Genesis 17

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 17:1-8

PART THIRTY THE STORY OF ABRAHAM: THE OLD COVENANT

(Genesis 17:1-27)

1. Synopsis of Chapter Seventeen

Again thirteen years rolled away, and still the Promise was not fulfilled. But when hope might almost have ceased to hope, God appeared once more to Abram, recapitulated the main outline of the Covenant-Promise, changed his name from Abram (a high father), to Abraham (the father of a multitude), and assured him that at length the long-expected time was well-nigh come. But in prospect of the peculiar blessing about to be bestowed upon him, he himself, and all his seed after him, must carry about with them a perpetual pledge of their covenant relation to Jehovah. The rite of Circumcision must now be adopted by him, and instead of being the badge of any favored class amongst the nation destined to spring from his loins, was, on pain of excommunication, to be open to the lowliest member of the Hebrew commonwealth, even to the bond-servant and the stranger. At the same time it was intimated to the patriarch that his wife Sarai, whose name also was now changed to SARAH (princess), and no other, was to be the mother of the promised child, that he would be born during the next year, and be called Isaac (Laughter); while Ishmael also, for whom Abraham had prayed, would not be forgotten, but be a partaker in the Divine blessing, and become the father of twelve princes, the ancestors of a great nation. Thereupon Abraham complied with the Divine command, and was circumcised, together with Ishmael, now thirteen years of age, and all the male members of his household (COTH, 38-39).

2. The Covenant-Promise (Genesis 17:1-8)

1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Leupold (EG, 511): The basic fact to be observed for a proper approach to this chapter is that the covenant referred to is not a new one. For Genesis 15:18 reports the establishment of the covenant, whose essential provisions are the same as those here outlined. Consequently this chapter marks an advance in this direction, that the things previously guaranteed are now foretold as finally coming to pass: the one covenant promises certain blessings, the other the realization of these blessings when their appointed time has come. Criticism confuses issues by claiming that our chapter gives P’s account of the covenant which was covered by J’s account in the somewhat different fashion in chapter 15. Consequently it need not be wondered at, that the critical approach continually magnifies incidental differences and tries to set these two Chapter s at variance with one another. Furthermore, the distinct importance of our chapter is readily discerned. A man who has long been obligated to wait in unwavering faith certainly requires clear promises of God upon which to build such faith. For faith must have a foundation. Here these promises, covering the essentials of numerous posterity and possession of the land, and involving by implication the Messianic features found in Genesis 17:12, now specify Sarai as the mother who is to bear the son, and also establish a covenant sign. Immediately before the birth of the son of promise these distinct features are, of course, most in place. Aside from this, to have all these promises featured as parts of the covenant seals everything for the faith of Abram which is now under necessity of hoping and believing against all hope.

God’s making a covenant here, and in many other places, denotes the enlargement, renewal, establishment, or confirmation of it. It cannot be imagined that, in various instances in which this phrase is used, He had not respect to His former declarations of the same kind as still in force. (SIBG, 239). (Psalms 105:8-10, Genesis 15:18, Exodus 34:10-27, 1 Kings 8:9, Jeremiah 31:33, Hosea 2:18, Genesis 6:18, Exodus 6:4, Leviticus 27:9, Deuteronomy 8:11-20, Ezekiel 16:60; Ezekiel 16:62, etc.) It should be noted that this is God’s covenant with Abraham in the wider sense, that is, it included Abraham’s posterity (thee and thy seed after thee, Genesis 17:7). Genesis 17:4the father of a multitude of nations. This was fulfilled to the letter. Abraham was the progenitor of the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, the Midianites, the Edomites, and their kings (Genesis 17:20; Num., ch. 31, Gen., ch. 36, Matt., ch. 1) but chiefly Christ and His spiritual subjects (Galatians 3:23-29; Psalms 45:16; Revelation 17:14; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 11:15; Revelation 15:3; 1 Peter 2:9, etc.). Isaac and his Israelite descendants were properly the natural seed with whom this covenant was established, Genesis 17:21. By it, God in Christ, became to the Israelites in general, the head of their nation and assumed them for His peculiar people (Exodus 19:5-6, Deuteronomy 14:2, Ephesians 1:11), bestowed on them the land of Canaan as His land, in the enjoyment of which they tasted His goodness, and had access to contemplate the glories of the new covenant state, and of the heavenly blessedness of spiritual Israel in Christ. (Note the parallelism between Exodus 19:5-6and 1 Peter 2:9-19). (Cf. Genesis 12:3; Genesis 3:6-9, Romans 9:6-9,John 8:56, Hebrews 11:8-16).

Genesis 17:1Abram was ninety-nine years old when all the details of the covenant were made known to him. The long interval between this age and that given in Genesis 16:16 should be noted carefully. It marks a long delay in the fulfillment of the Promise, a tarrying on God’s part; this, however, corresponds to the undue impatience and haste of Abram (cf. 2 Peter 3:9).

Genesis 17:1El Shaddai, meaning God Almighty, from the root shadad (be violent, irresistibly strong). Some accept another interpretation, -God of the mountain,-’ which is not to be taken as worship of nature (animism) but that God appeared to Abram on the mountain. El Shaddai appears to Abram when he is ninety-nine years of age, and when the birth of an heir seems literally impossible. The mighty God steps in and does the impossible (HSB, 28). It should be noted that it is Yahweh, according to the text, who says, I am El Shaddai. (This Name is found six times in Genesis and thirty-one times in Job). Elohim, according to Delitzsch, is the God who causes nature to be and to endure; El Shaddai is the God who constrains nature and subdues it, so that it bows and yields itself to the service of grace. Walk before me, and be thou perfect, said Yahweh to Abraham: the one command demands a God-conscious life of the best type; the other, faithful observance of all duties. The one is sound mysticism; the other, conscientious conduct. The one is the soul of true religion; the other, the practice of it (EG, 514). That this was another theophany is clear from Genesis 17:22; hence, Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, etc. Abram fell on his face in token of his fear and reverence, as being afraid and ashamed to look upon God (cf. Genesis 17:17; Exodus 3:6, Leviticus 9:24, Numbers 22:31, Joshua 5:14, Judges 13:20; Ezekiel 1:28; Ezekiel 3:23; Ezekiel 9:8; Ezekiel 43:3; Daniel 8:17; Matthew 17:6, Revelation 1:17; cf. also Psalms 89:7, Deuteronomy 4:24, Exodus 24:17; Hebrews 10:31; Hebrews 12:29; Genesis 28:16-17; Psalms 96:4; Psalms 96:9; Psalms 91:9; Revelation 15:4).

Genesis 17:5; Genesis 17:15. New names. God’s giving names to persons imports His making them to correspond with them in their condition or usefulness (Genesis 32:28; 2 Samuel 12:25; Isaiah 62:2; Isaiah 4:5; Revelation 2:17; Jeremiah 20:3; Jeremiah 23:6; Jeremiah 33:16; Matthew 1:21). Lange (CDHCG, 422): The Hebrews connected the giving of names with circumcision (ch. Genesis 21:3 ff.; Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21). The connection of the giving of names, and circumcision, effects a mutual explanation. The name announces a definite human character, the new name a new character (the new name, Revelation 2:17, the perfect stamp of individual character), circumcision, a new or renewed, and more noble nature. Jamieson (CECG, 151): In eastern countries the name given in infancy is sometimes in the course of life altered: a change of name is an advertisement of some new circumstance in the history, rank, or religion of the individual who bears it. The change is made variouslyby the old name being entirely dropped for the new, or by conjoining the new with the old, or sometimes only a few letters are inserted, so that the altered form may express the difference in the owner’s state or prospects. It is surprising how soon a new name is known, and its import spread through the country. In dealing with Abraham and Sarai, God was pleased to adapt his procedure to the ideas and customs of the country and age. There was no way, according to prevailing notions, in which the Divine promise would be so well remembered, and the splendid prospects of the patriarch became more widely known than by giving him and his wife new names, significant of their high destiny. Instead of AbramAb or Abba, father, and ram, high, -a high father,-’ he was to be calledAb-ra-hamon, father of a great multitude; and this has been verified, whether he has been considered as the ancestor of the Jews, Arabs, etc., or as the Father of the Faithful. (Cf. Nehemiah 9:7-8). For the ancients a name did not merely indicate, rather it made a thing what it was, and a change of name meant a change of destiny, cf. Genesis 17:15 and Genesis 35:10. Abram and Abraham, it seems, are in fact just two dialetical forms of the same name whose meaning is -he is great by reason of his father, he is of noble descent.-’ In this place, however, Abraham is interpreted on the strength of its similarity with ab hamon, -father of a multitude-’ (JB, 33). Note also in this connection, Sarai’s change of name to Sarah (Genesis 17:15). This new name bears no different meaning from her former name but marks an added dignity nevertheless because of the circumstances involved (EG, 526). As in the case of Abraham, such a change is viewed as the external sign of an important turn in the life or function of the bearer.. The underlying concept was probably much the same as in a king’s assumption of a special throne name. The event marked a new era (ABG, 127). Sarah and Sarai are two forms of the same name, which means -princess-’; Sarah is to be the mother of kings, Genesis 17:16 (JB, 33). The meaning that some attach to the name in saying that it means the contender, is hardly appropriate. -Sarah-’ means -princess-’ or -the princely one.-’ Without a special divine blessing it would, of course, have been a physical impossibility for Sarah to bring forth this son [Isaac]. Consequently this potent blessing of God is twice referred to: once in connection with this son, then in relation to -the kings of peoples-’ that shall in the course of time spring from this son. But she who thus becomes the mother of kings certainly merits the name -Princess-’ (EG, 526).

