Genesis 25

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 25:1-4

3. Abraham’s Provisions for His Various Lines (Genesis 25:1-18)

(1) The Line by Keturah (Genesis 25:1-4)

1 And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. 3 And Jokshan begat Sbeba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. 4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

A chronological problem arises here. The following excerpts will suffice to make it clear. Abraham’s marriage to Keturah is generally supposed to have taken place after Sarah’s death, and his power to beget six sons at so advanced an age is attributed to the fact, that the Almighty had endowed him with new vital and reproductive energy for begetting the son of the promise. But there is no firm ground for this assumption; as it is not stated anywhere, that Abraham did not take Keturah as his wife till after Sarah’s death. It is merely an inference drawn from the fact, that it is not mentioned till afterwards; and it is taken for granted that the history is written in strictly chronological order. But this supposition is precarious, and is not in harmony with the statement, that Abraham sent away the sons of the concubines with gifts during his own lifetime; for in the case supposed, the youngest of Keturah’s sons would not have been more than twenty-five or thirty years old at Abraham’s death; and in those days, when marriages were not generally contracted before the fortieth year, this seems too young for them to have been sent away from their father’s house. This difficulty, however, is not decisive. Nor does the fact that Keturah is called a concubine in Genesis 25:6, and in 1 Chronicles 1:32, necessarily show that she was contemporary with Sarah, but may be explained on the ground that Abraham did not place her on the same footing as Sarah, his sole wife, the mother of the promised seed (KDBCOTP, 261-262).

Murphy (MG, 358-359): According to the laws of Hebrew composition, this event may have taken place before that recorded in the close of the previous chapter. Of this law we have several examples in this very chapter. And there is nothing contrary to the customs of that period in adding wife to wife. We cannot say that Abraham was hindered from taking Keturah in the lifetime of Sarah by any moral feeling which would not also have hindered him from taking Hagar. It has also been noticed that Keturah is called a concubine, which is thought to imply that the proper wife was still living; and that Abraham was a very old man at the death of Sarah. But, on the other hand, it is to be remembered that these sons were in any case born after the birth of Isaac, and therefore after Abraham was renewed in vital powers. If the renewal of vigor remained after the birth of Isaac, it may have continued some time after the death of Sarah, whom he survived thirty-eight years. His abstinence from any concubine until Sarah gave him Hagar is against his taking any other during Sarah’s lifetime. His loneliness on the death of Sarah may have prompted him to seek a companion of his old age. And if this step was delayed until Isaac was married, and therefore separated from him, an additional motive would impel him in the same direction. He was not bound to raise this wife to the full rights of a proper wife, even though Sarah were dead. And six sons might be born to him twenty-five years before his death. And if Hagar and Ishmael were dismissed when he was about fifteen years old, so might Keturah when her youngest was twenty or twenty-five. We are not warranted, then, still less compelled, to place Abraham’s second marriage before the death of Sarah, or even the marriage of Isaac. It seems to appear in the narrative in the order of time. The promise (Genesis 17:4-6) that Abraham should be exceedingly fruitful and the father of many nations, looks beyond the birth of Isaac, and finds its fulfilment in other descendants as well. This, like most other alleged discrepancies, is found not in the text itself, but in arbitrary critical assumptions. (UBG, 308). There is no way of determining with any degree of certainty whether Abraham was still living when Issac and Rebekah were married, or, if so, how long he lived after that event.

As for the tribes that descended from these six sons of Keturah, efforts to identify them have not been very successful. (Cf. 1 Chronicles 1:32-33.) (Incidentally, who was Keturah? Rashi identifies her with Hagar who received the name because her deeds were as comely as -incense-’ (ketoreth); also, because she kept herself -chaste-’ (kasher, cognate root to katar, of which Keturah is the passive participle), from the time that she separated from Abraham (SC, 32). Such an identification, however, cannot be harmonized with the plural, concubines, Genesis 25:6.). It seems obvious that these tribes, descendants of Keturah and her sons by Abraham, peopled a considerable part of Arabia to the south and the east of the Promised Land, under the name of Midianites (Exodus 2:15)among whom Moses took refuge, the Sabaeans (Sheba, Job 1:15; Job 1:6; Job 19; 1 Kings 10:1), the Shuhites (Job 2:11), the Dedanites, etc. The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are represented as the offspring of Abraham by a second marriage, cf. 1 Chronicles 1:32 ff. (ICCG, 349). There are named here six sons of Abraham, seven grandsons, and three great-grandsons, making sixteen descendants by Keturah.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

See Genesis 25:12-18.

Genesis 25:5-6

(2) Abraham’s Final Disposition of His Property (Genesis 25:5-6).

5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 6 But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

Isaac, the child of promise, the only son of his wife, Sarah, received all his possessions. The son of the concubines (Hagar and Keturah) were sent away with gifts, into the east country, that is, Arabia in the widest sense of the term, to the east and southeast of Palestine, to what is known as the Syro-Arabian desert. The Keturean stock divided into six branches, of which only one, Midian, ever attained importance. In allocating his possessions, it is to be assumed that Abraham provided the sons of the concubines with an abundance of flocks and herds sufficient to provide for their future growth and sustenance.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

See Genesis 25:12-18.

Genesis 25:7-11

(3) The Death and Burial of Abraham (Genesis 25:7-11).

7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived, a hundred threescore and fiteen years. 8 And Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years, and was gathered to his people. 9 And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre; 10 the field which Abraham purchased of the children of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife. 11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed Isaac his son: and Isaac dwelt by Beer-lahai-roi.

Abraham died at the good old age of 175, and was gathered to his people (cf. Genesis 15:15, Judges 2:10). This expression which. is constantly distinguished from departing this life and being buried, denotes the reunion in Sheol with friends who have gone before, and therefore presupposes faith in the personal continuance of a man after death, as a presentiment which the promises of God had exalted in the case of the patriarchs into a firm assurance of faith (Hebrews 11:13) (BCOTP, 263). An old man, and full of years, literally, satisfied. He saw all the desires of his heart fulfilled, and was satisfied with all that he wished to see and do. He was granted the privilege of seeing in his lifetime the reward stored up for him in the world to come (SC, 133). Note that the burial of the patriarch in the cave of Machpelah was attended to by Isaac and Ishmael, since the latter, although excluded from the blessings of the covenant, was acknowledged by God as the son of Abraham by a distinct blessing (Genesis 17:20), and was thus elevated above the sons of Keturah (ibid., 263). It is significant that both sons shared in the service of interment. Funerals of parents are reconciliations of children (Genesis 35:29), and differences of contending religionists are often softened at the side of a grave (PCG, 314). What a glorious setting of the sun on an ineffably glorious pilgrimage of faith! After Abraham’s death, the divine blessing was transferred to Isaac who returned to his abode by Hagar’s well (cf. Genesis 17:20).

REVIEW QUESTIONS

See Genesis 25:12-18.

Genesis 25:12-18

(4) The Line of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18).

12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bare unto Abraham: 13 and these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, 15 and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa, 15 Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah: 16 these are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments; twelve princes according to their nations. 17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died, and was gathered unto his people. 18 And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: he abode over against all his brethren.

The usual procedure of the inspired historian is repeated here: the future of Abraham’s eldest son is traced briefly before proceeding with the primary themethe Messianic Lineas continued in the line of the Child of Promise. The one name in this line which may be of significance is Nebaioth, Genesis 25:13. Nabajoth was the progenitor of the Nabathaeans, who, about four centuries before the Christian era, drove the Edomites out of Petra, and constructed most of those rock tombs and temples whose splendor astonish the modern traveler (SIBG, 253). The Nabataeans held possession of Arabia Petraea, with Petra as their capital, and subsequently extended toward the south and northeast, probably as far as Babylon; so that the name was afterward transferred to all the tribes to the east of the Jordan, and in the Nabataean writings became a common name for Chaldeans (ancient Babylonians), Syrians, Canaanites, and others (BCOTP, 265). (Cf. Genesis 28:9; Genesis 36:3; Isaiah 60:7).

Genesis 25:16. Note encampments: that is, premises hedged around, then a village without a wall in contrast with a walled town, Leviticus 25:31. Twelve princes, according to their nations. (Note in connection also the twelve tribes of Israel). The Ishmaelites (various Arabian tribes, the Bedouins in particular) trace their beginnings to these twelve princes. It is interesting to note that these peoples are the foremost protagonists of Mohammedanism (even as the twelve princes of Israel and their posterity are the protagonists of Judiaism).

Ishmael died at the age of 137, and his descendants dwelt in Havilah, the area on the borders of Arabia Petraea and Felix, as far as Shur, to the east of Egypt, in the direction of Assyria (Genesis 10:29, Genesis 16:7), from which they extended their nomadic excursions into the northeast to the land of the Euphrates: i.e., dwelling from the Euphrates to the Red Sea (Josephus, Ant. I. 12, 4). Thus Ishmael abode (settled) over against all his brethren (cf. Genesis 16:12, also Judges 7:12).

(For archaeological studies, look up material under Mari, Nuzi, Ugarit, Amarna, Larsa, Alalakh, Boghazkoi, Ur, Babylon, the Moabite Stone, the Code of Hammurabi, etc. See The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Archaeology, edited by Pfeiffer, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.)

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY-FIVE

Summarize the various provisions which Abraham, in his last years, made for his numerous progenies.

