Genesis 26

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 26:1-6

**PART THIRTY-EIGHT

THE STORY OF ISAAC: HIS SOJOURN IN PHILISTIA**

(Genesis 26:1-34)

The Biblical Record 1 And there was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham, And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines, unto Gerar. 2 And Jehovah appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. 6 And Isaac dwelt in Gerar: 7 and the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, My wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon. 8 And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife. 9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister?* And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die because of her. 10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might easily have lain with thy wife, and thou wouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. 11 And Abimelech charged all the people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.

12 And Isaac sowed in that land, and found in the same year a hundredfold: and Jehovah blessed him. 13 And the man waxed great, and grew more and more until he became very great: 14 and he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and a great household: and the Philistines envied him. 15 Now all the wells which his father’s servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped, and filled with earth. 16 And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we. 17 And Isaac departed thence, and encamped in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there. 18 And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. 19 And Isaac’s servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water. 20 And the herdsmen of Gerar strove with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, The water is ours: and he called the name of the well Esek, because they contended with him. 21 And they digged another well, and they strove for that also: and he called the name of it Sitnah. 22 And he removed from thence, and digged another well; and for that they strove not: and he called the name of it Reho-both; and he said, For now Jehovah hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land. 23 And he went up from thence to Beer-sheba. 24 And Jehovah appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake. 25 And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of Jehovah, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac’s servants digged a well. 26 Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath his friend, and Phicol the captain of his host. 27 And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore are ye come unto me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you? 28 And they said, We saw plainly that Jehovah was with thee: and we said, Let there now be an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee, 29 that thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art now the blessed of Jehovah. 30 And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink. 31 And they rose up betimes in the morning, and sware one to another: and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace. 32 And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac’s servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water. 33 And he called it Shibah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.

34 And when Esau was forty years old he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite: 3*5 and they were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

1. Isaac’s Migration to Gerar (Genesis 26:1-6). It will be recalled that Isaac was tenting in the vicinity of Beerlahai-roi (the well of the Living One who sees me, cf. Genesis 16:14) at the time of his marriage to Rebekah (Genesis 24:62). Later, he journeyed to Hebron where he and Ishmael buried their father, Abraham, in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 25:9). Isaac then returned, we are told, and continued to dwell by Beer-lahai-roi (Genesis 25:11); evidently it was here that the twins were born and Esau sold his birthright (Genesis 25:11; Genesis 25:19-34). This is obviously where we find him at the beginning of the account in ch. 26, prior to his removal to Gerar. But there was a famine in the land (Genesis 26:1), a second famine, long after the first, which was the one that was in the days of Abraham. In time of famine, people of Palestine were accustomed to migrate to Egypt or to the fertile Philistine maritime plain (about 50 miles long and 15 miles wide) extending along the Mediterranean Sea from what in our time is Joppa at the north to some distance below Gaza at the south. All Semitic peoples seem to have done this: the Egyptian records are full of accounts of such migrations for the purpose of obtaining food. (Cf. for example, Abraham, Genesis 12:10; Jacob and his sons, chs. 45, 46; Elimelech and his family, in Moab, Rth 1:1).