Note carefully: thy seed after thee, throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:7), all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:7-9; Genesis 17:12-13; Genesis 17:19). Everlastinghow long? (1) Note how modern analytical (destructive) criticism deals with this phase of the Promise: With this cf. Psalms 105:44-45, where the possession of the land is regarded as necessary if Israel is to keep God’s statutes and observe his laws. The chosen people was no abstract idea. Israel was a concrete reality, a people, however unique, among the peoples of the earth. To be itself and to achieve its destiny it needed its own land, in which would be the center of its religionthe templeand within which it could freely order its life in accordance with the divine law.. This insistence on the part of P was in part an expression of the natural love of a people for its home. It was in part a consequence of the fact that Israel had as yet no adequate belief in life after death, so that God’s promise had to be realized, if at all, here and now on this earth. Nevertheless, in insisting upon the importance of the natural community he was on sure ground for, without this insistence, belief in the supernatural becomes little more than a world-escaping piety (IBG, 611-612). Note well that under this view the spiritual (antitypical) aspect of this phase of the Promise, which indeed permeates the Bible throughout, in the Old Testament as anticipation, in the New as fulfillment, is utterly ignored. The critics seem to be completely blind with respect to the unity of the Bible as a whole. (2) This covenant, as it respected the Hebrew nation, together with the possession of Canaan, and the various ceremonial ordinances by which they were marked the peculiar people of God, and in the observance of which they were to enjoy their rest and prosperity in Canaan, is represented as everlasting or for ever; but in these passages no more than a long time is meant (Genesis 48:4; Exodus 12:14; Exodus 12:17; Exodus 21:6; Exodus 31:17; Exodus 32:13; Exodus 40:15; Leviticus 16:34; Leviticus 25:23; Leviticus 25:40; Leviticus 25:46; Numbers 10:8; Numbers 15:15; Numbers 18:9; Numbers 25:13; Deuteronomy 4:40; Deuteronomy 15:17; Deuteronomy 18:5; Joshua 4:7; Joshua 14:9, etc.). But as this covenant respected Christ, and believers in him, it, and all the spiritual blessings contained in it, are everlasting in the strictest sense (Hebrews 13:20; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:15; 1 Peter 1:4, 2 Peter 1:11). And it is perhaps chiefly because the covenant of peculiarity with Israel, and the ordinances and blessings thereof, prefigured these eternal relations and privileges that they are represented as everlasting (SIBG, 240). (3) Jamieson (CECG, 152): It is perfectly clear that this promise was meant to refer to the natural descendants of Abram, who, by the election of grace, were to be separated from the rest of the nations, and to the temporal blessings which it guaranteed to them (Romans 11:16; Romans 15:8). They were in their collective capacity to form the visible external Church; and in the sense of their being -a chosen generation, a peculiar people,-’ though many of them were unbelievers, they were to be called the people of God, as is manifest from the words -in their generations.-’ In this sense partly the covenant is called -an everlasting covenant-’; for it is continued in force down to the promulgation of the Gospel, when the national distinction ceased, by the admission of all mankind to the spiritual blessings contained in the Abrahamic covenant (Ephesians 2:14). But further, in a spiritual point of view, it is called -an everlasting covenant.-’ The promise is a promise made to the Church of all ages; for He who is not the God of the dead, but of the living, made it to -Abraham and his seed-’ (Cf. Galatians 3:17). The sign of circumcision was annexed to it under the Jewish dispensation (cf. Acts 2:38-39; Galatians 3:6-7; Galatians 3:9; Galatians 3:14; Galatians 3:22; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 3:29; Hebrews 8:10), and that of baptism under the Christian. (This writer goes on to justify the connection of fleshly circumcision with baptism as spiritual circumcision, a notion which we shall give attention later. Suffice it to say that in the foregoing exegesis, although much of it is Scriptural, there are three obvious errors: (1) To say that the phrases under consideration here were meant to refer chiefly to the natural descendants of Abraham is contradicted in the latter part of the quotation by the application of these phrases to the spiritual seed of Abraham: the Scriptures teach that the spiritual seed of Abraham were included, by Divine ordination, in the original promises to Abraham and his seed, i.e., the term seed included from the beginning both the fleshly and the spiritual, the typical and the antitypical, the latter being of far greater import than the former (John 8:56, Galatians 3:8; Galatians 3:29). (2) To speak of the Old Covenant people as a Church is utterly erroneous. The Church is the Divine institution which was established on Pentecost (Acts 2) and is used always in Scripture to designate God’s people under the New Covenant. (3) There is no Scriptural justification whatever for identifying baptism with spiritual circumcision. The indwelling Holy Spirit, not baptism, is the sign and seal of the New Covenant (Acts 2:38, Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30). (Spiritual circumcision is Scripturally explained infra.)

The simple fact of the matter is that these terms, for ever and everlasting, as used with respect to the land (Canaan) and the covenant, means as long as the Old Covenant continued to be in force: hence the import of the phrase, throughout their generations. The Abrahamic Covenant, of course, was enlarged into a national covenant at Sinai, under the mediatorship of Moses (Exodus 19:5-6; Exodus 24:18; Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 5:2; Deuteronomy 9:9; cf. 1 Peter 2:9, John 7:19; Galatians 3:15-22, etc.). That this Old Covenant would be abrogated and. superseded by the New is expressly announced in the Old Testament itself (Jeremiah 31:31-34, cf. Hebrews 8:6-13; Hosea 2:11; Amos 5:21; Amos 8:10, etc.). The New Covenant, it should be understood, is not a continuation or enlargement of the Old: it is the New Covenant, mediated by, Messiah Himself, and established upon better promises (John 1:17; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24), in which Jews and Gentiles come together by induction into Christ (Galatians 3:27-29, Ephesians 2:11-18) to form the one new man. By His death on the Cross, our Lord at one and the same time abrogated the Old Covenant and ratified the New (Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 9:11-22).

The Covenant-Promises: these were first stated in Genesis 12:1-3, then variously amplified as repeated in Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:1-2; Genesis 17:1-27; Genesis 22:15-19, etc. From careful analysis of these various passages we find that we have given here what may be regarded as four distinct elementary promises. These are (1) that Abraham should have a numerous offspring (Genesis 13:16; Genesis 15:3-5; Genesis 17:2-4; Genesis 22:17); (2) that God would be a God to him and to his seed after him (Genesis 17:1-8); (3) that He would give to Abraham and to his seed, an everlasting possession (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:18-21; Genesis 17:8); that He would bless all the peoples of the earth through him and his seed (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18). But nevertheless they may all in harmony with Scripture usage be regarded as but elementary parts of one and the same promise, made to Abraham and his seed (Acts 2:39; Acts 13:23; Acts 13:32; Acts 26:6; Romans 4:14; Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:18; Galatians 3:22; Galatians 3:29, etc.); each part having a double reference: that is, looking to both the typical and the antitypical side of the Divine economy. The first element, for instance, was a pledge to Abraham that he would have a numerous family, first, according to the flesh, and secondly, according to the Spirit; the second, that God would be a God to both of these families, though in a far higher sense to the latter than to the former; the third, that each of these families would become heirs to an inheritance; and the fourth, that through each of them the world would be blessed (Milligan, SR, 75-76). Through the fleshly seed of Abraham, the worship of the living and true God (monotheism) and the basic principles of the moral law (the Decalogue) were preserved and handed down to posterity; through the spiritual seed of Abraham, eternal good news of redemption through Christ Jesus is proclaimed to all nations for the obedience of faith (Exodus 3:14, Deuteronomy 5:26, Acts 14:15, 1 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:31; Revelation 7:2; John 1:17, Exodus 20:1-17; Matthew 5:17-18; Matthew 22:34-40; Revelation 14:6-8; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 3:8-12, 1 Timothy 3:15; Romans 1:16; Romans 10:6-17; 1 Corinthians 1:21-25, etc.)

REVIEW QUESTIONS

See Genesis 17:22-27.

Genesis 17:9-14

3. The Covenant-Sign (Genesis 17:9-14)

9 *And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 and the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Fleshly Circumcision:* The Greeks had two words for covenant, viz., suntheke and diatheke. The former was used to denote a solemn agreement made between equals; and the latter, to denote any arrangement made by a superior for the acceptance and observance of an inferior. And hence it is, that all of God’s covenants are expressed in Greek by the word diatheke. The word suntheke is not found in the New Testament; but diatheke occurs in it 33 times*;* and b-‘reeth is used 267 times in the Old Testament (Milligan, SR. 77,n.). The former word indicates a contract; the latter, the distinction between a covenant and a contract.

The time has now arrived for the details of the Old Covenant to be set forth. How could a rite of this sort be inaugurated at all in a satisfactory manner without clear directions a) as to what manner of operation it was to be (Genesis 17:11); or b) as to at what age it was to be administered (Genesis 17:12 a); or c) as to who falls under its provisions, whether only the direct descendants of Abraham or also the slaves of the household (Genesis 17:12 b); or d) as to the absolute or relative necessity of this rite for all those enumerated (Genesis 17:13). To impose the rite and leave all these problems open would merely have caused grievous perplexity to those entrusted with the duty of circumcision. Consequently, all such critical remarks as -the legal style of this section is so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the book of Leviticus,-’ are just another case where the nature of the circumstances that call for just such a presentation is confused with the problem of style. The question of various authors (J, E, and P) does not enter in at this point. No matter who the author is, the case in question calls for this kind of presentation of the necessary details (EG, 522).

The details are, therefore, made very clear. Lange (CDHCG, 423): 1. The act of circumcision: the removal of the foreskin; 2. the destination; the sign of the covenant; 3. the time: eight days after the birth (se ch. Genesis 21:4, Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21; John 7:22, Philippians 3:5; Josephus, Antiq. I, 12, 2); 4. the extent of its efficacy: not only the children, but slaves born in the house (and those also bought with his money) were to be circumcised; 5. its inviolability: those who were not circumcised should be cut off, uprooted. Note also the clear specification here, Genesis 17:12every male throughout your generation, etc. Females were considered as represented in the males: thus the patriarchal authority was divinely confirmed and the unity and integrity of the family as well. The provisions of the Mosaic Law were directed toward the preservation of the family as the social unit. Circumcision served to cement all families into a single family or people of God. (A people is rightly designated a nation.) It was the sign that set the national family (people) apart as belonging exclusively to the living and true God.

Skinner (ICCG, 293): The Beritb is conceived as a self-determination of God to be to one particular race all that the word God implies, a reciprocal act of choice on man’s part being no essential feature of the relation. (Why say it was so conceived? According to the text it was a self-determination on God’s part.) Concerning Genesis 17:6-7, kings shall come out of thee (cf. Micah 5:2), I will establish my covenant … to be a God unto thee. Jamieson writes (CECG, 151-152): Had this communication to Abram been made at the time of his call, it could have conveyed no other idea to the mind of one who had been an idolater, and was imbued with the prejudices engendered by idolatry, than that, instead of the ideal fictitious deities he had been accustomed to look to and worship, the true, living, personal, God was to be substituted. But he had now for a long series of years become familiarized with the name, appearances, and educational training of Him who had called him, and therefore he was prepared to accept the promise in a wider and more comprehensive senseto understand, in short, that to -be a God unto him-’ included all that God had been, or had promised to be to him and to his posterityan instructor, a guide, a governor, a friend, a wise and loving father, who would confer upon them whatever was for their good, chasten them whenever they did wrong, and fit them for the high and important destiny for which he had chosen them. It is perfectly clear that this promise was primarily meant to refer to the natural descendants of Abram, who, by the election of grace, were to be separated from the rest of the nations, and to the temporal blessings which it guaranteed to them (Romans 11:16; Romans 15:8). Note again Genesis 17:7, to be to thee a God. The essence of the covenant relation is expressed by this frequently recurring formula (Skinner, ICCG, 293).

Leupold (EG, 522): So then, first of all, since a mark in the flesh might be cut into various parts of the body, the divine command specifies what man’s thought might well have deemed improbable, that this cutting was to be -in the flesh-’euphemismof their foreskin. Such a peritome will then certainly be -a sign of a covenant-’ between God and a member of the covenant people. So little does the unsanctified mind appreciate the issues involved, that in the eyes of the Gentiles circumcision was merely an occasion for ridicule of the Jews. Again (p. 524): It certainly is passing strange to find critics referring to this solemn rite which God ordained as a -taboo-’-the taboo of the household required the circumcision-’ of the purchased slave child (Procksch). Taboos are superstitious practices: here is one of the most solemn divine institutions of the Old Testament.