How explain the fact that Sarah is the only woman whose death and burial are related in Scripture.

Where was Sarah buried? What other Bible personages are buried there?

Summarize Abraham’s negotiation proceedings for the acquirement of a burial place. Why did he seek this in Canaan?

Who were the Hittites?

How much did Abraham pay for the field and cave of Machpelah?

What does the name (Machpelah) mean? What does the meaning suggest?

In what details did Abraham’s negotiations for Machpelah follow Middle Assyrian and Hittite law?

Where is this cave supposed to be today?

Why did Abraham in his last years make provisions for a wife for Isaac?

Whom did he commission to procure this prospective bride?

Where did he send this person, and why did he send him to that area?

What oath did Abraham exact from this person whom he commissioned?

What was the bodily form of oath which the patriarch required?

With what do Jewish commentators correlate this oath?

What is the critical (anthropological) explanation of the import of this oath?

What evidence do we have that both Abraham and his steward relied on Divine Providence to direct them?

What seems to have been the status of religious faith and practice among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia?

Is it possible to verify the notion that the kind of oath taken by the steward had reference to generative powers?

How does Leupold explain the far-reaching significance of this oath?

What was the steward’s fear especially about the possible failure of his mission?

What did Abraham promise in case those fears should prove to have a real foundation?

For what divine token of identification of the prospective bride did the steward pray?

Whom did the steward meet at the well? What was her ancestry?

What three characteristics does Murphy hold to have been those which this prospective bride should manifest?

In what ways did the maiden at the well manifest these characteristics?

For what did the steward praise God?

Who was Laban? What light did this incident throw on Laban’s character?

How account for the fact that Laban conducted these negotiations?

Do we have intimations that Rebekah’s father might have been deceased? What are these intimations?

What were the details by which the negotiations were concluded?

What decision did Rebekah herself make? Does not her action in this respect prove that she had a mind of her own?

Explain what a sistership document was under Hurrian law.

In what ways did these negotiations for Rebekah as the prospective bride parallel the chief characteristics of the sistership document?

What is the significance of Rebekah’s apparently unexpected meeting with Isaac on the return to Beer-sheba?

Where did the meeting take place? What was Isaac doing at the time?

What is the chronological problem involved in chapter 25, Genesis 25:1-4?

On what ground do we give Keturah the status of a concubine?

What disposition with respect to his property did Abraham make for the sons of his concubines?

What disposition of his property did Abraham make for Isaac and why?

Where was Abraham buried? What significance is there in the fact that both Ishmael and Isaac participated in their father’s burial?

Which of the sons of Keturah figured later in Old Testament history?

What territory did the Ishmaelites occupy? How did their subsequent history fulfil the oracle of Gen 16:12?

Who were the Nabataeans? What and where was Petra?

Who are the Bedouins in relation to the descendants of Ishmael?

What was an Ishmaelite encampment? How old was Ishmael when he died?

What present-day religion glorifies, so to speak, the twelve princes of Ishmael as the ancestors of the people by whom it is espoused?

What religion looks back to the twelve princes of Israel as its original source?

List the analogies that occur between the life of Isaac and the life of Christ.

List the various steps in Abraham’s pilgrimage of faith.

What Scriptural evidence have we that Abraham believed in the future life?

What does the Bible tell us about Abraham’s last days?

Does Abraham’s pilgrimage justify the notion that he had succumbed to idolatry while living in Ur of the Chaldees? Explain your answer.

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

Analogies: Isaac and Christ

Genesis 22:1-14, Hebrews 11:8-19

Trace briefly the early life of Abraham and Sarah; their journey into Canaan, brief sojourn in Egypt, the separation from Lot. Abraham’s communion with God relative to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the blessing of Melchizedek, and the material prosperity of the patriarch. In honor of his fidelity to the will of God, the name of Abraham has gone down in all ages as father of the faithful (Romans 4:16-22, Galatians 3:6-7, Hebrews 11:8-10, James 2:20-24).

In the midst of Abraham’s prosperity, however, there was one heartache. Both Abraham and Sarah were growing old, and no child had blessed their household. There was no outward indication of the fulfilment of God’s promise, and Sarah had passed the age of child-bearing (Genesis 17:1-4; Genesis 18:11-14). But

God moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform

and a child is promised to the faithful twain. In time, Isaac is born, Hebrews 11:11. In many respects Isaac was a type of Christ.

1. Isaac was a child of promise, Genesis 17:1-8; Genesis 17:19, Hebrews 11:8-10; Hebrews 11:17-19.

2. Jesus was The Child of promise. Genesis 3:15; Genesis 22:18, Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 11:1-2; Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:2, Matthew 1:18-23. Luke 1:26-33. Joh. 1:15-18; John 1:29.

3. Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah. Genesis 17:19; Genesis 22:16, Hebrews 11:17.

4. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16, Psalms 2:7, Acts 13:33, John 1:14.

5. The offering of Isaac upon Moriah, Genesis 22:1-14. A case where the positive law of God superseded moral law. Picture the sentiments and emotions of the patriarch in this trial of faith. God proved Abraham. He named the place Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide.

6. The offering of Jesus upon Calvary, John 3:16. Hebrews 9:27-28. This was in obedience to the eternal purpose of God. 1 Peter 1:18-20. Thus the Lord has provided sufficient atonement for sin, and a way of reconciliation between man and his heavenly Father. Romans 3:22-26, Colossians 1:18-23.

7. Isaac carried wood for the offering of himself. Genesis 22:6.

8. Jesus bore His own Cross. John 19:16-18.

9. Isaac asked, Where is the lamb for a burnt-offering? Genesis 22:7.

10. This suggests the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane. Matthew 26:39. We would not consider this an antitype however.

11. Isaac was three days in coming to his figurative resurrection. Genesis 22:4. Hebrews 11:17-19.

12. Jesus was three days in coming to His literal resurrection. Mark 16:1-8. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

13. Abraham sent his servant, Eliezer, Genesis 15:2; Genesis 24:1-9, into a far country to find a bride for Isaac, from among his kindred.

14. After the resurrection and glorification of the Son, the Father sent the Holy Spirit into the world to find a Bride for Jesus. John 7:39; John 14:16-17; John 16:7, Luke 24:46-49, Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4. Through the Holy Spirit, God is today visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people unto His name, Acts 11:18; Acts 15:14.

15. The servant said: Hinder me not, that he might hasten to present Rebekah to Isaac. Genesis 24:55-56.

16. The Holy Spirit is today striving with the world, and pleading with cold-hearted professors of religion that He may hasten the presentation of the Bride to the Bridegroom. Matthew 22:2-10, Acts 7:51-53. Romans 8:1.

17. Rebekah said, I will go, Genesis 24:58.

18. So the Bride of the Redeemer should be yearning to meet the Bridegroom, Matthew 25:6. God has prepared the feast. Blessed are they that will be ready for the coming of our Lord, and will meet Him in the air, and partake of the marriage feast of the Lamb.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Revelation 19:7-9. There is not a single exhortation in the New Testament to prepare for death, but ever to meet the Bridegroom at His second coming. John 14:1-3, 2 Peter 3:8-12.

We return to the scene on Mount Moriah, in conclusion, to recall that self-sacrifice is the supreme test of faith, and that implicit obedience is the only testimony of it. In either respect, Abraham was not found wanting. But when we come to the climax of the story on Mount Moriah, where a voice from Heaven says, Abraham, lay not thine hand upon the lad, the type is lost. There was no voice like that on Calvary, no heavenly edict to cry, Spare thy Son. He gave Him freely for us all, the innocent for the guilty, the Just for the unjust. All of this was done that you might head and accept the precious invitation,

Come to Calvary’s holy mountain,

Sinners, ruined by the fall;

Here a pure and healing fountain,

Flows to you, to me, to all,

In a full, perpetual tide,

Opened when our Saviour died.

Genesis 25:19-34

**PART THIRTY-SEVEN

THE STORY OF ISAAC; THE TWINS AND THE BIRTHRIGHT**

(Genesis 25:19-34)

1. Introduction

Having concluded the account of all that needed to be known about Ishmael and his progeny, the inspired historian now turns to the main theme of the Bible, that is, the history of the Messianic Line as continued through Isaac. The collateral branch is again put first and then dismissed (TPCC, 52). Genesis 25:19 of this section marks the opening of another chapter in the story of the unfolding of God’s Eternal Purpose.

