:14, etc.)

In view of this array of evidence that our God piled up in olden times as preparatory to the full disclosure of His Eternal Purpose, His Plan of Redemption, two fundamental truths present themselves to us:

1. That one can ascertain this divine truththe content of this revelationonly by treating the Bible as a whole. For, as Augustine put it hundreds of years ago,

In the Old Testament we have the New Testament concealed, In the New Testament we have the Old Testament revealed.

2. That the very people to whom all this evidence was revealed, and through whom it was preserved for future generations, should reject the evidence and reject the Redeemer whom it identified so clearly, becomes the ironyand the most profound tragedyof all the ages. This tragedy is expressed in one simple statement by John the Beloved, He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not (John 1:11; cf. John 5:40, Matthew 23:37-39; Matthew 27:25; Acts 7:51-53).

History’s Message to Man

(Genesis 15:16)

Can any over-all purposiveness be discovered in history? Does history have any lessons for us? Does it have any meaning? There are those who have answered affirmatively, but with considerable variability of interpretation. There are those who answer in the negative. History, they say, is simply the record of man’s Will to Live, to resist extinction, to just keep on going on, but without any predetermined end or goal. Popeye’s philosophy expresses this negative view fairly well, I yam what I yam, It is interesting to note that all prevailing philosophies of history arose in ancient Greece. Herodotus, the father of history, who lived in the 5th century B.C., originated what has come to be known as the ethical philosophy of history. His view was that history is largely the record of the work of the goddess Nemesis, Retributive Justice, who inevitably interferes in the affairs of men to overthrow inordinate human pride, ambition, and arrogance. Thueydides (ca. 471-400 B.C.) adopted the strictly secularistic theory of history, namely, that the events of history are brought about by purely secular (chiefly economic) causes; that human events are the consequences of purely human causes, apart from oracular, superhuman or supernatural influences. Polybius (ca. 205-125 B.C.) was the first to propose the fatalistic view, that all events of history are foreordained by a Sovereign Power bearing the name of Destiny or Fortune. Polybius was a Stoic, and this was Stoic doctrine. The secularistic interpretation has been revived in modern times, first by Machiavelli, then by Thomas Hobbes; and finally by Marx and Lenin, with their theory of economic determinism and their substitution of expediency for morality. The fatalistic interpretation is represented in our day by the work of Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West. According to Spengler, every culture inevitably passes through four successive periods corresponding respectively to the four seasonsspring, summer, fall and winterthe last-named being the period of decay that terminates in death, the period that is best designated that of civilization. Spengler was a pessimist: there is no escape from this remorseless cycle, according to his view. The ethical interpretation, in broad outline, is represented today in the thinking of such men as Berdyaev, Sorokin, Schweitzer, and Toynbee. Toynbee’s elaborately-worked-out theory is known as that of challenge and response. According to Toynbee, Christian civilization or culture must meet three primary needs or challenges: the need to establish a constitutional system of cooperative world government (politically), the need to find a workable compromise between free enterprise and socialism (economically), and the need to put the secular superstructure back on a religious foundation, that in which the dignity and worth of the person is made the supreme ethical norm. Toynbee’s over-all thesis is that our Western culture will survive only if it responds in a positive way to these basic needs or challenges. Augustine (in his great work, The City of God) interprets the function of the secular state to be the preservation of order whereby the righteous can cultivate the Spiritual Life here that is befitting that of the Heavenly City. Montesquieu: the end of the state is its own self-preservation. Hegel: the end of the state is its self-glorification to the achievement of which individual citizens are but the means: indeed the state is God on the march. The present-day totalitarian state, whether Communistic, Nazi, or Fascist, is the concrete embodiment of Hegel’s state-ism.

In Genesis 15:16, we have an intimation of what may properly be called the providential interpretation of history. This doctrine is given us in its fullness in Jeremiah, ch. 18, Genesis 15:5-10. It may be stated as follows:

1. God rules the world. But within the framework of His Providence both individuals and nations are left relatively free to work out their own history and ultimate destiny. God exercises sovereignty over the whole creation. He owns it all (Psalms 24:1-2; Psalms 19:1-6; Psalms 8:3-9; Psalms 148:1-6; Psalms 50:12; Psalms 89:11; Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 46:8-11; 1 Corinthians 10:26). You can-’t take it with you is infinitely more than a cliche: it is absolutely truth (cf. Luke 16:19-31). The redeemed are in a special sense God’s own: they are not their own, they have been bought with a price, and that price was the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; Acts 20:28). Law is the expression of the will of the Lawgiver: hence, what scientists call laws of nature are simply the laws of God. His Will is the constitution of the Totality of Being. In the unforgettable lines of Maltbie D. Babcock’s great hymn:

This is my Father’s World, And to my listening ears, All nature sings, and round me rings The music of the spheres This is my Father’s world: I rest me in the thought Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas; His hand the wonders wrought.