History of Circumcision. Speiser (ABG, 126): Circumcision is an old and widely diffused practice, generally linked with puberty and premarital rites. In the ancient Near East it was observed by many of Israel’s neighbors, among them the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and certain other nomadic elements (cf. Jeremiah 9:26). But the Philistines did not follow it (cf. 2 Samuel 1:20), and neither did the -Hivites-’ (i.e., Horites) of Central Palestine (Genesis 34:15). Nor was the custom in vogue in Mesopotamia. Thus the patriarchs would not have been likely to adopt circumcision prior to their arrival in Canaan, which is just what the present account says in another way.. Eventually, the rite became a distinctive group characteristic, and hence also a cultural and spiritual symbol. To P, however, it was essential proof of adherence to the covenant. (P, of course, is the Priestly Code, to which this chapter is assigned by the critics.) Toy (IHR, 68 ff.): The most widely diffused of such customs of initiation is the gashing or the complete removal of the prepuce. It existed in ancient times among the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Hebrews (for the Arabs, the Syrians, and the Babylonians and Assyrians we have no information), not, so far as the records go, among the Greeks, Romans, and Hindus. At the present time it is found among all Moslems and most Jewish communities, throughout Africa, Australia, Polynesia and Melanesia, and, it is said, in Eastern Mexico. It is hardly possible to say what its original distribution was, and whether or not there was a single center of distribution. As to its origin many theories have been advanced. Its character as initiatory is not an explanationall customs of initiation needed to have their origins explained. This author goes on to list these various theories as to the origin of the practice, giving also the objections to them as follows: 1. It cannot be regarded as a test of endurance, for it involves no great suffering, and neither it nor the severer operation of sub-incision (practiced in Australia) is ever spoken of as an official test. 2. A hygienic ground is out of the question for early society. The requisite medical observation is then lacking, and there is no hint of such a motive in the material bearing on the subject.. The exact meaning of Herodotus’s statement that the Egyptians were circumcised for the sake of cleanliness, preferring it to beauty, is not clear; but in any case so late an idea throws no light on the beginnings. (Cf. Herod. II, 7). 3. Somewhat more to the point is Crawley’s view that the object of the removal of the prepuce is to get rid of the dangerous emanation from the physical secretion therewith connected.. But this view, though conceivably correct, is without support from known facts.. There is no trace of fear of the secretion in question… nor does this theory account for the custom of subincision. 4. As circumcision is often performed shortly before marriage, it has been suggested that its object is to increase pro-creative phimosis.. Such an object, however, is improbable for low stages of societyit implies an extent of observation that is not to be assumed for savages. 5. There is no clear evidence that the origin of circumcision is to be traced to religious conceptions. It has been held that it is connected with the cult of the generative organs (phallic worship).. But each of these customs is found frequently without the other: In India we have phallic worship without circumcision, in Australia circumcision without phallic worship; and this separateness of the two may be said to be the rule. The cult of the phallus seems not to exist among the lowest peoples. 6*.* The view that circumcision is of the nature of a sacrifice or dedication to a deity, particularly to a deity of fertility, appears to be derived from late usages in times when more refined ideas have been attached to early customs. The Phrygian practice of excision was regarded, probably, as a sacrifice. But elsewhere, in Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, and Canaan, where the worship of gods and goddesses of fertility was prominent, we do not find circumcision connected therewith. In the writings of the Old Testament prophets it is treated as a symbol of moral purification. Among the lower peoples there is no trace of the conception if it as a sacrifice. It is not circumcision that makes the phallus sacredit is sacred in itself, and all procedures of savage veneration for the prepuce assume its inherent potency. 7. Nor can circumcision be explained as an attenuated survival of human sacrifice. The practice (in Peru and elsewhere) of drawing blood from the heads or hands of children on solemn occasions may be a softening of an old savage custom, and the blood of circumcision is sacred. But this quality attaches to all blood, and the essential thing in circumcision is not the blood but the removal of the prepuce. 8. The suggestion that the object of detaching and preserving the foreskin (a vital part of one’s self) is to lay up a stock of vital energy, and thus secure reincarnation for the disembodied spirit, is putting an afterthought for origin. The existence of the practice in question is doubtful, and it must have arisen, if it existed, after circumcision had become an established custom. Savages and other peoples, when they feelthe need of providing for reincarnation, commonly preserve the bones or the whole body of the deceased.

Lange (CDHCG, 423, 424): The Epistle of Barnabas, in a passage which has not been sufficiently regarded (ch. 9) brings into prominence the idea, that we must distinguish circumcision, as an original custom of different nations, from that which receives the patriarchal and theocratic sanction. -The heathen circumcision,-’ as Delitzsch remarks, -leaving out of view the Ishmaelites, Arabians, and the tribes connected with them both by blood and in history, is thus very analogous to the heathen sacrifice. As the sacrifice sprang from the feeling of the necessity for an atonement, so circumcision from the consciousness of the impurity of human nature.-’ But that the spread of circumcision among the ancient nations is analogous to the general prevalence of sacrifice, has not yet been proved. It remains to be investigated, whether the national origin of circumcision stands rather in some relation to religious sacrifice; whether it may possibly form an opposition to the custom of human sacrifice (for it is just as absurd to view it with some, as a remnant of human sacrifice, as to regard it with others, as a modification of eunuchism); whether it may have prevailed from sanitary motives, or whether is has not rather from the first had its ground and source in the idea of the consecration of the generative nature, and of the propagation of the race. At all events, circumcision did not come to Abraham as a custom of his ancestors; he was circumcised when ninety-nine years of age. This bears with decisive weight against the generalizing of the custom by Delitzsch. As to the destination of circumcision to be the sign of the covenant, its patriarchal origin is beyond question. Again, Gosman (CDHCG, 424): As the rainbow was chosen to be the sign of the covenant with Noah, so the prior existence of circumcision does not render it less fit to be the sign of the covenant with Abraham, nor less significant. Murphy (MG, 310): The rainbow was the appropriate natural emblem of preservation from a flood; and the removal of the foreskin was the fit symbol of that removal of the old man and renewal of nature, which qualified Abraham to be the parent of a holy seed. And as the former sign foreshadows an incorruptible inheritance, so the latter prepares the way for a holy seed, by which the holiness and the heritage will at length be universally extended. Again, Lange, ibid., p. 424): See John 7:22. Still it was placed upon a new legal basis by Moses (Exodus 4:24-25; Leviticus 12:3), and was brought into regular observance by Joshua (Joshua 5:2). That it should be the symbol of the new birth, i.e., of the sanctification of human nature, from its source and origin, is shown both by the passages which speak of the circumcision of the heart (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25; Ezekiel 44:7), and from the manner of speech in use among the Israelites, in which Jewish proselytes were described as new-born.

Details of the Ordinance of Circumcision. (1) Genesis 17:10every male among you shall be circumcised. (Cf. Exodus 12:48-49, Joshua 5:3; Joshua 5:7). This allowed for no exceptions; at the same time it exempted all females. (It should be noted that circumcision of girls (by the removal of the clitoris and the labia minora) was a common custom among many primitive peoples and continues to be practised by some groups in our own time. Closely related to circumcision of girls was the practice of introcision (enlargement of the vaginal orifice by tearing it downward) and infibulation (the closing of the labia just after circumcision). The first two of the practices mentioned were for the purpose of facilitating coition; the last-named was for the purpose of preventing coition until the proper age was reached. These practices were all characteristic of initiation ceremonies associated with arrival at the age of puberty. Obviously this could not have been the design of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant: hence, we must conclude that in it females were considered as represented by the males, as stated above. (2) Genesis 17:8he that is eight days old (cf. Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59; Luke 2:21; Philippians 3:5). This specific age requirement shows that in the Abrahamic covenant circumcision could not have been a puberty rite in any sense of the term: we know of no puberty rites performed on infants only eight days old. (Note the interesting case of Zipporah and Moses and their two sons, Exodus 2:22; Exodus 18:2-4; Exodus 4:24-26. The narrative in Genesis 17:24-26 is somewhat obscure. It seems, however, that Eliezer had been born a few days before Zipporah and Moses set out on the journey back to Egypt. In the course of the journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived and his circumcision should have taken place. Evidently the rite was repugnant to Zipporah and she deferred it, with Moses weakly consenting to this act of disobedience. At the end of the eighth day, when Moses went to rest for the night, he was seized by what was probably a dangerous illness of some kind. This he rightly regarded as a divinely inflicted punishment, visited on him for his act of disobedience. To dishonor that sign and seal of the covenant was criminal in any Hebrew, particularly so in one destined to be the leader and deliverer of the Hebrews; and he seems to have felt his sickness as a merited chastisement for the sinful omission. Concerned for her husband’s safety, Zipporah overcomes her maternal feelings of aversion to the painful rite, performs it herself, by means of one of the sharp flints with which that part of the desert abounded, an operation which her husband, on whom the duty devolved, was unable to do; and having brought the bloody evidence, exclaimed, in the painful excitement of her feelings, that from love to him she had risked the life of her child (Jamieson, CEC, Exo., in loco). Note her reproachful words, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. That is, surely I have redeemed thy life, and, as it were, wedded thee anew to me in the bloody circumcision of thy son (SIB, Exo., in loco). Note the following explanation (JB, 83): Zipporah circumcises her son and simulates circumcision for her husband by touching his male organ with her son’s foreskin. Not to circumcise was tantamount to abrogating the covenant (Genesis 17:14) and meant that the uncircumcised was cut off from inclusion in the covenant people. Since the advent of Christ, real circumcision has been of the heart and not of the flesh, Romans 2:29 (HSB, 89). The rite once performed, albeit reluctantly, God abated His anger and permitted Moses to recover his strength and continue his journey to Egypt. This incident surely proves that fleshly circumcision was not to be treated lightly under the Old Covenant. It points up the fact also that no divine ordination is to be treated lightly. Think of the many ways in which churchmen have ignored, rejected, distorted, even ridiculed, Christian baptism! (3) Why on the eighth day? Perhaps because it was held that the child was not separated and purified from its embryonic state until seven days had gone by following birth, seven having been regarded as the number (symbol) of perfection and the week of birth was a terminus for the birth throes and labor (the time element may have been definitely connected with the ceremonial purification of the mother, Leviticus 12). Moreover, as the law regarded animals used for sacrifice as entering upon their independent existence with the eighth day (Exodus 22:30, Leviticus 22:17), so the human infant was probably viewed from the same angle.