We are pleased to introduce this Volume (IV) with the following excerpt verbatim (SIBG, 254): REFLECTIONSBefore I part with Abraham, the celebrated patriarch, let me, in him, contemplate Jesus the everlasting Father. How astonishing his meeknesshis kindness to menhis intimacy with, fear of, obedience to, and trust in his God! He is the chosen favorite of JEHOVAHthe father and covenant-head of innumerable millions of saved men. To him all the promises relative to the evangelical and eternal state of his church were originally made. All obedient - at his Father’s call, he left his native abodes of bliss, and became -a stranger and sojourner on earth,-’ not having where to lay his head. At his Father’s call, he offered himself an acceptable sacrifice to God; by his all-prevalent intercession, and supernatural influence, he offers men salvation from sin and from the hand of their enemies; and, after long patience, he wins untold disciples in the Jewish and Gospel church. In his visible family are many professors, children of the bond-woman, the covenant of works, who, in the issue, are like Ishmael, or the modern Jews, whose unbelief brings them to misery and woe; others are children of the free-woman, the covenant of grace, and are, like Isaac, begotten to God because of their faith in Christ. Now let me observe, how invigorating is a strong faith in God’s promise; for God delights to add abundant blessings to such as, by courageous believing, give him the glory of his power and faithfulness. Often the best of men have little remarkable fellowship with God in old age, but must live even to the end by faith, and not by sight; while wicked families are loaded with temporal mercies for the sake of their pious progenitors. Promised events are often ushered in by the most discouraging appearances; and mercies must be long prayed and waited for ere they be granted. It is good when husbands and wives unite their supplications; for to spread our griefs before a throne of grace is the greatest and surest relief. How often much trouble and vexation attend what is too eagerly desired! But how tender is God, in fixing the temporal, and even eternal, states of persons according to their faith! And how early are children known by their doings! Yet in their education great care is to be taken in consulting their tempers and dispositions. Parents frequently expose themselves to future troubles by their partial regard to children. But why should we set our hearts on them, or any other worldly comfort, when we must so quickly leave them by death? At that time it should be the concern of parents so to dispose of their effects, that there may be no disputes after they are gone; and such deserve to have most assigned them as are likely to make the best use of it. How often the wisest worldlings act the most foolish part, while -the Lord preserveth the simple!-’ How marvelously God overruleth the sins of men, to the accomplishment of his purpose or the advancement of his glory! How dreadful, when men, even those who have had a religious education, gratify their sensual appetites at the expense of the temporal and eternal ruin of themselves and their seed; and when God permits them to be afterwards hardened in their sin, and standing monuments of that affecting truth, that numbers of the descendants of God’s children are sometimes left out of his church, and unacquainted with their parents-’ blessings! (John Brown, D.D., LL.D.)

2. Review

It will be recalled that Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was born in the south country (the Negeb), doubtless at or near Beersheba (Genesis 21:14; Genesis 21:31), when his father was 100 years old and his mother about ninety (Genesis 17:17, Genesis 21:5). When the divine Promise was made to Abraham that Sarah should bear a son, after she had passed the age of childbearing, Abraham laughed, with some degree of incredulousness, it should seem, although some commentators hold that it was joyous laughter (Genesis 17:17-19). When the Promise was reiterated later, by a heavenly Visitant, at this time Sarah, who was eavesdropping, laughed within herself with laughter that bespoke sheer incredulity, for which she was promptly reprimanded by the Visitant (Genesis 18:9-15). Then when the Child of the Promise was born, Sarah joyfully confessed that God had prepared this laughter for her and her friends (Genesis 21:6). To memorialize these events and the faithfulness of God, Abraham named the boy Isaac (laughing one, one laughs). Isaac was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4), and as the Child of Promise he had higher privileges than Ishmael had, Abraham’s son by the handmaid, Hagar (Genesis 17:19-21, Genesis 21:12, Genesis 25:5-6). Later, to exhibit (prove) Abraham’s faith, God commanded him to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. Isaac was then a youth (Genesis 22:6), perhaps 25 years old, as Josephus says, but he filially acquiesced in the purpose of his father. When Abraham had laid him upon the altar, and thus shown his readiness to give all that he possessed to God, the angel of the Lord forbade the sacrifice and accepted a ram instead, thus testifying against child-sacrifices practised by the Canaanites and many other idolatrous peoples, and teaching to all men that human sacrifices are an abomination to the Lord (Genesis 22:1-18), (DDB, 337). This was an unparalleled demonstration of personal faith on Abraham’s part. Tradition puts the offering on Mount Moriah in the Old City of Jerusalempresent site of the Dome of the Rock. Abraham left the servants and walked in silence to the hilltop. Isaac carried the wood and Abraham the knife. After a time the boy asked his father, -Where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?-’ Abraham replied that God would see to it. As Dr. Speiser puts it, -The boy must by now have sensed the truth. The short and simple sentence, And the two of them walked on together, covers what is perhaps the most poignant and eloquent silence in all literature.-’ At the last momentbut only at the last momentan angel stayed Abraham as he raised his knife to destroy his son and all his hopes. The awful ordeal was over (ELBT, 98).

Abraham, now well advanced in years, bought for its full value from Ephron the Hittite the Cave of Machpelah, near the oak of Mamre, with the field in which it stood, and there he buried Sarah. Here Abraham himself was buried by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael; also were buried there later, Isaac and Rebekah, his wife, and Jacob and his wife Leah. Abraham’s last care was for the marriage of his son Isaac to a woman of his own kindred, to avoid a possible alliance with one of the daughters of the Canaanites. He sent the aged steward of his house, Eliezer, formerly of Damascus, on the long journey to Haran, in Mesopotamia, where Nahor, Abraham’s brother, had settled. Providentially, at the end of the journey, a sign from God indicated that the person he sought was a maiden named Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel, son of Nahor. The whole narrative is a vivid picture of pastoral life, and of the simple customs then used in making a marriage contract, not without characteristic touches of the tendency to avarice in the family of Bethuel, and particularly in his son Laban (Genesis 24:30). The scene of Isaac’s meeting with Rebekah seems to exhibit his character as that of quiet pious contemplation (Genesis 24:63). Isaac was forty years old when he married, and his residence was by Beer-la-hai-roi (the well of La-hai-roi) in the extreme south of Palestine (Gen. 25:62, Genesis 26:11; Genesis 26:20) (OTH, 89). The courtship of Rebekah is one of the highlights of the sagas of the Patriarchs (HBD, 603). The story of the wooing of Rebekah is a literary masterpiece. Its sketch of the faithful, trusted steward, of the modest, brave, beautiful maiden and of the peace-loving husband is inimitable. It is almost like a drama, each successive scene standing out with vividness. It has much archaeological value, also, in its mention of early marriage customs, of the organization of the patriarch’s household, and of many social usages. Religiously it suggests the providential oversight of God, who directed every detail. Chapter twenty-four of Genesis with Chapter s eighteen and twenty-two are worth reading frequently (HH, 39). To Isaac Abraham gave the bulk of his great wealth, and died, apparently at Beersheba, in a good old age, an old man, and full of years (Genesis 25:8). His age at death was 175 (Genesis 25:7). His sons Isaac and Ishmael met at his funeral and buried him in the Cave of Machpelah (Genesis 25:1-10). Ishmael survived him just 50 years, and died at the age of 137 (Genesis 25:17). Thus the Saga of Abraham came to its end. Shall we not firmly believe that his pilgrimage of faith was crowned with a glorious fulfilment in that City to which he was really journeyingthe city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God? (Hebrews 11:10, Galatians 4:26, Revelation 21:2).

Isaac continued to live in the south country (Genesis 24:62). In disposition he was retiring and contemplative; affectionate also, and felt his mother’s death deeply (DDB, 337). (Cf. Genesis 24:63; Genesis 24:67). But after all, this seeming tendency toward introversion may have been lack of strength of character: it should be noted how susceptible he was to Rebekah’s machinations. His life was the longest of those of the Patriarchs: he married at the age of 40, and died at 180 (Genesis 25:20, Genesis 35:28); yet though the longest, it has been described rightly as the least eventful. In comparison with the careers of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, that of Isaac manifests the earmark of mediocrity.

3. The Birth of the Twins (Genesis 25:19-26)

*19 And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begat Isaac: 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Syrian, to be his wife. 21 And Isaac entreated Jehovah for his wife, because she was barren: and Jehovah was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, wherefore do I live? And she went to inquire of Jehovah.

23 And Jehovah said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb,

And two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels: And the one people shall be stronger than the other people; And the elder shall serve the younger.

24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 And the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. 26 And after that came forth his brother, and his hand had hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.*

Genesis 25:19the usual formula for introducing a new section: see under toledoth (in the index).

A Second Delay in the Fulfilment of the Messianic Promise occurs here, Genesis 25:19-21. In Abraham’s case, the delay continued until some time after Sarah had passed the age of childbearing; in the case of Isaac and Rebekah, it continued through the first twenty years after their marriage. During this time Isaac was entreating Yahweh, because his wife continued to be barren. Again, in this continuing test (proof) of his faith, Isaac followed in the steps of his father: he maintained implicit faith in God. And he kept on speaking to God about the matter. (God’s delays are not necessarily refusals). With this prolonged barrenness of Rebekah we might well compare the cases of Sarah, and Rachel (Genesis 29:31), the mothers of Samson (Judges 13:2), Samuel (1 Samuel 1:2), and John the Baptizer (Luke 1:7). The protracted sterility of the mothers of the patriarchs, and other leading men amongst the Hebrew people, was a providential arrangement, designed to exercise faith and patience, to stimulate prayer, to inspire a conviction that the children born under extraordinary circumstances were gifts of God’s grace, and specially to foreshadow the miraculous birth of the Savior (CECG, 188).