At the same time, however, God has chosen to recognize man’s freedom of will with which he has been endowed from the beginning and without which he would not be man. God chooses to allow man to exercise this freedom of choice. Men are predestined to be free, and their free choices constitute God’s foreknowledge. God does not rule His moral world by coercion. He does not burglarize our wills. He surrounds us with the necessary means to physical and spiritual life and growth and then looks to us to work out our own salvation within the framework of His Providence, holding us accountable in the long run for the deeds we have done in the flesh. (John 5:29, Romans 2:6, Philippians 2:12, Acts 17:31, Romans 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelation 20:13).

The same is true of nations as of individuals. God does not rule the affairs of nations by force. He allows them to work out their own history and destiny under the aegis of His Providence. At the same time, however, he overrules (overthrows, Ezekiel 21:27) peoples and their rulers when pride, ambition, greed, and arrogance may impel them into schemes of world conquest. For the simple fact is that God has reserved universal sovereignty for the only One worthy of it, His Only Begotten (Philippians 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Revelation 11:15). In every great conflict in which the forces of righteousness have been challenged by the combined powers of evil, the evil powers have always gone down to defeat. 1 know of no exception to this principle in all human history. Free men will never be enslaved for any great length of time by would-be empire builders.

2. Nations fall when they ignore and violate the moral law and thus make themselves vessels fit only for destruction.

(1) No better example of this fact can be cited than that of the text before us. Abraham made his pilgrimage of faith to the Land of Promise, lived there throughout his natural life (as did also Isaac and Jacob) without owning a foot of Canaan’s soil except the small plot of land which he bought from Abimelech, a Canaanite prince, for a burial ground. What is the explanation? It is that of our text: the iniquity of the Canaanites had not yet reached the point where there wasnone righteous, no, not one. We know this from the kindness shown Abraham by various Canaanite chieftains (Genesis 14:13; Genesis 20:1-18; Genesis 23:7-20; Genesis 26:6-11). Some four hundred years later when Israel came out of Egypt under Moses and Joshua, the Canaanites had become so given over to the grossest forms of licentiousness and idolatry that their very existence was a moral blight on mankind. Therefore God gave them up to destruction as nations when the Israelites under Joshua took possession of their land (cf. Leviticus 18:24-28).

(2) History is the story of the rise and fall of nations; the stage on which history is acted out has rightly been called the graveyard of nations. As expressed in Shelley’s imperishable lines:

-My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair.-’ Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.

And in the memorable lines of Kipling’s Recessional:

Far-called, our navies melt away;

On dune and headland sinks the fire

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday

Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,

Lest we forgetlest we forget!

(3) Nations do not die of old age: they perish when they die of a rotten heart. They die when they cease to be fit to go on living (Cf. Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah: not even ten righteous souls could be found therein (Genesis 18:22-33). (For the opposite side of the coin, see 1 Kings 19:9-18, Romans 11:2-4).

(4) There are times in the course of human events when the destruction of a nation’s power becomes a moral necessity. Cf, Exodus 17:14. In the namby-pamby notions of God that men seem to have today, He takes on the status of a glorified bellhop, or that of a kindly old gentleman up in the sky who will permit his beard to be pulled, with impunity, by every rogue that happens to pass by. Our God is the God of love, to be sure; but He is also Absolute Justice. Lacking this Absolute Justice, He simply could not be God. The God of the Bible is still, and always, the Lord of Hosts (1 Samuel 1:11, 2 Samuel 6:2; Psalms 59:5; Psalms 24:10; Isaiah 6:3; Malachi 1:14, etc.). The unredeemed will discover, when it is everlastingly too late, that our God is truly a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29, Revelation 6:12-17).

Conclusion: God’s philosophy of history is clearly stated in Jeremiah 18:5-10. It may be stated in a single sentence: the stability of a nation or national state depends on the ethical quality of the national life. This is true, regardless of the type of regime, whether that be a tyranny, a monarchy, or a democracy.

How fitting, then, these lines, again from Kippling’s Recessional:

The tumult and the shouting dies;

The captains and the kings depart

Still stands Thine ancient Sacrifice,

An humble and a contrite heart.

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forgetlest we forget!

As Christians we look forward with keen anticipation to the return of our Lord to receive His church into eternal Glory and to Judge the living and the dead (Acts 17:31; Acts 10:42; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; 2 Timothy 4:1; 1 Peter 4:5; Revelation 19:11-16; Revelation 20:4-6; Revelation 20:11-15).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWENTY-EIGHT

Show the fallacy of the alleged composite character of ch. 15.