The following summation (K-D, 227) is worthy of careful study here: Eternal duration was promised only to the covenant established by God with the seed of Abraham, which was to grow into a multitude of nations, but not to the covenant institution which God established in connection with the lineal posterity of Abraham, the twelve tribes of Israel. Everything in this institution which was of a local and limited character, and only befitted the physical Israel and the earthly Canaan, existed only so long as was necessary for the seed of Abraham to expand into a multitude of nations. So again it was only in its essence that circumcision could be a sign of the eternal covenant. Circumcision, whether it passed from Abraham to other nations, or sprang up among other nations independently ofAbraham and his descendants, was based upon the religious view that the sin and moral impurity which the fall of Adam had introduced into the nature of man had concentrated itself in the sexual organs, because it is in sexual life that it generally manifests itself with peculiar force; and, consequently, that for the sanctification of life, a purification or sanctification of the organ of generation, by which life is propagated, is especially required. In this way circumcision in the flesh became a symbol of the circumcision, i.e., the purification of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25, Ezekiel 44:7), and a covenant sign to those who received it, inasmuch as they were received into the fellowship of the holy nation (Exodus 19:6), and required to sanctify their lives, in other words, to fulfill all that the covenant demanded. It was to be performed on every boy on the eighth day after birth, not because the child, like its mother, remains so long in a state of impurity, but because, as the analogous rule with regard to the fitness of young animals for sacrifice would lead us to conclude, this was regarded as the first day of independent existence (Leviticus 22:27, Exodus 22:29).

(4) Genesis 17:12-13Every male child that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed (cf. Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:15-16). Murphy (MG, 310): This points out the applicability of the covenant to others, as well as the children of Abraham, and therefore its capability of universal extension when the fullness of the time should come. It also intimates the very plain but very often forgotten truth, that our obligation to obey God is not cancelled by our unwillingness. The serf is bound to have his child circumcised as long as God requires it, though he may be unwilling to comply with the divine commandments. It will be noted that the two classes specified here were those male children born within the limits of Abraham’s own household, and foreign male children born of parents who had been bought with his money. Obviously these two classes had to be taught to know Jehovah after their induction into the covenant. Cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34here we learn that this fleshly covenant was to give way in due time to a new spiritual covenant, a covenant of faith; that is, all who enter into this new covenant relationship should know Jehovah as a condition of admission. Under this New Covenant God’s law would be written in their hearts (put into their inward parts) as a prerequisite of their induction into the covenant (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-11, Hebrews 8:6-13). Fleshly circumcision should give way to spiritual circumcision, circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:9-13). But now the further question: Were such uncircumcised slaves and slave children incorporated into the chosen people by this rite? Leupold (EG, 524): We believe that the answer must be, Yes. Israel certainly never had a separate slave class, who were deemed inferior beings and mere chattels. What then became of the slaves that originally were part of the household establishment and went down into Egypt at Jacob’s time? The answer seems to be: They were naturally absorbed by the Israelites and blended with the Israelite stock, adopting the Israelite religion. So with all its necessary exclusiveness Israel wasat the same time broader in its attitude than many assume. But there certainly could be little hesitation about letting circumcised slaves be merged with the chosen race. The rite of circumcision, instead of being the badge of any favored class within the nation destined to spring from Abraham’s loins, was, on pain of excommunication, to be open to the lowliest member of the commonwealth of Israel, even to the bond-servant and the stranger.(5)* The penalty for disobedience,* either by omission or commission: that soul shall be cut off from his people. Not infants, who could not circumcise themselves, but such as wilfully neglected the ordinance when they grew up, would nationally be cut off from their people. Anyone who renounced this distinguishing mark of Abraham’s seed, renounced his covenant alliance with God and fellowship with His people. Nothing could be more reasonable, therefore, than that they should be excluded from the privileges of the nation and accounted as heathens. This is the import of cutting off from his people in most of the passages where we find the phrase (cf. Exodus 12:15; Exodus 12:19; Exodus 30:33; Exodus 30:38.Leviticus 7:20-21; Leviticus 7:25; Leviticus 7:27; Leviticus 17:4; Leviticus 17:9-10; Leviticus 17:14; Leviticus 22:3.Numbers 9:3; Numbers 19:13; Numbers 19:20). In some passages, however, death is certainly connected with the phrase, that is, death by the immediate hand of God thru the magistrate (cf. Exodus 31:14; Leviticus 18:29; Leviticus 19:8; Leviticus 20:3; Leviticus 20:5-6; Leviticus 20:17; Numbers 15:30-36). It is difficult to determine whether this phrase indicated anything beyond excommunication in the present instance. Certainly, however, to despise and reject the sign, was to despise and reject the covenant itself; hence, he who neglects or refuses the sign, he hath broken my covenant (Genesis 17:14). It can not be doubted that in some cases capital punishment (by stoning to death) was the sanction inflicted for flagrant violations of God’s law under the Mosaic institution. However, to suppose that such was its meaning here necessitates the restriction of the punishment to adults, whereas with the alternative signification no such restriction requires to be imposed on the statute. The uncircumcised Hebrew, whether child or adult, forfeited his standing in the congregation, i.e., ceased to be a member of the Hebrew commonwealth: he hath broken my covenant (Whitelaw, PCG, 234).

Design of the Covenant Sign. Not a divinely ordained instrumentality for initiation into the people of God, at least not for a native Israelite. He was a member of the people of God by virtue of birth. By circumcision he was made aware of his covenant obligations and received a perpetual badge or reminder of these obligations (Leupold, EG, 521). Was it, as some would have it, a self-imposed obligation on the part of God, irrespective of any condition on the part of man, or was it, as others would say, a bilateral engagement involving reciprocal obligations between God and men? We think Skinner’s explanation is more to the point (ICCG, 298): The truth seems to lie somewhere between two extremes. The Berith is neither a simple divine promise to which no obligation on man’s part is attached (as in Genesis 15:18), nor is it a mutual contract in the sense that the failure of one party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determination of God’s purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate; but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the individual from its benefits. (The same is equally true of the New Covenant). Circumcision here becomes a sign which, like the rainbow of Gen 9:16-17, is to remind God of his Covenant and man of the obligations deriving from his belonging to chosen people (JB, 33, n.). Circumcision was covenantal in nature, being the outward sign or seal of the Abrahamic agreement which God made (Genesis 17:11). The failure to be circumcised separated one from the people of Israel. The command was perpetuated in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:3, John 7:22-23). In the gospel dispensation, circumcision was abolished (Ephesians 2:11-15, Colossians 3:11), and to require it now is to revert to legalism. Circumcision in this age is of the heart and not of the flesh, but even when it was binding it had no value unless accompanied by faith and obedience (Romans 3:30, Galatians 5:6, Romans 2:25, 1 Corinthians 7:19) (HSB, 28). The most important fact of all is that circumcision is tied up closely with the Messianic hope. For if it indicates the purification of life at its source, it in the last analysis points forward to Him through whom all such purification is to be achieved, who is Himself also to be born by a woman, but is to be He in whom for the first time that which circumcision prefigures will be actually realized (EG, 521).

REVIEW QUESTIONS

See Genesis 17:22-27.

Genesis 17:15-21

4. The Covenant-Heir (Genesis 17:15-21)

*15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. 16 And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her. 17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old) and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? 18 And Abraham said unto God, Oh that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

The Child of Promise.* Sarah, not having mentioned hitherto in any of the divine promises, is now explicitly taken into the covenant, and accordingly receives a new name. (Cf. Genesis 32:27-28, Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 3:12). In view of the fact that she is to be the mother of the covenant-heir, her name will no longer be Sarai, but Sarah (princess); that is; whereas formerly she was Abraham’s princess only, she-’ is now to be recognized as princess generally, especially as princess to the Lord. Moreover, it is now expressly announced for the first time that the Child of Promisethe promised seedwas to be Sarah’s child; that he should be born at this set time in the next year; that his name should be Isaac (laughter). (Cf. Genesis 16:11 on naming prior to birth). Genesis 17:16A mother of nations she shall be; kings of peoples shall be of her. This promise did not include the Ishmaelites or the sons of Keturah (Genesis 25:1-4): they were not born of Sarah. The Israelites descended from her, but were only one nation. Hence this promise must mean that the posterity of Abraham embraced his spiritual posterity also, i.e., all peoples who are grafted into the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 4:11-12; Romans 4:16-17; Romans 11:15-24). Aptly she was named Sarah: she was to bear the child of promise, to become a mother of peoples, and a mother of kings. History testifies, of course, that all the parts of this divine promise were literally fulfilled.

Abraham’s Laughter, Genesis 17:7. Interpretations of the patriarch’s response to this announcement of the identity of the Child of Promise are varied. For example, Skinner (ICCG, 295) Abraham’s demeanor is a strange mixture of reverence and incredulity. Cornfeld (AtD, 67):God was not conceived as impersonal in patriarchal times, and if we are to understand properly the biblical texts, we must develop a feeling for a social phenomenon of the times, the closeness of men to gods, and of the Hebrews to God. In our society a man who claims to have divine visitors is regarded as queer. That is why it is not easy for every modern reader, who is not familiar with the ancient background and literatures, to understand that aspect of Hebrew society. For the ancient Hebrews, the human and divine intermingled freely. The early direct relationship between men and gods is common to all the epics: Ugarit, Mesopotamian, Greek and proto-patriarchal. This simple personal contact between men and God was gradually eliminated. Again: A charming tradition illustrates how Abraham, on intimate terms with the Lord, dared to intercede with him, in the famous dialogue over the problem of the wicked people of Sodom and its few, hypothetical righteous men. (Cf. Moses and God, Exodus 19:7-15; Numbers 11:10-23; Numbers 14:11-35). But, note Lange’s comment (CDHCG, 424): That the interpreter. knows nothing of a laugh of astonishment, in connection with full faith, indeed, in the immediate experience of the events (Psalms 126:1-2) is evident.. We may confidently infer from the different judgments of Abraham’s laughter here, and that of Sarah, which is recorded afterward, that there was an important distinction in the states of mind from which they sprang. The characteristic feature in the narration here is, that Abraham fell upon his face, as at first, after the promise, Genesis 17:2. The laughter of Abraham was the exultation of joy, not the smile of unbelief (Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 16, 26). Certainly the laughter of Sarah later (Genesis 18:12-15) was one of incredulity, but the concept of Abraham in a derisive attitude toward God is not in keeping with the patriarch’s character. Murphy (MG, 311): From the reverential attitude assumed by Abraham we infer that his laughter sprang from joyful and grateful surprise. Said in his heart. The following questions of wonder are not addressed to God; they merely. agitate the breast of the astonished patriarch. Hence his irrepressible smile arises not from any doubt of the fulfillment of the promise, but from surprise at the unexpected mode in which it is to be fulfilled. Laughing in Scripture expresses joy in the countenance, as dancing does in the whole body. Jamieson (CSCG, 153): It was not the sneer of unbelief, but a smile of delight at the prospect of so improbable an event (Romans 4:20); he fully believed the word of God; there was humility blended with wonder and joy. This is what our Lord alluded to, John 8:56. As Abraham saw heaven in the promise of Canaan, so he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac (laughter.) Abraham’s laughter is to be echoed by Sarah’S, Genesis 18:12, and Ishmael’S, Genesis 21:9 (see also Genesis 21:6): each is an allusion to the name Isaac. which means, -May God smile, be kind-’ or -has smiled, has been kind.-’ Abraham’s laughter is a sign not so much of unbelief as of surprise at the extraordinary announcement; his mention of Ishmael, present heir-apparent to the Promise, is an implicit request for reassurance. Speiser would render it, he smiled, anticipating the personal name Isaac. He adds (ABG, 125): A Hurro-Hittite tale describes the father (Appu) as placing his newborn son on his knees and rejoicing over him. Such acts were often the basis for naming the child accordingly. The shortened form Isaac (with the subject left out) undoubtedly reflects some such symbolic gesture: (X) rejoiced over, smiled on (the child), etc. Leupold (EG, 527): From what follows it becomes very clear that Abraham’s attitude in no way lays him open to blame. Nothing is indicative of doubt or misgivings in his reply. Consequently, when he falls upon his face, this is an act of worshipful adoration. Also his laughter is the laughter of joy and surprise. A host of glad feelings is called forth in him at this precious promise. So, too, the questions express no doubt but happy wonder. For saying -to himself-’ the Hebrew uses the more expressive belibbo, -in his heart.-’ Abraham laughed, in virtue of his firm belief of the promise, and his satisfaction therein (Romans 4:16-25, John 8:56); but Sarah laughed in unbelieving derision, ch. Genesis 18:12 (SIB, 240). After twenty-four years of impatient waiting, the words of God seem an idle fancy to Abraham. All of the outward circumstances were against him. The biological facts of life stood over against the promise of God. Sight and sense told him the promise was impossible of fulfillment. Yet Abraham was a man of faith who had moments of doubt. How much we can learn from his laugh of disbelief here! (HSB, 29).