The Pre-natal Struggle of the Twins (Genesis 25:22-23). When the conception actually occurred and Rebekah felt the twins struggling in her womb, she went to inquire of Yahweh. According to Abraham Ibn Ezra, her complaint, wherefore do I live?literally, why then am I?meant, Why in view of my longing for children must my pain be so great? Immediately there was an answer from God. How was this divine answer communicated? Some modern interpreters would have it that there was a sanctuary at hand, where there was an altar at which such oracular utterances were received. Some will say that Rebekah resorted to a native Philistine shrine at Gerar, others that presumably this sanctuary was at Beersheba (Genesis 26:33; cf. Exodus 33:7-11). We see no valid reason for such an assumption. The opinion. that she repaired to a native Philistine shrine at Gerar, supported by the tithes of all Monotheists in that district, is inconsistent with her relation to Jehovah, the covenanted God of the Hebrews; and the hypothesis that in the family place of worship at Beersheba there might have been an oracle, is equally at variance with the usages of that early period. A great many conjectures have been made as to the mode of her consultationsome, as Luther, supposing that she would apply to Shem; others, to Melchizedek or to Abraham (Genesis 20:7), who was still living. But she could not inquire either by shrine or by prophets (Exodus 18:15; 1 Samuel 9:9; 1 Samuel 28:6; 2 Kings 3:11), for both of these belong to the institutions of the theocracy. The only solution of the difficulty is, that Rebekah had prayed earnestly for light and direction, and that she had received an answer to her prayers in the way usual in the patriarchal agein a vision or a dream (CECG, 188-9). It is significant that the Divine communication here follows the form of the speech of the angel of Jehovah to Hagar (Genesis 16:10-12) in that both are couched in parallelisms. Whether communicated directly to herself, or spoken through the medium of a prophet, the Divine response to her interrogation assumed an antistrophic and poetical form, in which she was informed that her unborn sons were to be founders of two mighty nations, who, -unequal in power, should be divided in rivalry and antagonism from their youth-’ (PCG, 317).

The struggling of the twins in Rebekah’s womb presaged that they and their posterity would live at variance with one another, and differ greatly in their religion, customs, laws, etc. The Edomites (Idumeans), descended from Esau, were at first the stronger people (ch. 36), but the Israelites, sprung from Jacob, under David (2 Samuel 8:14), again under Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25:11-12), and finally under John Hyrcanus, about 126 B.C., subdued them. Indeed Hyrcanus subjugated them completely and put them under a Jewish governor (Josephus, Antiq. 13, 9,1). (Idumea, pertaining to Edom, was the name used by the Greeks and Romans in slightly different spelling, for the country of Edom), As a matter of fact, Jacob’s obtaining the birthright and the blessing (Genesis 25:29-34; Genesis 27:29; Genesis 27:37; Genesis 27:40) rendered him and his posterity superior to Esau and his Edomite seed.

The Birth and Naming of the Twins (Genesis 25:24-26). The first to come forth from the womb was named Esau which means hairy; the name Edom, which was given to Esau and which became the name of his descendants, the Edomites, means red. (Cf. Genesis 25:30; Genesis 36:1-8). That redness and hair marked the present strength of Esau’s body, and the savage and cruel disposition of him and his posterity (27-11, 40, 41; Obadiah 1:10; Ezekiel 25:12; Ezekiel 35:1-9). Rashi derives Esau from Asab (he made) and so translates the name, completely made, meaning that he was developed with hair like a child several years old (SC, 141). And after that came forth his brother, and his hand had hold of Esau’s heel, Jacob took hold of his heel, as if he would have drawn him back, so that himself might have been born first, or as if he would overthrow and suppress him, as he afterwards did, Genesis 25:33, ch. 27. And rightly was he named Jacob, a heel-holder, or supplanter, on that account, ch. Genesis 27:36 (SIBG, 254). Popular etymologies: Esau is red, admoni, his other name being Edom, Genesis 25:30; Genesis 36:1; Genesis 36:8; he is like a mantle of hair, se-‘ar, and is destined to dwell in the land of Se-‘ir, Numbers 24:18. According to this passage, Jacob Ya-‘aqob, gets his name from gripping the heel (-aqeb) of his twin, but in Genesis 27:36 and Hosea 12:3-4 the name means that the child has supplanted (-aqab) his brother. In fact, however, the probable meaning of the name (abbreviated from Ya-‘aqob-El) is -May Yahweh protect!-’ (JB, 43, n.). Skinner (ICCG, 359-360) on Genesis 25:25: tawny or red-haired is a play on the name Edom; similarly, all over like a mantle of hair is a play on Se-‘ir the country of the Edomites.

Mount Seir is the range of mountains extending southward from the Dead Sea, east of the rift known as the Arabah, almost to the Gulf of Aqabah. Mount Seir is first mentioned in Scripture as being inhabited by the Horites (Genesis 14:6): these were the Hurrians, non-Semites, who, between 1750 and 1600 B.C. invaded N. Mesopotamia from the eastern highlands and spread over Palestine and Syria. They are a people now well-known from the cuneiform tablets from ancient Nuzi and other sites. The mention of Esau’s removal to Mount Seir follows immediately the account of Isaac’s death and burial (Genesis 35:27-29, Genesis 36:1-9). The Israelites were forbidden to enter this region, as Jehovah had given it to Esau for a possession (Deuteronomy 2:1-12; cf. Joshua 24:4). Chieftains of the Horites were called the children of Seir in the land of Edom (Genesis 36:20-30; cf. Ezek., ch. 35, esp. Ezekiel 35:15; also 1 Chronicles 4:42, 2 Chronicles 20:10; 2 Chronicles 20:22-23). Esau is represented as having dispossessed the Horites of Mount Seir (Genesis 32:3; Genesis 36:20 ff.; Deuteronomy 2:1-29, Joshua 24:4). Undoubtedly these various passages indicate the fusion of cultures that almost always followed invasion or infiltration of an inhabited area by a different people: the tendency of the invaders to adopt many of the customs and laws of the people whom they dispossessed is an oft-repeated fact of history. We have noted heretofore the influence of Hurrian culture in the events related in Genesis in the lives of the patriarchs; we shall see this influence again in the story of Jacob and Esau in re the disposition of the birthright. (See Speiser, ABG, 194-197). Other interesting facts of the history of Seir are recorded in the Old Testament. We read, for example, that Simeonites pushed out the Amalekites who had hidden in Seir (1 Chronicles 4:42-43). The majesty of God was associated with the awesome grandeur of Mt. Seir (Deuteronomy 33:2, Judges 5:4). King Amaziah of Judah (c. 800-783 B.C.) went to the Valley of Salt, and smote of the children of Seir ten thousand, and then proceeded to pay homage to their gods (2 Chronicles 25:11-24). Isaiah tells us that his words, Watchman, what of the night? came out of Seir (Isaiah 21:11).

4. The Prophetic Communication (Genesis 25:23)

Before proceeding with our study we must underscore here the very heart and core of the Divine communication to Rebehah. It is embodied in the last sentence: And the elder shall serve the younger.

This has been interpreted by Calvanistic theologians to mean that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau in the Messianic development was completely arbitrary on His part. For example, note the following statement: Isaac’s family is a further example of divine election, Genesis 25:23, even seemingly arbitrary. The choice, before birth, of Jacob over Esau indeed concerned national status, not salvation, Malachi 1:2-4; but it illustrates God’s bestowal of saving faith, a matter of pure race, irrespective of human worthiness, Romans 9:10-13 (OHH, 43). Cf. TPCC, 52: The younger son is again chosen, for God’s will, which, though not understood by us, is supreme (Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 1:11). Kraeling (BA, 81) sees here an underlying substratum of national history mirrored in the basic idea that Esau (Edom) was outstripped by Jacob (Israel). It was only natural, however, that Edom as the elder people, should have had the more glorious history. He suggests, therefore, that three parallel explanations are offered, in the over-all story we are now considering, why it did not happen that way: 1) God willed it so, and predicted it even before the ancestral brothers were born (Genesis 25:23); 2) Esau sold his birthright (Genesis 25:29-34); 3) Jacob rather than Esau obtained the history-moulding blessing of the dying Isaac (Genesis 27:27 f.) We see no reason for these more or less labored attempts to explain the Divine communication to Rebekah about the varying fortunes of her twins, when, as a matter of fact, if Genesis 25:23 is taken simply as prophetic, all difficulties seem to vanish. The communication was to this effect: two sons were to be born, namely Esau and Jacob, and they were to become the progenitors of two peoples; moreover, the nation sired by the elder son was to serve the nation to be sired by the younger son. The word of Yahweh here had reference, not to individuals, but to nations (peoples): this fact is accepted by practically all Biblical scholars. Esau never served Jacob in his entire life; on the contrary, it was Jacob who gave gifts to Esau at the time of their reconciliation (Gen., ch. 33). The meaning of the passage is that God, as He had both perfect right and reason to do, had selected Jacob, and not Esau, to become the ancestor of Messiah. The statement, the elder shall serve the younger, was simply a prophetic announcement that at a future time the Edomites (descendants of Esau) should become servants of the Israelites (descendants of Jacob): the prophecy is clearly fulfilled in 2 Samuel 8:14. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 9:12-13, combines two different Scriptures. The first, it will be noted is Genesis 25:23, the verse we are now considering. But the second is found in Malachi 1:2-3, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. This statement was uttered several hundred years after both Jacob and Esau had long been dead. It referred to the two nations or peoples: it simply points out the fact that the Edomites suffered divine retribution because of their sins (cf. Genesis 32:3, ch. 36; Numbers 20:14-21; Isaiah 34:5-8; Obadiah 1:21, etc.).