And Isaac went unto Abimelech, king of the Philistines, unto Gerar. The presence of the Philistines in this region in patriarchal times has been dubbed an anachronism by the critics. This view, however, is expressly refuted by evidence now available. In Scripture, the Philistines are said to have come from Caphtor (Amos 9:7,Jeremiah 47:4, Deuteronomy 2:23; cf. Genesis 10:14here the sentence, hence went forth the Philistines, is commonly viewed today as misplaced by a copyist and to belong after the name Caphtorim.). The monuments indicate that the Peleste or Philistines invaded Palestine with other sea peoples around 1200 B.C. In time they became amalgamated with other inhabitants of Canaan, but the name Palestine (Philistia) continued to bear witness to their presence. It is further evident that the Philistines had established themselves in this region in smaller numbers long before 1500 B.C. The region around Gerar and Beer-sheba was occupied by them as early as the patriarchal age (Genesis 21:32; Genesis 26:1) and before the Mosaic era settlers from Crete had driven out or destroyed the original inhabitants of the region of Gaza and settled there (Deuteronomy 2:23). The consensus of archaeological evidence in our day almost without exception identifies these sea peoples as spreading out over the Eastern Mediterranean world from Crete: at its height in the third and second millenia, Minoan Crete controlled a large part of the Aegean Sea, C. H. Gordon and I. Grinz consider that these early Philistines of Gerar came from a previous migration of sea people from the Aegean and Minoan sphere, including Crete, which is called Caphtor in the Bible and Ugarit tablets, and Caphtorian is the Canaanite name for Minoan (Cornfeldy, AtD, 72). Biblical notices, which are commonly viewed as anachronistic by critics, place scattered groups of these people in S. W. Palestine centuries before the arrival of the main body in the first quarter of the 12th century B.C. (UBD, 859). Recently an Israeli archaeologist, D. Alon, surveyed the site of Gerar and found evidence from potsherds that the city had enjoyed a period of prosperity during the Middle Bronze Age, the period of the Biblical patriarchs (DWDBA, 251). The early Caphtorian migration was one of a long series that had established various Caphtorian folk on the shores of Canaan before 1500 B.C.E. They had become Canaanitized, and apparently spoke the same language as Abraham and Isaac. They generally behaved peacefully, unlike the Philistines of a later day, who fought and molested the Israelites. They were recognized in Canaan as masters of arts and crafts, including metallurgy (Cornfeld, AtD, 72). The word Philistine is said to have meant stranger, sojourner (sea peoples?). These people gave their name to the country where they settled, Philistia (Joe 3:4; cf. Amos 1:6-8, Zechariah 9:5-7); from this name the Greek name Palestine was derived in turn. The five cities of the Philistines in Palestine were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath. Gerar, though not one of the five great urban centers, was the seat of the royal iron smelting operations producing iron swords, spearheads, daggers, and arrowheads (1 Samuel 13:19-22). (See my Genesis, Vol. III, pp. 387-390).

2. Abimelech. Cf. the incident in Abraham’s life, Genesis 20:1-18. The name means father-king in pure Hebrew; apparently it was the customary title, rather than personal name, of the kings of Gerar, as Pharaoh was of the kings of Egypt, as Agar was of the kings of the Amalekites (1 Sam., ch. 15), or as Ceasar was in later times, of the Roman emperors (cf. also Kaiser or Czar, etc.). Since some seventy or eighty years intervened between the accounts in chs. 20 and 26, we must conclude that the Abimelech of ch. 26 was the successor to the Abimelech of ch. 20. Leupold (EG, 717): The common assumption that Abimelech was a standing designation of all Philistine kings, like Pharaoh for the Egyptian, finds definite support in the heading of Psalms 34, where Abimelech is used as a title for the man who in 1 Samuel 21:10-15 appears as Achish. -Gerar-’ appears to be identical with Umm-Jerar, about ten miles south of Gaza. (Achish was the personal name of the king of Gath, also a Philistine city). (For a discussion of the Abimelechs of these two Chapter s, see my Genesis, Vol. III, 390-396). For a discussion of the similarities of the stories in Genesis 12:10-20; Genesis 20:1-18; Genesis 26:6-11, and also of the striking differences, see my Genesis, Vol. III, 396-401, and especially 405-406. We conclude that these are not three variant accoounts of the same event, as claimed by some ofthe critics, but three different accounts respectively of three different originals).