Abraham’s intercession for Ishmael Genesis 17:18. Would that Ishmael might live in your favor! was Abraham’s plea. We may assumeor so it seems to this writerthat Abraham had fallen into the erroneous expectation that the divine promise would be fulfilled in Ishmael, and since there is no record of any divine correction of his error in the meantime, it is difficult to see how the patriarch could have avoided this conclusion. Undoubtedly Hagar had communicated to him the substance of the revelation granted her as to her-’ own son’s destiny (Genesis 16:10-11) and this surely would have strengthened his conviction. Now he receives the final communication from God which expressly identifies the covenant-heir as Sarah’s child who is to be born at this set time in the next year, his paternal solicitude manifests itself for the firstborn, the child of the handmaiden. It puts an end to the old, sad doubt, in regard to Ishmael, since it starts a new and, transient doubt in reference to the promise of Isaac; therefore there is mingling with his faith, not yet perfect on account of the joy (Luke 24:41), abeautiful paternal feeling for the still beloved Ishmael, and his future of faith. Hence the intercession for Ishmael; the characteristic feature of which is, a question of love, whether the son of the long-delayed hope, should also hold his share of the blessing (Lange, CDHCG, 425). Let Ishmael live and prosper under thy favor, was Abraham’s plea. God answers, I have heard thee, and agrees to bestow His blessing in a fourfold manner; Ishmael is to be fruitful, that is, prolific; he is to be multiplied exceedingly; he is to beget twelve princes (cf. Genesis 25:12-16): he is to become a great nation (people). Some nations might have called these rulers kings, but the Ishmaelites called them princes. Nevertheless, the divine promise is expressly reaffirmed: the true covenant-heir shall be Sarah’s child (Genesis 17:21). (As for Ishmael, I have heard thee, an allusion to the significance of the name Ishmael, which means God hears.) Abraham still hoped that Ishmael would be recognized, but this plea and God’s answer in Genesis 17:19 shows that man’s answers and ways can never be substituted for God’s (HSB, 29). The blessings of the covenant were reserved for Isaac, but common blessings were to be showered abundantly on Ishmael; and though the covenant relationship did not descend from his family, yet personally he might, and it is to be hoped did, enjoy its benefits. And God left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham, went up to heaven. (cf. 3 Gen 5:13): a most interesting concluding statement.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

See Genesis 17:22-27.

Genesis 17:22-27

5. Abraham’s Obedience, Genesis 17:22-27

22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. 23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, as God had said unto him. 24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son; 27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

The prompt obedience of Abraham is shown by his circumcising himself and all male members of his household without delay (in the selfsame day). The text indicates that Abraham performed the rite upon himself and upon Ishmael first, and then upon the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money of a foreigner. Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13 years old when the circumcision was performed. (According to the testimony of Josephus, Ant. I. 12. 2, the Arabs delay circumcision until the 13th year. By Moslems Ishmael is hailed as an ancestor, buried with his mother in the Kaaba at Mecca.) Abraham’s faith triumphed over his doubts. He responded to the covenant by circumcising himself and all his males. Thus he passed another crucial stage in his walk and experience with the covenant-keeping God! (HSB, 29). Note well, Genesis 17:27all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him. Jamieson (CECG, 154): Whatever had become the heathen version of this symbol, no one will deny that when the Hebrew patriarch circumcised the members of his household, he both acted with a definite purpose and was animated by a spirit thoroughly religious. The symbol was profoundly ethical, and was distinguished not only for its equal operation, but the grandeur of the end for which it was appointed. Translated into words, the meaning of it was, -be ye holy, for I am holy.-’ Outward in the flesh, and so, accordant with the sterner genius of the old economy, it imprinted on, the mind of every Hebrew the peculiar closeness of his own relations to the pure and perfect God, and the necessity therein implied of fearing and loving Him, and circumcising (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) more and more -the foreskin of -the heart.-’ The narrative describes the rite as performed upon -every male-’ in -Abraham’s house.-’ Females had no equivalent for it. The absence of circumcision, however, did not convey the idea that the privileges of the covenant were not applicable to woman also, but that she was dependent, and that her position in the natural and covenant-life was not without the husband, but in and with himnot in her capacity as woman, but as wife (and mother). Woman was sanctified and set apart in and with man; in and with him she had part in the covenant, and so far as her nature and position demanded and admitted of it, she had to co-operate in the development of the covenant!

The Covenant, God repeated (Genesis 17:21) for emphasis no doubt, should be established with Isaac whom Sarah was to bear to Abraham at that very time in the following year. Since Ishmael therefore was excluded from participating in the covenant grace, which was ensured to Isaac alone; and yet Abraham was to become a multitude of nations, and that through Sarah, who was to become -nations-’ through the son she was to bear (Genesis 17:16); this -multitude of nations-’ could not include either the Ishmaelites or the tribes descended from the sons of Keturah (ch. Genesis 25:2 ff.), but the descendants of Isaac alone; and as one of Isaac’s two sons received no part of the covenant promise, but only the descendants of Jacob alone. But the whole of the twelve sons of Jacob founded only the one nation of Israel, with which Jehovah established the covenant made with Abraham (Exo. chs. 6, 20-24), so that Abraham became through Israel the lineal father of one nation only. From this it necessarily follows, that the posterity of Abraham, which was to expand into a multitude of nations, extends beyond this one lineal posterity, and embraces the spiritual posterity also, i.e., all nations who are grafted ex pisteos Abraam into the seed of Abraham, Romans 4:11-12; Romans 4:16-17). (KD, 226). By this enlargement it follows that in reality Abraham received the promise that he should be heir of the world (Romans 4:13).

To summarize: 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) (Schultz, OTS, 34).

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

The Two Covenants, or From Sinai to Calvary

John 1:17, Galatians 3:23-29, Hebrews 8, 2, Corinthians 3.

Every student of the Bible knows that it consists of two general divisions or parts: what is known as the Old Testament or Covenant, and what is known as the New Testament or Covenant (the Testaments being the stereotyped records of the respective Covenants); what is known as the Law before the Cross, and what is known as the Gospel since the Cross; what is known as the letter on the other side of the Cross, and what is known as the spirit on this side; what is called the ministration of death on the other side, and what is called. the ministration of life on this side; what is known as the ministration of condemnation on the other side, and what is known as the ministration of righteousness on this side. Calvary is the dividing line. When Jesus died on the Cross, the Partition Veil, i.e., the curtain between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, of the Temple, was rent in twain (Matthew 27:51), thus, symbolizing the point of demarcation between the Covenants and signifying that for the first time since man’s fall, the way into heaven itself, the Holy of Holies, was opened up; that humanity had unhindered access to the Throne of Grace, through Christ, and without the services of an officiating earthly priesthood. In brief the rent veil symbolized the abrogation of the Old Covenant and the ratification of the New.

The books of the Old Testament point forward in type, symbol, metaphor and prophecy, to Christ and His church as revealed in the New Testament. The subject-matter of the Old Testament is valuable to us historically, and in its delineation of human character and its treatment of the problems of everyday living, its ethical value is inestimable. Its evidential worth, in laying a proper foundation for the Christian system, is immeasurable. But the books of the Old Testament do not reveal the Christian religion. Though inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were for the fleshly seed of Abraham. Christianity is not revealed in the Old Testament, except in shadow, as a thing of the future, as a system yet to be instituted. In the words of the well-known couplet:

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

It should be understood also that the two Covenants are not identical; that is, that the New is not a continuation or enlargement of the Old, but a distinct and separate Covenant, enacted upon better promises and offering infinitely greater blessings and rewards (Hebrews 8:6, Ephesians 2:15-16). (Note the significance of the expression, one new man, as used in this connection).

It becomes exceedingly important that we know what belongs to the respective Covenants. (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). Much confusion has resulted from the failure of theologians and preachers generally to make the proper distinctions. We hear it said even in our day of enlightenment that the whole Bible is binding upon Christians. Certainly those who make such assertions do not believe what they say, or, if they do, they do not practice what they preach. This writer does not know of a church group in all Christendom that even makes a pretense of perpetuating the laws and observances of the Old Covenant. For example, under the Old Covenant, God commanded the following: (1) that every male child should be circumcised on the eighth day, Genesis 7:9-14; (2) that many different kinds of animal sacrifices should be offered; Leviticus 23; (3) that the Passover should be kept annually Exodus 12; (4) that the seventh day should be set aside as the Sabbath, as a memorial of the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, Exodus 16:21-30, Deuteronomy 5:12-15; (5) that the people should allow their lands to rest every seventh year, Exodus 23:10-11; (6) that a distinction should be made between clean and unclean animals, Leviticus 11; (7) the Levitical priesthood, the tabernacle and its ritualism, the Day of Atonement, the many and varied solemn feasts and convocations, new moons and sabbaths, etc. Under the Old Covenant no one was permitted to kindle a fire on the Sabbath day, (Exodus 35:2-3). In Numbers 15:23-26 there is an account of a violation of this command, and we read that the guilty man was taken outside the camp and stoned to death. Capital punishment was usually inflicted for an infraction of the Law of Moses; hence, the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant as the ministration of death, 2 Corinthians 3:7. The various Christian bodies make no pretense of maintaining these Mosaic laws and observances, and would indeed be foolish to do so, because they are not in any sense a part of the Christian Gospel or system. They were for the fleshly seed of Abraham only, and were abrogated along with the Mosaic Law at the death of Christ.