Did God arbitrarily select Jacob instead of Esau to become the ancestor of Messiah?. Of course not. The individual human being is predestined to be free. By virtue of having been created in the image of God, he has the power of choice, that is, within certain limits, of course, particularly within the limits of his acquaintanceship. (One could hardly choose anything of which one has no knowledge. Could a Hottentot who has never heard of ice, ever choose to go skating?). It follows, therefore, that the totality of man’s free acts constitutes God’s foreknowledge. Strictly speaking, God’s knowledge embracesin a single thoughtall the events of the space-time world; hence, He can hardly be said to foreknow, but rather, speaking precisely, to know. If it be objected that foreknowledge in God implies fixity, we answer that the argument still holds, that the fixity is determined by man’s free acts and not by arbitrary divine foreordination. To hold that God necessitates everything that man does, including his acceptance or rejection of redemption, is to make God responsible for everything that happens, both good and evil. This is not only unscripturalit is an affront to the Almighty. (Cf. Ezekiel 18:32, John 5:40, 1 Timothy 2:4, James 1:13, 2 Peter 3:9). Foreordination in Scripture has reference to the details of the Plan of Redemption, not to the eternal destiny of the individual. The elect are the whosoever will’S, the non-elect, the Whosoever won-’t’S. (Revelation 22:17).

In Romans 9:11, we are told expressly that God did choose before their birth which of the two sons of Isaac should carry forward the Messianic Line; hence, election in this instance was specifically not of works, but of him that calleth. Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of subsequent history, it did turn out to be one of works (works of faith, cf. James 2:14-26) in the sense that their respective acts proved the one ancestor (Jacob) to be more worthy of God’s favor than the other (Esau). Hence, in view of the fact that men are predestined to be free, surely we are right in holding that this superior quality of Jacob’s character was foreknown by God from the beginning. Although it may appear at first glance that the choice was an arbitrary one, our human hindsight certainly supports God’s foresight in making it. Of course, Jacob’s character was not anything to brag about, especially in the early years of his life, but from his experience at Peniel, he seems to have emerged a changed man with a changed name, Israel (Genesis 32:22-32); certainly it was of nobler quality than that of Esau, as proved especially by their different attitudes toward divine institutionsrights and responsibilitiessuch as those of primogeniture (Exodus 13:11-16, Deuteronomy 21:17). Hence the Divine election in this case was not arbitrary in any sense, but justly based on the Divine knowledge of the basic righteousness of Jacob by way of contrast with the sheer secularism (profanity) of Esau. (We may rightly compare, with the antics of Esau, the unspiritual attitude of church leadersthe clergyand church members toward the ordinance of Christian baptism, Think how this institution has been changed, perverted, belittled, ignored, and even repudiated by the professional theologians throughout the entire Christian era!).

It is important to observe that God chose Jacob, the younger, to be over his brother Esau before they were born. Before the children were born, neither having done anything good or bad, it was God’s declared purpose that the older should serve the younger (Romans 9:10-13, Genesis 25:23). Subsequent events may lead us to condemn Jacob for his fraudulent methods of obtaining the family blessing. But that which Jacob sought was his by divine decree. Certainly God was within His sovereign right to make this choice. And assuredly the characters of Jacob and Esau that subsequently emerged showed God’s wisdom and foreknowledge in choosing Jacob (Smith-Fields, OTH, 92-93).Let us not forget, however, that the choice was not an arbitrary one, but a choice emanating from the divine foreknowledge of the worthiness of Jacob above Esau, as demonstrated by what they didthe choices they madein real life. How can God use any man effectively who has little or no respect for His ordinances? (The birth of Jacob and Esau took place before Abraham died. Abraham was 160 years old, and Isaac sixty, at the time the twins were born, Genesis 21:5; Genesis 25:26; Genesis 25:7). (See my Genesis, II, pp. 237-264).

5. Esau the Profane (Genesis 25:27-34).

27 And the boys grew: and Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents. 28 Now Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: and Rebekah loved Jacob. 29 And Jacob boiled pottage: and Esau came in from the field, and he was faint: 30 and Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. 31 And Jacob said, Sell me first thy birthright. 32 And Esau said, Behold, I am about to die: and what profit shall the birthright do to me? 33 And Jacob said, Swear to me first; and he sware unto him; and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34 And Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: so Esau despised his birthright.

Genesis 25:27In due time the twins were born. Esau grew up to become a skilful hunter, a man of the field. And Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents. From the very first these boys were opposites in character, manners, and habits. The older was a man of the field, leading a roving, unsettled kind of life; the younger preferred a quiet domestic life, dwelling in tents, attending to his father’s flocks and herds. Esau becomes experienced in hunting, as opposed to Jacob who is a man of simple tastes, quiet, retiring. The over-all contrast, then, is between the aggressive hunter and the reflective seminomad (Speiser, ABG, 195). Jacob was ambitious and persevering, capable of persistence in selfish scheming or in nobler service; the latter, although frank and generous, was shallow and unappreciative of the best things. In the long run God can do more with the former type of men (Sanders, HH. 39). Thus it will be seen that the descriptions of the two boys are clearly antithetical. This contrast, moreover, persisted through the centuries between their respective progenies, the Israelites and the Edomites. As previously noted, the latter were inveterate enemies of the former, thus authenticating God’s pronouncement through Malachi, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Malachi 1:1, cf. again Romans 9:13).

Genesis 25:28. Now Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison. Isaac, himself so sedate, loves the wild, wandering hunter, because he supplies him with pleasures which his own quiet habits do not reach (MG, 368). And Rebekah loved Jacob. Rebekah becomes attached to the gentle, industrious shepherd, who satisfies those social and spiritual tendencies in which she is more dependent than Isaac, and thus the children please their parents according as they supply what is wanting in themselves. Esau is destructive of game; Jacob is constructive of cattle (MG, 368). Persons of quiet and retiring disposition, like Isaac, are often fascinated by those of more sparkling and energetic temperament, such as Esau; mothers, on the other hand, are mostly drawn towards children that are gentle in disposition and home keeping in habit (PCG, 320).

In those days, we are told, it was not an uncommon thing for the huntsman to come half-starved to the shepherd’s tent and ask for some food. In these circumstances the man of the field was pretty largely at the mercy of the tent-dweller. This seems to have been the condition in which Esau found himself, and when he scented the pottage which Jacob was boiling in his tent, he rushed inside and shouted, Feed me some of that red stuff, I pray, for I am faint with hunger. Jacob stewed something: an intentionally indefinite description, the nature of the dish being reserved for Genesis 25:34 (ICCG, 361). Let me gulp some of that red stuff there, cried Esau, some of that red seasoning, literally, some of that red red. in his excitement Esau seems to have forgotten the name of the dish. Therefore was his name called Edom, that is, because he had eaten the soup which was of a red brown color (adorn)another play on words (JB, 43). The name Edom, signifying red, at once marked his origin and color, and his excessive lust after the red pottage, and his selling his birthright to obtain it (SIBG, 254). Both marks characterize his sensual, hard nature (Lange, CDHCG, 499). It quite accords with the Oriental taste to fasten upon certain incidents in the life, or upon peculiar traits in the character, of individuals, as the foundation of a new name or soubriquet. The Arabians are particularly addicted to this habit. So are all people in an early state of society; and there is no ground to wonder, therefore, at the names of Isaac’s sons being suggested by circumstances attending their birth, apparently of a trivial nature, especially as no fault can be found with them on etymological grounds (CECG, 190). Therefore his name was called Edom. There is no discrepancy in ascribing the same name both to his complexion and the color of the lentile broth. The propriety of a name may surely be marked by different circumstances. Nor is it unnatural to suppose that such occasions should occur in the course of life. Jacob, too, has the name given to him from the circumstances of his birth, here confirmed (A. Gosman, Lange, ibid., 500).

It is not surprising to read that Jacob took advantage of this opportunity to drive what we might properly call a hard bargain. Jacob said, Sell me first thy birthright, Genesis 25:31. Esau answered, in substance, Oh well, I am about to die of hunger, or perhaps, I am risking my life daily in the hunt, etc., of what use would the birthright be in any case? (A good example of rationalization). Jacob said, Swear to me first; and he sware unto him; and he sold his birthright unto Jacob, Genesis 25:33. As it turned out, there was no hard bargain at all; there was not even any haggling on Esau’s part; with jaunty nonchalance, he tossed away, as if it were not worthy of his concern, the most precious privilege that God conferred on the firstbornthe right of primogeniture, the birthright.

What was the birthright) That is, what did it include?

The birthright was of little practical importance when there was an only son. Isaac was Abraham’s only true heir, Ishmael not being of the seed of promise. Thus Isaac was the only one in the line of promise and the natural heir of his father’s possessions. But Isaac’s wife bore him two sons, Esau and Jacob. Now the birthright assumed greater significance. Esau, as the firstborn, should have been the one through whom the people of God descended. But he foolishly sold that birthright for carnal considerations and lost it to Jacob. Jacob claimed the privileges of the birthright and from him came the twelve tribes of Israel. The firstborn received a double portion of the inheritance (cf. Deuteronomy 21:16-17), and, at least before the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood, the firstborn in each family exercised the priestly prerogatives in the home after his father’s death (HSB, 42). This birthright entailed upon the possessor a double portion of the paternal inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:16-17); a claim to his father’s principal blessing, and to the promise of Canaan, and a peculiar relation to God therein.. Altogether this is a most painful narrative. One does not know whether most to condemn the folly and recklessness of Esau, bartering his birthright for a mess of pottage; or the unbrotherly spirit and grasping selfishness of Jacob, refusing to a fainting brother a mouthful of food until he had given him all he possessed (SIBG, 254).