3. The Divine Communication to Isaac (Genesis 26:2-5). The situation seems to be sufficiently important to call for Divine intervention. God appeared to Isaac as well as to Abraham, but twice only to the former (here and in Genesis 26:24). The wording of Scripture here surely indicates that Isaac was contemplating a journey into Egypt such as his father Abraham had made under the same circumstances, i.e. a famine in the land. Evidently Yahweh interfered to prevent such a move. Probably his original purpose in going to Abimelech was to request permission to leave for Egypt or he may have gone to the king of Gerar to make special arrangements that would avert the necessity of his going there. At any rate, Yahweh intervened, and in doing so reaffirmed the Abrahamic Promise. Genesis 26:2, You were consecrated as a sacrifice to God and must therefore not leave the Holy Land. Set up your shepherd’s tent here and do not fear for lack of pasture (SC, 144). The Oath, Genesis 26:3, was made directly and separately with each of the patriarchs. By remaining in the country you will take possession of it, to be able to transmit it to your children, and thus My oath will be confirmed (SC, 143). It had been previously announced to Abraham that Isaac was to be his sole heir; and now that, on the death of his father, he had succeeded to the patrimonial inheritance, he was to receive also a renewal of the Divine promise which guaranteed special blessings of inestimable value to him and his posterity. The covenant securing these blessings originated entirely in Divine grace; but it was suspended on the condition that Abraham should walk before God and be perfect (Genesis 17:1); and since he had, through the grace which had enabled him to attain an extraordinary strength of faith, fully met that condition by an obedience honored with the strongest expression of Divine approvalIsaac, his son, was now assured that the covenant would progressively take effect, the assurance being made doubly sure to him by a reference to the oath sworn to Abraham (Genesis 22:16). The first instalment of this promise was the possession of Canaan, here designated -all these countries,-’ from the numerous subdivisions amongst the petty tribes which then occupied the land (Genesis 15:19-21); and in prospect of this promissory tenure of the land, Isaac was prohibited leaving it.. At all events, now that the Abrahamic covenant had to be executed, the elect family were not henceforth allowed to go into Egypt, except with the special sanction and under the immediate superintendence of an overruling Providence (CECG, 191). Genesis 26:5my commandments (particular injunctions, specific enactments, express or occasional orders,, cf. 2 Chronicles 35:16), my statutes (permanent ordinances, such as the Passover, -literally, that which is graven on tables or monuments, cf, Exodus 12:14-’), and my laws (which refer to the great doctrines of moral obligations). The three terms express the contents of the Divine observances which Abraham obeyed (PCG, 324-325).

Remarkable is the scope of divine blessings that are mediated through faithful Abraham. In order to make prominent the thought that Abraham conscientiously did all that God asked, the various forms of divine commandments are enumerated; sometimes, of course, a divine word would fall under several of these categories. They are a -charge-’ or -observance-’ if they are to be observed.. They are -commandments-’ when regarded from the angle of having been divinely commanded. They are -statutes-’ when thought of as immutable, and -laws-’ insofar as they involve divine instruction or teaching. Under these headings would come the -commandment-’ to leave home (ch. 12); the -statute-’ of circumcision, the instruction to sacrifice Isaac, or to do any particular thing such as (Genesis 15:8) to sacrifice Isaac, or (Genesis 13:17-18) to walk through the land, as well as all other individual acts as they are implied in his attitude toward Jehovah, his faithful God. By the use of these terms Moses, who purposes to use them all very frequently in his later books, indicates that -laws, commandments, charges and statutes-’ are nothing new but were already involved in patriarchal religion. Criticism, of course, unable to appreciate such valuable and suggestive thoughts, or thinking Moses, at least, incapable of having them, here decrees that these words come from another source, for though J wrote the chapter, J, according to the lists they have compiled, does not have these words in his vocabulary, and so the device, so frequently resorted to, is employed here of claiming to discern traces of a late hand, a redactor (Leupold, EG, 719-720). (The hypothetical redactor is, of course, an indispensable factotum for Biblical critics). Speiser translates Genesis 26:5as follows: All because Abraham heeded my call and kept my mandate: my commandments, my laws, and my teachings. Mandate he defines as something to be scrupulously observed, adding, the three nouns that follow spell out the contents (ABG, 198, 201). Note that the same Promise, in its various details, which was originally given to Abraham, is here renewed to Isaac (cf. Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:17-18). Cf. Genesis 26:24: that is, not for the sake of Abraham’s merit, but from respect to the covenant made with him, Genesis 12:2-3; Genesis 15:8, Genesis 17:6-7 (SIBG, 257). Cf. Genesis 26:6Abraham’s obedience was not perfect, as we know, but it was unreserved, and as it flows from a living faith, is thus honored of God (Gosman, in Lange, CDHCG, 505).

Review Questions

See Genesis 26:34-35.