Can measured time sequence be attributed to prophetic vision? Explain.

What are the four parts into which the content of ch. 15 divides?

Where does the phrase, the word of Yahwe, first appear in Scripture?

How does Whitelaw explain this designation?

What in all likelihood was the cause of Abram’s fear, as alluded to in Genesis 15:13?

Explain the Divine assurance, I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.

What was the character of Abram’s response to this Divine assurance? Explain.

What ancient custom prevailed concerning an heir in instances of couples who remained childless?

Explain the distinction in customary law between the direct heir and the indirect heir.

What was Yahweh’s promise in response to Abram’s complaint ?

What was the sign by which God confirmed the promise?

Explain what is meant by righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

Explain as fully as possible the meaning of Gen 15:6. How and where is this meaning developed in the New Testament?

Differentiate works of the law (Paul) and works of faith (James).

What more profound meaning must be attributed to the term faith in the light of these Scriptures?

State Cornfeld’s explanation of the term covenant.

What is to be inferred from the fact that Biblical Hebrew has no words for goddess or religion?

What sign did God give Abram to confirm the latter’s possession of the Land?

Explain ancient ritual procedure in the establishing of a covenant. How did this differ from the ritual of sacrifice?

Explain what was meant by the phrase, to cut a covenant.

What was symbolized by the smoking furnace? By the flaming torch?

What was symbolized by the birds of prey? By their dispersal?

Explain the symbolism of the various details of this sign as given in SIBG.

Explain what is meant by the Oracle. List the specifics of it, Genesis 15:13-16.

How is the time element to be understood in relation to a preternatural sleep? Explain, in relation to Genesis 15:12.

Summarize Leupold’s explanation of Abram’s deep sleep experience.

Summarize Lange’s explanation of it.

In what sense can it be said that God here revealed to Abram future events in the life of the Promised Seed?

What were the personal aspects of the Divine promise?

What was involved in the promise that Abram should go unto his fathers?

What were the probable reasons why the identity of the oppressing nation was not revealed at this time?

What fact about Himself did God demonstrate by the events of the Deliverance?

What were the judgments inflicted on the oppressing nation?

Summarize Durant’s comment on Egyptian religion. What were the characteristic features of this religion?

How were the great Plagues related to forms of idolatry?

What were to be the boundaries of the Promised Land?

Explain what is meant by the River of Egypt.

Did the Israelites ever extend their dominion to the full extent of the limits named here? If so, when? If not, why not?

How account for the differences in the various Old Testament listings of the inhabitants of the Land of Promise?

Who were the Amorites in the most inclusive sense of the name? What was their great cultural center and where located?

Why was the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage to be delayed 400 years?

What great ethical lesson does this have for us?

By what incidents do we know that the Amorites (and Canaanites in general) were not yet wholly given over to iniquity?

Summarize Murphy’s analysis of Gen 15:16.

How does Exodus 12:40 appear in the Septuagint and Samaritan versions respectively?

What is the time-span problem involved here?

What reasons does Whitelaw give for preference for the Hebrew text?

How does Leupold resolve this time-span problem?

What feasible explanation can be given of the Apostle’s time-span, Galatians 3:17?

What is the literal meaning of the Hebrew word dor, translated generation here?

What is the probable significance of the phrase, Genesis 15:16, in the fourth generation?

Summarize Whitelaw’s proposed solution of this time-span problem.

Summarize Lange’s proposed solution of it.

Repeat the stages of the revelation of the Promise as given by Lange.

How do God’s covenants differ from agreements or compacts among men?

What did the covenant idea mean to Israel?

Explain: Biblical covenants are not agreements between equals.

In what way did Yahweh ratify the covenant with Abraham regarding the seed and the land?

What was the character of the reciprocal relation between Yahweh and Abram in this covenant?

Trace the development of the covenant as given by Schultz.

What are the two interrelated parts of ch. 15? Show how the emphasis shifts from personal to world history in the latter part.

What did God do, through the fleshly seed of Abraham, in the unfolding of His Eternal Purpose?

What is history’s message to mankind?

What briefly are the ethical, secularistic, and fatalistic philosophies of history?

By what Greek historians respectively were these three views presented? Name modern exponents of these views.

What is Augustine’s theory of the function of the secular state?

What was Hegel’s philosophy of the state? In what political systems was it objectified?

State clearly God’s philosophy of history as given in Jeremiah 18:5-10.

For Whom alone has our God reserved universal sovereignty? Give Scriptures to confirm your answer.