The birthright in this instance was of extraordinary significance, Esau’s impatience was natural, for food is not readily procured in an Eastern tent, and takes time to prepare, Jacob seized the occasion to obtain Esau’s birthright as the price of the meal; and Esau consented with a levity which is marked by the closing words of the narrative: -thus Esau despised his birthright.-’ For this the Apostle calls him -a profane person, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright,-’ and marks him as the pattern of those who sacrifice eternity for a moment’s sensual enjoyment (Hebrews 12:16). The justice of this judgment appears from what the birthright was, which he sold at such a price, If he had received the birthright, he would have been the head of the family, its prophet, priest and king; and no man can renounce such privileges, except as a sacrifice required by God, without -despising-’ God who gave them. But more than this: he would have been the head of the chosen family; on him devolved the blessing of Abraham, that -in his seed all families of the earth should be blessed-’; and, in despising his birthright, he put himself out of the sacred family, and so became a -profane person.-’ His sin must not be overlooked in our indignation at the fraud of Jacob, which. brought its own retribution as well as its own gain (OTH, 93). Disregard for positive divine ordinances (such as the birthright and the paternal blessing, in patriarchal times) is known in Scripture as profanity (from pro, before or outside, and fanum, temple, hence unholy); consequently this is the vilest insult that can be perpetrated against Goda fact which the sophisticated, the respectable, the worldly wise of humankind are usually too biased to understand or too proud in their own conceit to be willing to admit. This is the charge leveled against Esau: his profanity was such that he blithely and unconcernedly sold his birthright for a bowl of beans (Hebrews 12:16, mess of meat). And this general irreligiousness of the paternal character seems to have passed down to his offspring (Numbers 20:14; Numbers 20:21; Judges 11:16-17; 2 Samuel 8:14; Psalms 137:7; Ezekiel 25:12-14; Ezekiel 35:1-15; Amos 9:11-12; Joe 3:19; Obadiah 1:1-20; 1 Timothy 1:9).

Note the oath, Genesis 25:33. An oath is prostituted when it is exacted and given to confirm an improper and sinful contract; and a person is chargeable with additional guilt when, after entering into a sinful engagement, he precipitately confirms it by an oath. This is what Esau did: he despised or cared little about it in comparison of present gratification to his appetite: he threw away his religious privileges for a trifle; and hence he is stigmatized by the apostle as a -profane person-’ (Hebrews 12:16, cf. Philippians 3:19). -There was never any meat, except the forbidden fruit, so dearly bought as the broth of Jacob-’ (Bishop Hall). That Esau deserved to be superseded in his honors, in consequence of his irreligious character, cannot be denied nor doubted; for it is principally or solely on this transaction that the charge of profanity is founded. But what was justice on the part of God was cruelty on the part of Jacob, who had no right to make Esau the instrument of his own degradation and ruin. Besides, it was impolitic as well as wrong. For he might have concluded that, if God had not ordained him to possess the envied honors, he could never obtain them; and, on the other hand, if it was the decree of Providence, a way would be opened for his obtaining them in due time. Jacob’s heart was right, but he sought to secure good ends by bad means (CECG, 190). Lange (CDHCG, 500): If Jacob’s demand of an oath evinced ungenerous suspicion, Esau’s giving of an oath showed a low sense of honor.

The pottage of lentils. The red lentil is still a favorite article of food in the east; it is a small kind, the seeds of which, after being decorcitated, are commonly sold in the bazaars of India. Dr. Robinson, who partook of lentils, says that he found them very palatable and could well conceive that to a weary hunter, faint with hunger, they would be quite a dainty (Bib. Res. I*,* 246), Kitto also says that he has often partaken of red pottage, prepared by seething the lentils in water, and then adding a little suet to give them a flavor, and that he found it better food than a stranger would imagine; -the mess,-’ he adds, -had the redness which gained for it the name of adorn-’ (Pict. Bib., Genesis 25:30; Genesis 25:34.) (OTH, Smith-Fields, 93, n.). This pottage brewed by Jacob was a soup, we are told, made of a decoction of lentils or small beans, called -adas, which were and are extensively grown in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine (cf. 2 Samuel 17:28; 2 Samuel 23:11). (They were also included in Ezekiel’s recipe for bread-making in an emergency, Ezekiel 4:9). It is probable that Jacob made use of Egyptian beans, which he had procured as a dainty; for Esau was a stranger to it; and hence he said, -Feed me, I pray thee, with that red, red (thing).-’ The Hebrew -red,-’ includes the idea of a brown or chocolate color. This lentil soup is very palatable, particularly when accompanied with melted butter and pepper; and to the weary hunter, faint through hunger, the odor of the smoking dish must have been irresistibly tempting (CECG, 189).

Genesis 25:34, Esau did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way. A rather pathetic description of a character and life given over, one might say exclusively, to sensual self-satisfaction; yet a life that is paralleled millions and millions of times in practically every generation! Dr. Chappell, in one of his books of sermons on Old Testament characters, writes of Esau under the caption, The Story of a Fine Animal, The title is especially fitting.

6. Interesting Appraisals of the Characters of Esau and Jacob.

Speiser (ABG, 195): Esau is depicted as an uncouth glutton: he speaks of -swallowing, gulping down,-’ instead of eating, or the like. Skinner (ICCG, 362): Esau’s answer reveals the sensual nature of the man: the remoter good is sacrificed to the passing necessity of the moment, which his ravenous appetite leads him to exaggerate.. The climax of the story is Esau’s unconcern, even when he discovers that he has bartered the birthright for such a trifle as a dish of lentil soup. if Esau was defrauded, he was defrauded of that which he was incapable of appreciating. Again, ibid., the name Edom is -a memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity of the ancestor-’ (Gunkel).

Murphy (CG, 369-370): Jacob was no doubt aware of the prediction communicated to his mother (Genesis 25:23), that the elder should serve the younger. A quiet man like him would not otherwise have thought of reversing the order of nature and custom. In after times the right of primogeniture consisted in a double portion of the father’s goods (Deuteronomy 21:17), and a certain rank as the patriarch and priest of the house on the death of the father. But in the case of Isaac there was the far higher dignity of chief of the chosen family and heir of the promised blessing, with all the immediate and ultimate temporal and eternal benefits therein included. Knowing all this, Jacob is willing to purchase the birthright as the most peaceful way of bringing about that supremacy which was destined for him. He is therefore cautious and prudent, even conciliating in his proposal. He availed himself of a weak moment to accomplish by consent what was to come. Yet he lays no necessity on Esau, but leaves him to his own free choice. We must therefore beware of blaming him for endeavoring to win his brother’s concurrence in a thing that was already settled in the purpose of God. His chief error lay in attempting to anticipate the arrangements of Providence. Esau is strangely ready to dispose of his birthright for a trivial present gratification. He might have obtained other means of recruiting nature equally suitable, but he will sacrifice anything for the desire of the moment, Any higher import of the right he was prepared to sell so cheap seems to have escaped his view, if it had ever occurred to his mind. Jacob, however, is deeply in earnest. He will bring this matter within the range of heavenly influence. He will have God solemnly invoked as a witness to the transfer. Even this does not startle Esau. There is not a word about the price. It is plain that Esau’s thoughts were altogether of -the morsel of meat.-’ He swears unto Jacob. He then ate and drank, and rose up and went his way, as the sacred writer graphically describes his reckless course. Most truly did he despise his birthright. His mind did not rise to higher or further things. Such was the boyhood of these wondrous twins.

Leupold (EG, 712, 713): Fact of the matter is, Jacob’s character is one of the hardest to understand; it is complicated; it has many folds and convolutions. But in this particular incident the Scriptural point of view must be maintained: Esau was primarily to blame. Jacob was really a spiritually minded man with appreciation of spiritual values and with distinct spiritual ambitions. Especially in the matter of carrying on the line of promise from which the Savior would come did Jacob have ambitions. The aspirations apparently, however, were begotten by the divine word of promise (Genesis 25:23). Yahweh had destined Jacob to pre-eminence. Jacob gladly accepted the choice and aspired to attain the treasure promised. His eagerness was commendable. His choice of means in arriving at the desired end was not always above reproach. He felt he had to help the good Lord along occasionally. He was not fully confident of God’s methods for arriving at the goal. He felt the need of occasionally inserting a bit of assistance of his own. Such an attitude was one of mistrust: confidence in human ingenuity rather than in divine dependabilityin one wordunbelief. But his spiritual aggressiveness was by no means to be despised, nor was it wrong. Approaching this incident with these facts in mind, we seem compelled to assume one thing in order to understand Jacob’s request. It appears, namely, that the subject of the birthright. had been under consideration between the brothers on a previous occasion. It would also seem that Esau had made some derogatory remark about its value, or, had even spoken about his own readiness to part with the privilege. Otherwise we can hardly believe that Jacob would have made this special request without further motivation, or that Esau would have consented to the bargain without more ado. This, indeed, puts Jacob into a more favorable light, but so does our text (Genesis 25:34). Indeed, there is left on Jacob’s part a measure of shrewd calculation in so timing his request that he catches Esau at a disadvantage, a form of cunning which we must condemn without reservation. Yet the act does not call for such strong criticism as: he was -ruthlessly taking advantage of his brother, watching and waiting till he was sure of his victim.-’ (Dods). Again, (ibid., 715): The last part of the chapter, Genesis 25:27-34, seems to us to come under a head such as Spiritual Aggressiveness, or even, The Right Goal but the Wrong Way. In any case, it should especially be borne in mind that the one censured by the text is Esau not Jacob.