Genesis 26:6-11

4. The Threat to Rebekah’s Honor (Genesis 26:6-11). Because Gerar was situated in the Judean foothills south of Gaza and likely controlled the inland caravan route to Egypt, no doubt it was a commercial city. Therefore Isaac’s needs during the famine were here supplied. The men of the place were attracted to Rebekah because she was fair to look upon. Isaac, apprehensive of personal danger on account of his wife’s beauty, followed the same deceptive course that his father had adopted (Genesis 12:13, Genesis 20:2) of passing his wife off as his sister. At that time Rebekah was at least thirty-five years married and the mother of two fullgrown sons who evidently had been kept in the background, perhaps engaged in pastoral and other field pursuits. But after a considerable lapse of time, Abimelech, king of the Philistines, happened to be looking out at a window and saw, and behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife (literally, he was fondling her, and certainly not in the manner by which a brother would show affection for his sister). Whereupon Abimelech constrained Isaac to admit that she was his wife, charged him with the impropriety of his conduct, and commanded his own subjects to refrain from harming either of them on. pain of death. Knobel pronounces this story to be a duplicate account of a similar incident in the life of Abraham. But a close examination will show that the circumstances here detailed are different from those of the earlier transaction. Although the name of the principal personage in both narratives is Abimelech, a royal title, it is highly probable, considering that an interval of about seventy years had elapsed, another king was reigning in Isaac’s day: then Rebekah was not taken into the royal harem; and there was a difference also in the way in which her conjugal relation to Isaac was discovered. Altogether the stories are marked by distinctive peculiarities of their own; and though it is striking, it cannot appear improbable that, in the same country and at the same court, where Oriental notions as to the rights of royalty obtained, incidents of such a description should, from time to time, occur. Isaac’s conduct, however, in this affair, has been made the subject of severe animadversion by the friends as well as the foes of Revelation, as a compound of selfishness and weakness, as well as of cold indifference to his wife’s honor, for which the same apology cannot be made as in the earlier case of Abraham. But Waterland (-Scripture Vindicated-’), after a full and dispassionate examination of the circumstances, gives his verdict, that the patriarch -did right to evade the difficulty so long as it could be lawfully evaded, and to await and see whether Divine Providence might not, in some way or other, interpose before the last extremity.-’ His hope was not disappointed (CECD, 191).

Lange (CDHCG, 505-506): In the declaration of Isaac the event here resembles Abraham’s experience, both in Egypt and at Gerar, but as to all else, it differs entirely. With regard to the declaration itself, it is true that Rebekah was also related to Isaac, but more distantly than Sarah to Abraham. It is evident from the narrative itself that Isaac is not so seriously threatened as Abraham, although the inquiries of the people at Gerar might have alarmed him. It is not by a punishment inflicted upon a heathen prince, who perhaps might have abducted the wife, but through the intercourse of Isaac with Rebekah that the true relation became known. That the Abimelech mentioned in this narrative is the same person who, eighty years before, received Sarah into his harem, appears plausible to Kurtz and Delitzsch, since it may be taken for granted that as a man gray with hair as he, did not send for Rebekah and take her into his harem. We reject these as superficial grounds. The main point is, that Isaac appears in this narrative as a very cautious man, while the severe edict of Abimelech seems to suppose a solemn remembrance in the king’s house of the former experience with Abraham. The oath that follows seems also to show that the new Abimelech avails himself of the policy of his father, as well as Isaac. The windows in old times were latticed openings for the light to enter, as found in the East at the present day.

Finally in this connection, the following: Criticism, with almost complete unanimity (we know only of Koenig as an exception) calls this a later (Isaac) version of the original (Abraham) legend, or else calls chapter 26the original and chapter 20 derivative. Yet the differences, aside from the very plain statements of the text to the same effect, point to two different situations: here a famine, there none; here Rebekah is not molested, there Abimelech took Sarah; here accidental discovery, there divine intervention; here no royal gift, there rich recompense. Of course, criticism usually points to Genesis 12:10 f. as being merely another form of the same incident. Yet at least one aspect of the critical approach can be refuted completely on purely critical grounds. For, as K.C. [Koenig’s Kommentar on Genesis] observes, it is unthinkable that J, to whom chapter 12 as well as chapter 26 are attributed, should have preserved two versions of one and the same incident (Leupold, EG, 721).

Review Questions

See Genesis 26:34-35.