The distinctions between the Two Covenants may be listed briefly as follows:

1. The Old was made with the fleshly seed of Abraham only. It was first announced to Abraham himself, and was later enlarged into a national covenant at the time of the establishment of the Jewish theocracy under Moses, at Mount Sinai, Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 17:1-8; Genesis 22:15-18; Deuteronomy 5:2-5, Galatians 3:19. It is generally known as the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant, on the other hand, is an overture to all mankind, although its blessings are confined to those who comply with its conditions of membership, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 10:34-43; Acts 17:30-31; Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:26-29.

2. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant, Jesus of the New (Deuteronomy 5:5; Hebrews 3:1-6; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:18-28; Hebrews 12:24; 1 Timothy 2:5).

3. The basis of membership in the Old Covenant was fleshly. The Covenant included those born in Abraham’s house and those bought with Abraham’s money, that is, those born of Hebrew parents and those retained as slaves in the Hebrew households, Genesis 17:12. Obviously, all such infants and heathen servants had to be taught to know Jehovah after they had been inducted into the Covenant by circumcision. But the basis of membership in the New Covenant is spiritual, Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 3:1-6: it depends not on earthly parentage, nor upon inclusion in any particular racial or ethnic group, but upon spiritual birth. (See Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 3:1-6). Under the New, God must write His laws in our hearts, and we must all know Him, from the least unto the greatest of us, in order to be admitted into the Covenant. In a word, one of the things absolutely necessary to participation in the blessings of the New Covenant is that we know God by faith in Jesus Christ who came to reveal God to us (John 14:1, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-10, etc.). We know Him by faith, and we appropriate the blessings of the Covenant by obedience (Romans 10:17, Hebrews 11:6, Matthew 7:24-27, John 15:14, Hebrews 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 1 Peter 1:22). This, of course, does not include the innocent and the irresponsible, such as infants, for whom Jesus atoned unconditionally when He died on the Cross. Those who die in infancy pass directly from the kingdom of innocence into the kingdom of glory (Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:4, Matthew 19:14; Matthew 18:1-6, etc.)

4. The seal of the Old Covenant was fleshly circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14). The seal of the New Covenant is the indwelling Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30, etc.). This cutting off of the old sinful relationship and life by the entrance of the Holy Spirit into the obedient believer’s heart is spiritual circumcision (Acts 2:38-39, Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:9-12, Ephesians 1:13-14).

5. The Old Covenant was national, confined to one people, the fleshly seed of Abraham, The Mosaic Code was a civil code for the government of the Theocracy of Israel. In this sense the Law of Moses might be said to correspond to the civil statutes of the United States of America, and the Decalogue, which was the core of the Mosaic Law, to our federal Constitution (Deuteronomy 5:2-21). The tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments were engraved were known as the tables of testimony or tables of the Covenant (Exodus 24:12; Exodus 31:18; Exodus 32:15-16; Deuteronomy 6:20-23; Deuteronomy 4:13; Deuteronomy 10:1-5). The New Covenant is for all mankind. It has no geographical or racial limitations. The Decalogue is God’s mandate to humanity, binding on ruled and ruler alike.

6. The Old Covenant was local i.e., adapted to a people living in a fairly warm climate. Its provisions pertained largely to matters of the flesh, meats and drinks and divers washings, carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation (Hebrews 9:10). How could any human being living in a cold climate obey the Old Covenant regulations governing the observance of the Sabbath, one of which was that no fire was to be kindled on that day? The commands of the New Covenant are, on the other hand, moral and spiritual in nature, and can be obeyed by all people in all parts of the world. This is not only true with respect to Christ’s ethical teaching, but equally so with respect to His positive ordinancesbaptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the Lord’s Day (Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:26-27; 1 Corinthians 11:23-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2). These ordinances can be observed anywhere regardless of circumstances, climate, or environment.

7. The penalty for violating the Old Covenant was in most cases physical death. The penalty for refusing the overtures of the New Covenant is spiritual death, eternal separation from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Revelation 20:11-15). For example, under the Old Covenant adultery was a crime for which the death penalty was inflicted, usually by stoning; under the New, it is a sin which will damn the soul.

8. The New Covenant is a better Covenant because it has been enacted upon better promises (Hebrews 8:6). Under the Old, for instance, there was no actual remission of sins, for the simple reason that animal sacrifices were not a sufficient atonement for the guilt of sin (Hebrews 10:1-18). On each annual Day of Atonement the High Priest of Israel went into the Holy of Holies with the prescribed offerings for his own sins and for the sins of the people, in response to which God merely laid the guilt of their sins over to the next annual Day of Atonement, and so on throughout the entire Jewish Dispensation. There was never any actual remission of sins until the Son of God Himself made the sufficient Atonement once at the end of the ages. by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:6-10; Hebrews 9:23-28; Exodus 30:10, Leviticus 23). Under the New Covenant, however, remission of sins is one of the promises of the Gospel (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43; Luke 24:45-49). We have God’s promise that on condition of our own faith and continued obedience He will be merciful with respect to our iniquities and will remember our sins against us no more (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:10-12). And let us remember that when God forgives, He forgets (Psalms 103:12, Hebrews 8:12).

9.Under the Old Covenant there was no distinct assurance of blessedness beyond the grave. Old Testament intimations of the future life are indefinite (cf. Job 14:13-15; Job 19:25-27; Psalms 23). But the Christian Scriptures speak with positiveness about Judgment, blessedness, Life Everlasting, immortality, etc. Jesus Himself spoke of the future life in such unmistakable terms as to leave no room for doubt, and the Apostles testify with no less finality about these matters in their own writings. (John 11:25-26; John 10:18;, Acts 2:36; Acts 17:31; Matthew 25:31-46; Rom. 6:28, Romans 8:11; 2 Corinthians 5:1-4, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.).

10. The Old Covenant was negative throughout, The Ten Commandments have been called the thou-shalt-nots of God. The contrast between the thunderings of Jehovah above Sinai announcing the prohibitions of the Decalogue, and the gentle accents of the Son of Man proclaiming the Beatitudes, in His Sermon on the Mount, is an analogy of the distinction between the Covenants. No wonder, then, that the New Covenant is called the royal law and the perfect law, the law of liberty (James 2:8; James 1:25).

11. The Decalogue was the foundation and the very heart, so to speak, of the Law of Moses. Yet the Ten Commandments were nailed to the Cross, along with the rest of the Law. They were not abolished, but were abrogated, i.e., set aside, then re-enacted, with but one exception, in the New Testament. We as Christians are subject to the provisions of the Decalogue only to the extent that is fundamental ethical principles, which are necessarily permanent, have been re-enacted as a part of the Christian System. When a man makes two wills, he may take certain provisions of the old will and re-incorporate them in the new; and they are binding, not because they were in the old, but because they are in the new. A careful survey of the apostolic writings reveals the fact that all the Ten Commandments, with but one exception, have been re-stated in the Christian Scriptures, with this fundamental difference: in the Old they are stated negatively, but in the New, positively. The Fourth Commandment is not re-enacted in the New Testament. There is no command in the apostolic writings that we as Christians should keep the Sabbath. There would be no reason for our keeping it, as it was a memorial to the fleshly seed of Abraham of their fathers-’ deliverance from Egyptian bondage. It would be meaningless to a Gentile. Therefore, we as Christians are to keep the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day, instead of the seventh day. The Lord’s Day is a memorial of the resurrection of our Lord (Mark 16:9,Acts 20:7, Revelation 1:10, Psalms 118:22-24, Acts 4:11-12). (Note the parallels: Exodus 20:3, Acts 4:15; Acts 17:24-31; Exodus 20:4-6 -1 John 5:21; Exodus 20:7, James 5:12; Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:1-4; Exodus 20:13, Romans 13:9-10; Exodus 20:14, Matthew 5:28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Exodus 20:15, Ephesians 4:28; Exodus 20:16, Colossians 3:9; Exodus 20:17, Ephesians 5:3.)

A great many persons seem to have the notionand it is one that should be correctedthat all they need to do to be saved is to keep the Ten Commandments. This is a false and misleading idea. Obeying the Ten Commandments will make a man a respectable citizen and keep him out of jail, but he might obey the Commandments consistently, even perfectly if that were possible, and still not be a Christian. (Cf. Mark 10:17-22). There is nothing in the Decalogue about Christ and His church. We might keep the Commandments perfectly and never believe in Christ, never be baptized, never pray, never observe the Lord’s Supper, never attend a Christian worshiping assembly. The Decalogue is not the Gospel, nor is it any part of the Gospel. Though essential to good morals, it is a minor part of the Christian system of faith and worship. Moreover, Jesus made it quite clear that, spiritually, the Decalogue is inadequate, when, in answer to a question propounded by His critics, He pointed out the two greatest commandments in the Law, and neither of the two is found among the Ten Commandments (Matthew 22:35-40, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18). In brief, we must keep the Ten Commandments to stay out of jail, but one might keep all of them and still fall far short of being a Christian.

Frequently we have been asked the question, Why can we not be saved as the penitent thief (on the Cross) was saved? The answer is obvious. As long as a will-maker (testator) lives, he dispenses his property as he sees fit personally; but when he dies, his property must be dispensed as directed in his last will and testament (cf. Hebrews 9:16-17); and so, as long as our Lord was on earth in the flesh, it was His prerogative to dispense his gifts and graces as He saw fit (Luke 23:39-43; Luke 5:17-26). But when He returned to the Father, He left us His Last Will and Testament, the executors of which were the Apostles, by whom it was probated on the great Day of Pentecost; and so, throughout the present Dispensation His blessings are bestowed on the conditions specified in the New Covenant; these are the keys of the kingdom, and the terms of admission into the Church (Body) of Christ. These conditions are faith in Christ as the Son of the living God, repentance toward Christ,-’ confession of Christ, and baptism into Christ-’ (Matthew 16:18-20; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:38; Acts 16:31-34; Romans 10:9-10, Luke 13:3, 2 Corinthians 7:10, Matthew 10:32-33; Acts 8:34-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4-6, Galatians 3:26-29, John 3:1-5, etc.). (The function of a key is to unlock a door; hence the keys of the kingdom are the requirements which open the door of the church to the obedient believer.)

12. The Law was a civil code for the government of the old Jewish theocracy. It was never intended to be a permanent and universal rule of religious faith and practice. It was added, the Apostle tells us, that is, added to the Abrahamic promise, because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made (Galatians 3:19). The tendency of the Children of Israel to drift into the customs and practices of their idolatrous heathen neighbors occasioned the giving of the Law. Under conscience alone the people became such habitual sinners that it became necessary to put them under a code of law, in order that they might know the eternal distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong. Such is the purpose of law, generally speaking: it is to define right and distinguish it from wrong. Law was never enacted to make people better, but for the purpose of restraining the lawless and protecting the weak from the strong. (Cf. Romans 7:7-11; Romans 3:19-20). Therefore, what the Law could not do for man, God did for him by a manifestation of His infinite grace in the person of His Only Begotten (Romans 8:3-4).