Incidentally, there are commentators, Leupold included, who hold that the material blessings of the covenant may not have been fully revealed as far back as Jacob’s time. According to Mosaic law of a later date the right of the firstborn involved a double portion of the father’s inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17) and supremacy of a kind not wholly defined over his brethren and his father’s house (Genesis 27:29; cf. Genesis 49:3). It would be well to note in this connection also the deference manifested by Jacob to Esau after the former’s return from Mesopotamia (cf. Genesis 33:1-12).

Again, it is now known that under Hurrian lawa likely source of some of the patriarchal customsthe elder son could be designated as such by the testator contrary to the actual order of birth, that is, inheritance could be regulated by a father’s pronouncement irrespective of chronological precedence (Speiser, ABG, 195, 213). Selling inheritance rights far under value, has a Hurrian parallel: in Nuzi a brother transferred rights to a whole grove for only three sheep, apparently under duress (OHH, 43). The rigidity of the details of primogeniture seems not to have been firmly established until after the organization of the Theocracy.

Marcus Dods (EBG, 261-265): It has been pointed out that the weakness in Esau’s character which makes him so striking a contrast to his brother is his inconstancy. Constancy, persistence, dogged tenacity is certainly the striking feature of Jacob’s character. He could wait and bide his time; he could retain one purpose year after year till it was accomplished. The very motto of his life was, -I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me.-’ (Genesis 32:26). He watched for Esau’s weak moment, and took advantage of it. He served fourteen years for the woman he loved, and no hardship quenched his love. Nay, when a whole lifetime intervened, and he lay dying in Egypt, his constant heart still turned to Rachel, as if he had parted with her but yesterday. In contrast with this tenacious, constant character stands Esau, led by impulse, betrayed by appetite, everything by turns and nothing long. Today despising his birthright, tomorrow breaking his heart for its loss; today vowing he will murder his brother, tomorrow falling on his neck and kissing him; a man you cannot reckon upon, and of too shallow a nature for anything to root itself deeply in.. Esau came in hungry from hunting, from dawn to dusk he had been taxing his strength to the utmost, too eagerly absorbed to notice his distance from home or his hunger; it is only when he begins to return depressed by the ill-luck of the day, and with nothing now to stimulate him, that he feels faint; and when at last he reaches his father’s tents, and the savory smell of Jacob’s lentils greets him, his ravenous appetite becomes an intolerable craving, and he begs Jacob to give him some of his food. Had Jacob done so with brotherly feeling there would have been nothing to record. But Jacob had long been watching for an opportunity to win his brother’s birthright, and though no one could have supposed that an heir to even a little property would sell it in order to get a meal five minutes sooner than he could otherwise get it, Jacob had taken his brother’s measure to a nicety, and was confident that present appetite would in Esau completely extinguish every other thought.

Which brother presents the more repulsive spectacle of the two in this selling of the birthright it is hard to say. Who does not feel contempt for the great, strong man, declaring he will die if he is required to wait five minutes till his own supper is prepared; forgetting, in the craving of his appetite, every consideration of a worthy kind; oblivious of everything but his hunger and his food; crying, like a great baby, Feed me with that red! So it is always with the man who has fallen under the power of sensual appetite. He is always going to die if it is not immediately gratified. He must have his appetite satisfied.. But the treacherous and self-seeking craft of the other brother is as repulsive; the cold-blooded, calculating spirit that can hold every appetite in check, that can cleave to one purpose for a lifetime, and, without scruple, take advantage of a twin-brother’s weakness. Jacob knows his brother thoroughly, and all his knowledge he uses to betray him. He knows he will speedily repent of his bargain, so he makes him swear he will abide by it. It is a relentless purpose he carries outhe deliberately and unhesitatingly sacrifices his brother to himself. Still, in two respects, Jacob is the superior one. He can appreciate the birthright in his father’s family, and he has constancy. Esau might be a pleasant companion, brighter and more vivacious than Jacob on a day’s hunting; free and open-handed, and not implacable; and yet such people are not satisfactory friends. Often the most attractive people have similar inconstancy; they have a superficial vivacity, and brilliance, and charm, and good nature, which invite a friendship they do not deserve..

But Esau’s despising of his birthright is that which stamps the man and makes him interesting to each generation. No one can read the simple account of his reckless act without feeling how justly we are called upon to -look diligently lest there be among us any profane person as Esau, who, for one morsel of meat, sold his birthright.-’ Had the birthright been something to eat, Esau would not have sold it. What an exhibition of human nature! What an exposure of our childish folly and the infatuation of appetite! For Esau has company in his fall. We are all stricken by his shame.. Born the sons of God, made in His image, introduced to a birthright angels might covet, we yet prefer to rank with the beasts of the field, and let our souls starve if only our bodies be well tended and cared for.. Not once as Esau, but again and again, we barter peace of conscience and fellowship with God and the hope of holiness, for what is, in simple fact, no more than a bowl of pottage. (It is interesting to note the somewhat different picture of Esau that we find in chapter 33). Esau is an example of how a man with a bad reputation can be more attractive than another who has managed to acquire a good one. In the O.T. estimates Esau has a black mark, while his brother Jacob has all the marks of favor. Jacob is listed as a prince in Israel, and the father of the twelve tribes of the chosen people; but the Edomites, whom the Jews hated, were called sons of Esau. Yet notwithstanding all that, in the choice of a companion as between Esau and Jacob, almost anyone would have chosen Esau. Among the assets on the plus side of the ledger the following might be named: (1) his physical vigor. Esau was rough but he was virile, and his old father Isaac turned to him instinctively because he knew that if there was anything he wanted done, Esau could do it; and as he grew old he leaned increasingly on Esau’s strength.(2) He was a warmhearted man. Evidently he loved his father, as his father loved him. When Isaac was old and blind, the rough Esau was gentle with him and quick to respond to everything he wanted.. If Esau was careless about the particular advantages of the birthright, he was not careless about his father’s blessing. He wanted that, whatever else was lost. (3) He was not the kind of man who could hold a grudge. Cf. the reconciliation with Jacob on the latter’s return from Paddan-Aram (ch. 33, Genesis 33:4). What, then, was Esau’s basic fault? He was a man who lived only in the immediate moment, and by the light only of what was obvious.. He showed that he did not care enough for life’s great possibilities to pay the price of present discipline. He must have what he wanted when he wanted it, and the consequences could go hang. That was the critical weakness of Esau and that was his condemnation. He lost tomorrow because he snatched so greedily at today. Consider his descendants in every generation, including ours: the young men who cannot let any long-range dedication stand in the way of appetite; the frivolous girl who says of something trivial, -I-’ll die if I do not get it-’; the mature people for whom comfort always comes first and for whom anything like religious responsibility is ruled out if it is hard; the men in public office who will sell a birthright of great ideals to satisfy immediate clamor. Attractive traits will not save such people from ultimate dishonor (IBG, 665-667).

7. Summarizations

Esau was a wild, savage kind of man, spending most of his time in hunting, learning the art of war, and the like (cf. Genesis 10:9, Genesis 16:12). Jacob was a sincere, mild, plain-dealing man, keeping much at home, attending to his household affairs, and to his father’s flocks and herds (cf. Genesis 6:9, Genesis 46:34). The early development of different propensities in Esau and Jacob is very remarkable, and the visible causes of their respective characters may be traced to the dispositions and partialities of the parents. Isaac loves venison, and first to please his father, and then to gratify his own acquired habits, Esau becomes a cunning hunter. Rebekah loves domestic retirement, finds her comfort in the society of her infant Jacob, and forms his future character on the model of her own. These things are to be carefully observed: (1) How early, and insensibly, some part of the character of a father or mother may be propagated in their children. (2) The consequent importance of well considering all the habits in which a child is indulged or encouraged, as part, and often the most influential part, of its education. (3) The danger of parental partialities, from which, in this remarkable instance, many of the future troubles of Isaac and Rebekah, and Esau and Jacob, arose (SIBG, 254).

The story of Esau’s life may be written in four parts: (1) the sale of his birthright to Jacob for the mess of pottage (Genesis 25:27-34), which indicated that he despised his birthright and was willing to barter it away for a small consideration; (2) the marriages of Esau which were consummated with women who were not related to his father’s family, except for Mahalath who was his third wife and whom he married to placate his parents; (3) his failure to secure the patriarchal blessing just prior to the death of his father Isaac; (4) the re-establishment of brotherly relations with Jacob, and his departure from Canaan for Seir. Esau was careless, motivated by animal appetites, and revengeful after the blessing was stolen from him by Jacob (HSB, 42). (Cf. Genesis 26:34-35; Genesis 28:6-9; Genesis 27:18-41; Genesis 33:1-18).

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

Esau the Profane

Genesis 25:34, Hebrews 12:16-17

Much has been improperly inferred and said about Esau, from variant points of view. The notion especially that he bears the broad seal of God’s reprobation is certainly dishonoring to God. Surely such forget, that by representing him as hated of God and predestined to woe, with all feeling minds they must enlist pity for his wretchedness, and sympathy on account of his doom. Thus reasoning, God has been greatly dishonored, and, in opposition to His solemn asseveration, he has been declared a respecter of persons (MSS, 315). (See discussion of Gen 25:23, Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:10-13 above). The simple fact is that God’s disapprobation of Esau was based on His known (or foreknown) profaneness of Esau’s character. This profaneness certainly was not predestinated.