13. To summarize: as stated above, God has made two wills. The first was made with respect to the fleshly seed of Abraham, through the mediation of Moses (Deuteronomy 5). The last is an overture to all mankind through the mediation of Jesus Christ. The Old was ratified by the blood of animals at Sinai: the New was ratified by the precious blood of Christ on Calvary. (Cf. Hebrews 8:11-13) the death of our Lord abrogated the Old and ratified the New at the same time (Colossians 2:13-15, Heb. 8:23-28). He nailed the Law to His Cross and ushered in the universal reign of grace. God graciously permitted the Law to remain as a civil code for the Jewish people down to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but its binding force was removed when Jesus was crucified. One of the elementary principles of law is that a new will automatically abrogates all prior testaments. We today are under the Last Will and Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are not under Law, but under grace; not under the bond written in ordinances, but under the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. (John 1:17, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Romans 4:21-25, Galatians 3:15-29, 2 Corinthians 3:1-11, Hebrews 8; Colossians 2:8-17, etc.).

Circumcision of the Heart

Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25-26. Cf. Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3, Acts 7:51, Galatians 3:27-28, 2 Corinthians 3:2-6, Colossians 2:9-13. The Scriptures teach expressly that there is such a thing as circumcision of the heart. But what does heart (Heb. leb, Gr. kardia) mean in Scripture? This we can determine by what the heart is said to do, to experience, to suffer, etc., namely, it thinks (Genesis 6:5,Deuteronomy 15:9, Proverbs 23:7, Matthew 9:4, Hebrews 4:12); it reasons Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22); it understands (Matthew 13:15); it believes (Romans 10:8-10); it loves (Matthew 22:37); it knows (Deuteronomy 29:4); it breaks with sorrow (Jeremiah 8:18; Jeremiah 23:9); it can be grieved (Deuteronomy 15:10); it can be troubled (John 14:1); it can be fearful (John 14:27); it rejoices (Psalms 16:9; Psalms 28:7; Acts 2:26); it can be comforted (Ephesians 6:22); it wills, purposes, determines (Daniel 1:8, 2 Corinthians 9:7,1 Corinthians 7:37); it can lust (Matthew 5:28, Romans 8:6-7); it obeys (Romans 6:17, Ephesians 6:6); it approves and condemns (Romans 2:14-16, Acts 2:37, 1 John 3:19-22). From all these texts we must conclude that the Scriptural heart includes intellect, feeling, conscience, and will. It is the entire inner man, everything that is not included in the phrase, flesh and blood (John 3:6, 1 Corinthians 15:50, 2 Corinthians 4:16, Romans 7:22, cf. 1 Peter 3:4the hidden man of the heart).

1. There is such a thing as spiritual circumcision, a circumcision not made with hands. The Bible leaves no room for doubt on this matter.
2. Fleshly (physical) circumcision of the Old Covenant was designed to be a type of spiritual circumcision under the New. Hence, as the circumcision ordained in the Old Testament was a seal stamped upon the flesh, it follows that the circumcision ordained in the New Testament must be a seal stamped on the mind or spirit of man, the true inner man (Cf. John 3:1-8, Acts 2:38, Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 11:19).

Whitelaw writes (PCG, 232) that fleshly circumcision was designed (1) to be a sign of the faith that Christ should be descended from Abraham, and (2) to be a symbolic representation of the putting away of the filth of the flesh and of sin in general; therefore, it served the following uses: (1) to distinguish the seed of Abraham from the Gentiles, (2) to perpetuate the memory of Jehovah’s covenant, (3) to foster in the nation the hope of the Messiah, (4) to remind them of the duty of cultivating moral purity (Deuteronomy 10:16), (5)to preach to them the gospel of a righteousness by faith (Romans 4:11), (6) to suggest the idea of a holy or spiritual seed of Abram (Romans 2:29) and (7) to foreshadow the Christian rite of baptism (Colossians 2:11-12).

There can hardly be any disagreement about the first six of the uses of fleshly circumcision listed above. The one exception is the last-named. One of the errors that has caused untold confusion in Christian teaching and practice is this oft-recurring claim that fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant was the type of which baptism is the antitype under the New Covenant. There is no Scripture warrant for this view.

There are many clergymen who still cling to the threadbare argument that baptism as spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant has taken the place of fleshly circumcision, the seal of the Old Covenant; hence, they contend, that as infants were inducted into the Old Covenant by fleshly circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14, cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8), so infants are tobe inducted into the New Covenant by baptism (as a matter of fact, by sprinkling), which, according to the theory has taken the place of the old fleshly circumcision. Their errors are those of making baptism the seal of the New Covenant, and identifying baptism with spiritual circumcision. We reply to this argument as follows:

1. Baptism is not a seal. In New Testament teaching there is not the slightest intimation that baptism is the seal of anything. On the contrary, it is expressly stated that the seal of the New Covenant is the indwelling Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13-14; Ephesians 4:30; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Romans 8:14-17, etc.). True, the reception of the Holy Spirit by the repentant believer is connected in Scripture with baptism; however; it is not baptism. It is the Holy Spirit who seals us as members of the Covenant (Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:27, Titus 3:5). If someone should ask, How can we know that the baptized believer is sealed by the Spirit? or, What is the certain proof? The answer is obvious, namely, the principle enunciated by Jesus Himself, each tree is known by its own fruit (Luke 6:43-45), or by their fruits ye shall know them (Matthew 7:16-23). The baptized believer who is truly sealed by the Spirit will bring forth in his life the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25; James 1:22-27; James 2:14-26; Matthew 7:11-27; Matthew 25:31-46).

2*. Baptism is not spiritual circumcision.* If baptism under the New Covenant has taken the place of fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant, it follows that, since only male infants received fleshly circumcision under the Old (and that when eight days old, Genesis 17:12), so only male infants can be proper subjects for what the pedobaptists call baptism under the New Covenant. As stated above, there is such a thing as spiritual circumcision (Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3, 2 Corinthians 3:2-6, Colossians 2:9-13), a circumcision not made with hands. Moreover, as the fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant was designed to be a type of spiritual circumcision under the New, and hence, that as the circumcision ordained under the Old Covenant was a seal stamped on the flesh, so the circumcision ordained in the New Covenant must be a seal stamped upon the mind or spirit, the inner man.

3. Spiritual circumcision consists in the cutting offfrom the interior manof the body of the guilt of sin. Romans 6:6our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away (1) This is done by the Spirit of God at the time of His entrance into the human heart to indwell and to sanctify it: although this occurs in connection with the penitent believer’s baptism into Christ, still it is not baptism itself. (Acts 2:38; Galatians 3:2; Galatians 5:16-26; John 3:3-8, Titus 3:4-7, etc.). The remedy for sin is the blood of Christ, and the place divinely appointed for the repentant believer to meet the efficacy of this blood is the grave of water (1 John 1:7, Romans 6:1-10, John 3:1-8, Colossians 2:9-12): here divine grace and human faith meet, and the pardon, remission, justification, etc., takes place in the Mind of God; the entrance of the Holy Spirit at the same time cuts off the body of the guilt of past sin: this guilt will be put away as far as the east is from the west (Psalms 103:11-12, Romans 6:6,Colossians 2:9-12). (2) The Spirit of God, as He continues to indwell and to possess the heart of the true Christian as the Agent of the latter’s sanctification, is the seal of his participation in the privileges and responsibilities of the New Covenant, and is at the same time the earnest or pledge of his eternal inheritance, the rest that remaineth for the people of God (1 Peter 1:3-5, Ephesians 1:13-14; Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18; Romans 8:18-23; Colossians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Hebrews 4:9; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 11:13-16; Hebrews 10:28-31; Romans 5:5; Romans 14:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). (3) In a word, spiritual circumcision is, in its essential nature, identical with regeneration, the process which begins with the reception of Christ into the human heart by faith (Galatians 4:19, Colossians 1:27; Romans 10:17; Romans 8:1-11; 1 Peter 1:22-25, James 1:18), and is consummated in the penitent believer’s birth from the water of his final act of primary obedience (conversion): John 3:37, John 3:1-9; Titus 3:5, Ephesians 5:25-27; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Hebrews 10:22). (4) Thus it will be seen that baptism as the consummating act of the process variously designated, in Scripture as conversion, adoption, justification, regeneration, etc. (i.e., the consummating act on the human side) has associated with it the entrance of the Spirit into the obedient believer’s heart, to possess and to mould his inner spiritual life. (It must be emphasized here that only those who believe and repent are proper subjects for Christian baptism. What is commonly designated change of heart must precede baptism (Luke 13:3, 1 Corinthians 7:10, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:29-34; Romans 10:9-10, Luke 24:46-47). One who does not have this change of heart will go down into the baptistry a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner (Romans 6:17). However, it is the indwelling Spirit, and not baptism, that is the seal of the Christian, stamping him as set apart for participation in the blessings and responsibilities of the New Covenant. And it is the operation by the Spirit of excising the body of the guilt of sin, at His entrance into the newly-made saint’s interior lifeand not baptismwhich is designated in Scripture spiritual circumcision. Baptism and spiritual circumcision are associated in God’s plan, but they are not identical (Colossians 2:9-14). As a matter of fact, to identify baptism per se with spiritual circumcision is to vest the ordinance, that is to say, the water itself, with magical properties. Certainly, to present infantsor anyone incapable of faithfor such a rite as what is generally called infant baptism (sprinkling, pouring) is not only unscripturalit is antiscriptural. If there is any efficacy in such an act, obviously it cannot be in the state of the child’s heart, but would have to be in the water: this would be sheer magic. There is no warrant in the New Testament for such an esoteric concept. Moreover, the attitude of the parents in such a practice cannot in any way affect the child’s salvation. There is no such thing in Scripture as salvation by proxy.