1.* Note the characteristics of Esau’s profane barter.* As the firstborn he possessed many privileges: we find it difficult not to accept the fact that these privileges existed in patriarchal times (cf. again Deuteronomy 21:15-17). These included (1) temporal privileges: pre-eminence of authority in the patriarchal family, and a double portion of the paternal estate; and in this case (2) spiritual privileges, viz., the descent of the priesthood in the family, from the firstborn (even before the Law), the genealogy of the Messiah through his seed, the peculiar and precious promises associated with the paternal blessing which took the form of a prophecy. All this Esau bartered for just one mess of pottage.

2. How is this profanity to be accounted for? (1) On the basis of his inconsideration. He did not weigh the matter, but acted hastily. (2) As a result of his voracious appetite, This was so strong he could not control it until food was prepared. (3) Especially as a consequence of his utter depreciation of divine ordinances. He was a worldly and carnal man. He lived in the here and the immediate now. He was deficient alike in personal piety towards God, and filial piety towards his father: the two are often wedded. Consider the Biblical examples of men and women of his ilk. E.g., Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, who, as a penalty for his avarice and lying about a talent of silver and two changes of raiment, and thus bringing the prophetic office into contempt, became afflicted with leprosy (2 Kings 5:20-27). Or, Ananias and Sapphira, who, retaining a portion of the price they had received for a piece of property, lied to the Holy Spirit about it (Acts 5:1-11). (They lied to the Holy Spirit by lying to the Apostle Peter who was inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit). And what shall we say of Judas who, for thirty pieces of silver, betrayed the Son of God into the hands of His enemies (Matthew 27:3-10, Acts 1:15-20); and of Herod, who for daring to receive the flattering adulation of the crowd, was eaten of worms (Acts 12:20-23). These all were surely bad bargains, equally with that of Esau. Are not millions in our day living the life Esau lived, and hence acting with equal profaneness? Those who sell themselves for vanity: note the outrageous adornmentsthe long sideburns, the thick beards, the foppish mustaches, the silly contention between the miniskirters and the midi-skirters, the subservience to the fashions of the momentwhat they say and what they dothe strict conformists, the slaves of passing fads who fool themselves into thinking they are just being free. Those who sacrifice truth, honesty, goodness, for the sake of money. Those who sacrifice themselves on the altars of pleasure. Those who barter their souls for riotous living. In many instances, these bargains are worse than that of Esau. He did obtain a gooda meal; he had his hunger alleviated. But think how often the sinner receives evil, and evil only, for the fearful price he pays!

In the first place, Esau is a fine animal, a strong, upstanding husky fellow who makes a pleasing impression upon any crowd in which he chances to be. He is possessed of a charming physical courage and daring. I do not think Esau would count for a straw on a moral stand, but physically he was unafraid. In the next place he is generous and open-handed and open-hearted. He is a breezy Bohemian type of man. He has a way of putting all his goods in the showcase and thus often winning an applause that is not his due. (There are many in our day who seem to think that practising a vice openly gives it a special kind of virtue). Now if you are a reader of modern fiction you have possibly been struck with the fondness of many of our present-day authors for the type of character that Esau represents. Did you ever notice with what delight many of our fiction writers picture the virtues of some worldling against the background of the failures and vices of some churchman? It seems to be a most joyful pastime with a certain type of author. The name of such books is almost legion. Take, for instance, The Calling of Dan Matthews. The only three characters in this book that the author would have us respect are an infidel doctor, a nurse who is a rank materialist and a preacher who is an utter coward and who gives up his Christ and his vocation for the love of a woman. Now there are folks that are like these, but they are not the folks who keep up the moral standards of the communities in which they live. Yet the author tires to make us believe that this is the case.. Take the work of that literary scavenger who took a stroll down -Main Street.-’ He is not without ability, But he is a self-appointed inspector of street gutters and sewers. He has an eye for the moral carrion of the community. Now whom does he seek to have us respect? Who are the ones that when sickness comes do the self-forgetful and the self-sacrificing deeds of service? Not the people of faith. Not those who believe in Christ. No, there are just two characters in the book that the author thinks are worthy of our admiration. There are only two who have fine, heroic qualities. One of them is a renegade Swede who is anchored to no place and who is mastered by no principles: a physical and a moral tramp. The other is a little bunch of feminine ignorance and conceit and ingratitude. She is the wife of the physician of the book. She is the one who plays the heroine when sickness comes to the Swede’s house. But she sees nothing heroic in the common duties of life. She has no appreciation of her social relationships. As a wife she is a travesty and as a mother she is a cynical joke (MSBC, 116-117).

Esau lived his life outside the temple: he was profane. His sin was secularism. His life is described in one graphic statement: He did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way. This sinsecularismwas the besetting sin of the people of the antediluvian world: in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away. This, our Lord tells us, will be the besetting sin of the age that will immediately precede His Second Coming: so shall be the coming of the Son of man (Matthew 25:37-39; cf. Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:29-31, also Matthew 16:27). (See also Genesis 6:11-13). Can it be that we are now entering upon these last days? Even so, Come, Lord Jesus (Revelation 22:20).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY-SEVEN

What special significance does Genesis 25:19 have in relation to the over-all theme of the Bible?

Review briefly the circumstances of the early life of Isaac?

How old was Isaac at the time of his marriage to Rebekah?

How old was Abraham at the time of his death?

How old was Ishmael at the time of his death?

In what region of Palestine did Isaac continue to dwell?

How would you evaluate in general the life and character of Isaac?

How long after their marriage did Isaac and Rebekah live without children?

How many instances of the wife’s protracted barrenness are related in Scripture? In what sense may each of these be described as a providential arrangement?

What did Isaac do about this barrenness of Rebekah?

What did Rebekah herself do about the pre-natal struggle of the twins? What was probably the method of her consultation with Jehovah about this experience?

What reason may be given for rejecting the view that this consolation took place at some established oracular shrine? What were the means usually employed to communicate Divine revelations in the Patriarchal Age? Cite examples.

What facts were presaged by the struggling of the twins in Rebekah’s womb?

When the older of the two was born, what was he named and why?

When the younger was delivered what was he named and why?

How were the names Esau, Edom, and Seir associated as to meaning?

How was Mt. Seir later associated with the life of Esau and his descendants?

Who were the Horites? Where was Mt, Seir geographically?

What was God’s prophetic communication to Re-bekah? What was the most significant part of this communication?

Does Genesis 25:23 teach us that God’s choice of Jacob instead of Esau to be the progenitor of Messiah was an arbitrary one? Explain your answer.

What three parallel explanations are given of this Divine choice of the younger son above the older one?

What do we mean by saying that when this communication, Genesis 25:23, is considered simply as prophetic, all difficulties vanish?

Correlate Genesis 25:23, Malachi 1:2-3, and Romans 9:12-13. In this connection, distinguish between Divine foreknowledge and foreordination.

What is meant by the statement that God does not foreknow, but simply knows?

Discuss the distinction between real time and mathematical time. Distinguish between time and timelessness.

Explain our statement that God’s choice in this instance proceeded from His foreknowledge of the worthiness of Jacob above Esau, and of the Israelites above the Edomites, as demonstrated by their respective choices and deeds.

How old were Abraham and Isaac respectively at the time the twins were born?

How did the attitudes and pursuits of the two boys become indicative of their differences of character?

What reasons may be given to explain Issac’s preference of Esau, and Rebekah’s preference of Jacob? Show how these parental preferences caused domestic chaos in this household.

What lesson should we learn from this story about discord caused by such parental bias toward children? How was this folly of parental preference later repeated in the life of Jacob?

What was the pottage that Jacob was cooking when Esau came to his tent?

How is the name Edom associated with this pottage?

What hard bargain did Jacob drive when Esau asked for food? Was it in any sense a hard bargain from Esau’s point of view?

What rationalization did Esau indulge to justify his nonchalant acceptance of Jacob’s demand?

What patriarchal privileges were included in the birthright? What special Messianic privileges in this particular case?

On what grounds is Esau denounced in Scripture as a profane person?

In what sense was the accompanying oath in this instance a source of additional guilt on Esau’s part?

What statement in Genesis 25:34 epitomizes Esau’s attitude and life?

How do Dr. Speiser and Dr. Skinner, respectively, appraise Esau’s character and life?

On what grounds does Leupold appraise Jacob’s conduct in a more favorable light? Compare Murphy’s appraisal.

What is the significance of Deu 21:17 in relation to the patriarchal birthright?

What light is thrown by Hurrian law upon this incident of the birthright?

How does Marcus Dods compare the characters of the two sons?

What three important lessons do we get from this story in regard to parental influence and conduct?

What were the chief aspects of Esau’s profane barter?

How is this profanity to be accounted for?

Review other Scriptural examples of such profanity.

How is this profanity exemplified in the attitude of many professing Christians toward the ordinance of Christian baptism?

What do we mean by saying that Esau’s besetting sin was secularism?

Where do we read that secularism was the over-all besetting sin of the antediluvian world? Also that it will be the over-all besetting sin of the age immediately preceding the Second Coming of Christ? What should these facts indicate to all Christians of the present generation?