But, someone may be asking, what about the salvation of infants? We answer as follows: (1) According to Scripture teaching, sin is a personal act, and responsibility for the guilt of sin is personal (Ezekiel 18:19-20: here we have the doctrine of the guilt of sin, as distinguished from that of the consequences of sin as stated in Exodus 20:1-17; Proverbs 24:12, Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6, 1 Corinthians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 11:15; Ephesians 6:8, Colossians 3:25; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 22:12). As there is no such thing as salvation by proxy, so there is no such thing as sinning by proxy. Original sin, in the sense of original guilt, is just another fabrication of the theological mentality. True it is that the human race is suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin (of which the most frustrating is physical death, Genesis 3:17-19, Hebrews 9:27) and of the sins of the fathers, but there is no evidence from Scripture, experience or common sense that any person will be held guilty before God for what Adam did or what his own forebears have done. Such a notion impugns the justice and goodness of the Heavenly Father. All this theological groundwork for the practice of what is called infant baptism (true infant baptism would be infant immersion) thus turns out to be nothing more than a house of cards. The infant does not sin for the simple reason that it can not sin; hence, said Jesus, to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:14). (2) Whatever the human race lost through the disobedience of the First Adam, it has regained through the obedience of the Second Adam (Romans 5:19, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49), regained unconditionally for the innocent and the irresponsible, but regained conditionally for all accountable human beings, that is, on the terms and conditions of the Last Will and Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ (the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 16:19, Acts 2:37-38). Our Lord atoned for the innocent unconditionally by His sacrifice of Himself on the Cross, the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world (John Genesis 1:29, 1 Corinthians 5:7). The infant is in need of salvation from the consequences of sin only; it is in need only of the redemption of the body, that is, salvation from mortality itself (Romans 8:22-23, 2 Corinthians 5:4). The spiritual progression for accountable persons is from the Kingdom of Nature, through the Kingdom of Grace (John 3:1-8), into the Kingdom of Glory (Revelation 20:11-14; Revelation 22:1-5). The spiritual progression for those who die in infancy, we may surely believe, is directly from the Kingdom of Nature, by means of the Covering of Grace, our Lord’s Vicarious Sacrifice, into the Kingdom of Glory (Romans 8:29, 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23; Colossians 1:18-23, Hebrews 12:23).

(3) Infant sprinkling, pouring, christening, etc., reverses the order specified in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). The order demanded by the Commission is (a) go, (b) make disciples, that is, learners, believers; (c) baptize those who have been made disciples, believers, by the preaching of the facts, commands, and promises of the Gospel; (d) nurture those who have been baptized into Christ and have the right to wear the name Christian, that is, nurture them in the most holy faith, the Spiritual Life. The pedobaptist order is (a) go, (b) baptize, and then (c) teach, or make disciples; in a word, christen them in infancy and require confirmation at about the age of twelve. Those who practice this sequence are simply bringing over into the New Testament the sequence prescribed in the Old Testament. The Old Abrahamic Covenant took in those born in Abraham’s house and those heathen servants bought with his money, all of whom had to be taught to know Jehovah after their induction into the Covenant by fleshly circumcision. But God states explicitly, with respect to the promised New Covenant, that they shall teach no more, every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, etc. The New Covenant is not a covenant of flesh, but a covenant of faith. Those who would enter the New Covenant must, as Jesus states expressly, be born anew, literally born from above, born of water and the Spirit, born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13; John 3:3-5). God’s law is put in their inward parts, written in their hearts, in order for them to be born again, and so to enter the Covenant. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-7). Suffice it to say that there can be no spiritual birth without a prior spiritual begetting, and there can be no spiritual begetting without faith. Infant christening, baptism, sprinkling, pouring, etc., ignores this teaching in toto; not only ignores it, but contradicts it in every particular. Infant christening, infant baptism, infant affusion, infant aspersion, infant dedication, infant church membership, etc., not one of these things, nor all of them together, can be substituted, in the Gospel Plan of Salvation, for spiritual birth (regeneration). These are all forms of so-called baptismal regeneration, a dogma which the present writer rejects flatly. Baptism is an act of faith, or it is nothing. My personal conviction is that the term kingdom (literally, reign) in Scripture is more comprehensive than the term church, in that it takes in all who, in the very nature of the case, cannot belong to the church; that is, infants and irresponsibles generally, and in all probability the elect of prior Dispensations. (Cf. Luke 17:21, Mark 10:24, Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:15, Luke 18:15-17, Matthew 21:43; Hebrews 11:4-5; Hebrews 11:7-16, etc.)

(4) Other objections to the pedobaptist practice of following the Old Covenant pattern are the following: It contradicts New Testament teaching regarding the design of baptism (1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:17). It belies the plain teaching of the New Testament that Christian baptism is more than a physical act. It tends to fill the church with unconverted, unregenerated persons; that is, with those who would make of their Christianity nothing but vain ritual observances. It ignores altogether man’s God-given power of choice. Finally, it tends to obliterate the distinction between the church and the world, and the distinction between church and state as well. How many professing Christian parents use the practice of christening pretty largely for the credentials by which birth certification can be established? Moreover, so-called infant dedication is misleading: the popular tendency, so great is the general ignorance of the Bible, is to identify it with infant sprinkling. If the act is simply a dedication, why use water in the observance of it?

To summarize: the equating of Christian baptism with spiritual circumcision is one ofthe most egregious fallacies that has ever been perpetrated on the Christian world. We repeat that baptism is an act of faith, the appeal of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21)or it is nothing. Spiritual circumcision is the excision of the body of the guilt of sin by the entrance of the Spirit into the human heart to take possession of it and thus to make it, little by little, a partaker of the divine nature and meet for the inheritance of the saints in light (2 Peter 1:4, Colossians 1:12, Hebrews 9:11).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY

Explain how the content of ch. 17 is an enlargement of the Abrahamic Covenant. Explain how it is more inclusive.

How old was Abraham at the time when all the details of the Covenant were finally made known to him?

By what name did God reveal Himself to Abraham here? What does this name mean?

What is the significance of a new name in Scripture?

5. What changes were made at this time in the names of Abram and Sarai? What did the changes signify?

Show how these changes served to elevate the moral and spiritual status of Abram and Sarai.

What did the terms everlasting and forever signify with reference to the Covenant?

What happened to the Abrahamic Covenant at Sinai? At Calvary?

What two progenies (seeds) of Abraham are included in these promises?

Explain how each of these promises had a twofold fulfillment (double reference).

What was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant?

Give the two Greek words for covenant and explain the meaning of each. Which word is used in the New Testament?

How is a covenant to be distinguished from a contract?

Why was it necessary for God to specify the details of the Covenant?

List these details.

How are females dealt with in the details of the Covenant?

What was the connection between the terms of the Old Covenant and the preservation of the family, and later that of the nation?

Why were the details of the Covenant not revealed to Abraham at first?

Discuss briefly the history of circumcision.

Why cannot circumcision have been originally a test of endurance?

Why cannot circumcision have originated on hygienic grounds?

Why do we object to the view that circumcision originated to increase procreative powers?

Why do we reject the notion that it originated for the purpose of getting rid of emanation from physical secretion connected with the physiology of the foreskin?

Why can we not accept the view that circumcision originated as a phase of phallic worship?

Why is it unlikely that it was originally of the nature of a sacrifice to deity?

Why is it unlikely that it persisted as an attenuated survival of human sacrifice?

Why do we reject the view that circumcision was in some manner related to the cult of reincarnation?

Can it be proved that the spread of circumcision among ancient peoples was in any way connected with human sacrifice?

On what ground does Lange affirm that circumcision did not come to Abraham as a custom of his ancestors?

What was its special significance under patriarchal law?

How does Lange explain its symbolic significance?

How is the status of females to be explained under the covenant of circumcision?

What specific requirement proves that circumcision was not a puberty rite?

Explain the customs of sub-incision, introcision, and infibulation, as practiced by primitives? Do we find any of these practices in the history of the Israelites? What does all this prove with regard to the purity of Hebrew monotheism?

What Old Testament incident shows that circumcision was not to be treated lightly by the Children of Israel? Explain.

What reasons are suggested for the provision that circumcision of males should take place on the eighth day after birth?

What provision shows us that the blessings of the Covenant were to be extended to others as well as those born in Abraham’s household? To what others were these blessings extended?

What was the penalty for disobedience to the law of circumcision? Did this penalty include anything beyond excommunication from the commonwealth?

What was the design of the Covenant-Sign? How was it related to the Messianic hope?

Who was now specified to become the Covenant-Heir? What significance in the change of Sarai’s name to Sarah?

What are the various explanations of Abraham’s laughter on receiving the promise of Isaac’s birth?

What does Cornfeld say about this? How does Murphy explain it? Speiser? Leupold? How do you explain it?

Did Abraham’s laughter differ from that of Sarah later? Explain.

Can we say that Abraham was a man of faith who had moments of doubt? Can we say the same of ourselves?

How does God reply to Abraham’s intercession for Ishmael?

What was Abraham’s response to the law of circumcision? How old was he at the time? How old was Ishmael?

State the successive steps in the progressive revelation of the Covenant.

When and where was the Abrahamic Covenant enlarged into a national Covenant?

Where in the Old Testament do we find references to circumcision of the heart?

What is the fundamental difference between the Old Covenant and the New?

When and where was the Old Covenant abrogated and the New Covenant ratified?

Who was the mediator of the Old Covenant? The mediator of the New?

Is the New Covenant an extension of the Old, or is it strictly a New Covenant? Explain.

What was made the basis of membership in the Old Covenant and what is it in the New?

Why do we say that the Old Covenant was local? How does the New Covenant differ on this point?

What did fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant point forward to in the New?

What is meant by spiritual circumcision? What is it, according to New Testament teaching?

Explain the fallacy of identifying Christian baptism and spiritual circumcision.

What did the Old Covenant include as to membership? What does the New Covenant include?

How is the New Covenant a better covenant enacted upon better promises?

Are the Ten Commandments a part of the Gospel? Explain.

Which of the Commandments are morally binding upon Christians, and why?

Which one is not binding upon Christians? Explain.

Why can we not be saved today as the penitent thief on the Cross was saved?

What is the primary function of law in general? Does the Law have the power to regenerate and sanctify men?

Can one keep the Ten Commandments and still not be a Christian? It it possible for any person to keep them perfectly?

Explain the distinction between the Old Covenant as a Covenant of Law and the New Covenant as a Covenant of Grace.

Does the New Testament teach that baptism is a seal of anything? Explain.

What are the necessary conditions to baptism? What is meant by a change of heart?

Is it possible Scripturally to baptize one who is not old enough to believe?

In what way did our Lord provide for the salvation of the innocent and the irresponsible.

Distinguish the import of Exo 20:1-17 and Ezekiel 18:19-20.

Do the Scriptures teach that we inherit the guilt of the sins committed by our ancestors or of that committed by Adam? Explain.

Is the dogma of original sin warranted by Scripture teaching?

Explain the statement that the innocent (infants) need to be redeemed only from the consequences of sin.

Explain how and why so-called infant baptism is unscriptural?

Why do we affirm that so called infant baptism is essentially a form of magic?

What according to the New Testament is the necessary motivation for baptism?

Show how infant baptism reverses the order laid down in the Great Commission.

In what sense is infant baptism the appeal of a good conscience toward God?

Explain how infant christening, infant baptism, etc. obliterates the distinction between the church and the world and between church and state.

In what sense is the Kingdom probably more inclusive than the Church?

What is the spiritual progression for accountable persons? What is it for the innocent (infants)?

What fundamental error is involved in the pedobaptist procedure with respect to membership in the new Covenant?

Where is the promise of the New Covenant found in the Old Testament? Explain how the language of this divine promise indicates the distinctions between the Covenants.