Genesis 26:12-17

5. Isaac’s Successful Venture into Agriculture (Genesis 26:12-17).

Besides planting trees, Abraham was to the end of his life a nomad, Isaac, however, begins to pursue agriculture along with his nomadic life: this venture causes commentators to classify him as a kind of semi-nomad, (The only other allusion to husbandry in the patriarchal history occur in Genesis 30:14; Genesis 37:7). Isaac is described as living in the city of Gerar itself. He tried his hand successfully at a season of farming and his yield was -a hundredfold,-’ a statement worth recording because nomads are poor farmers as a rule. Isaac’s experiment is an interesting example of a nomad beginning to settle down to semi nomadism. A recurring pattern in the Near East is that nomads are attracted to sown acres, where they plant their crops, thus supplementing the living they get from their flocks. So they become agriculturists; they turn into villagers, usually still grazing their flocks, for that is a noble tradition, in keeping with their origin. Isaac’s career apparently marks this transition to that intermediate stage (Cornfeld, AtD, 77).

This account agrees well with the area around Gaza,: the soil is very rich, we are told. As a result, Isaac reaped from his initial venture a rich harvest, to the extent of a hundred measures (a hundred fold). Such a rich harvest was taken as a sign of divine favor. The man became very wealthy: he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and a great household. Since Abraham was very rich (Genesis 13:2, Genesis 14:23) and the bulk of his property had gone to Isaac, such an increase as this in Isaac’s wealth must have brought his possessions up to a startling total. His establishment of necessity required also a great number of servants. The man waxed great, and grew more and more until he became very great, that is to say, he kept growing richer and richer. But a serious problem arose as a consequence of this unusual prosperity: the Philistines grew envious. The statement is an intimation of the clash with them over the wells, the account of which soon follows. Hostilities began when the natives began filling with earth the wells which Abraham had dug at Gerar and which therefore belonged to Isaac. This very act was already an indirect expulsion, for without wells it was not possible that Isaac should live a nomadic life at Gerar. As a matter of fact, Isaac’s household was strong enough to constitute a threat to the safety of the Philistines had Isaac been inclined to use his power for personal ends. Genesis 26:16the king’s summons is a combination of flattery, thou art much mightier than we, and ungraciousness, go from us. Isaac is a pacifist in the best sense of the word. Power is safe in his hands. He shows no inclination to abuse it. Secure in his strength but mindful primarily of his responsibilities to his God, he yields to pressure and moves farther up the valley, i.e., southeast from Gerar, and there pitches his tent with the intent of staying there permanently (he dwelt there, i.e., he settled down) (EG, 725-726).

Review Questions

See Genesis 26:34-35.

Genesis 26:18-22

6. The Contention over Wells (Genesis 26:18-22). The whole of the southern frontier of Palestine, called the Negeb or -south country,-’ consisting of vast undulating plains, which extend between the hills of Judah and the desert of Sinai, were neutral grounds, on the natural pastures of which the patriarchs fed their large flocks, before they had obtained a permanent abode. The valley of Gerar. about fifty miles south of the city Gerar, is perhaps the remote extremity of that pasture land (CECG, 192). Here Isaac digged againthat is, reopenedthe wells which had been dug in the days of Abraham his father, and which had been stopped (filled up) by the Philistines. The statement that they were wells that Abraham had first dug is not superfluous after Genesis 26:15, but clearly establishes his claim to these wells. To indicate, further, his right to these wells and to indicate his respect for what his father did, Isaac in every case revived their original names (EG, 727). The naming of the wells by Abraham, and the hereditary right of his family to the propertythe change of the names by the Philistines to obliterate the traces of their originthe restoration of their names by Isaac, and the contests between the respective shepherds for the exclusive possession of the water, are circumstances that occur among the natives in those regions as frequently in the present day as in the time of Isaac (CECG, 192).

The history of Isaac’s sojourn in Gerar is very curious and instructive. Combining both pastoral and agricultural industry, it is not strange that he grew very great. The vast grazing plains around and south of his position enabled him to multiply his flocks indefinitely, while the -hundredfold-’ harvests furnished bread for his numerous servants; and, in addition to these advantages, the blessing of the Lord was on the labour of his hands in a manner altogether extraordinary. These things made the Philistines envy and fear him; and therefore Abimelech, king of Gerar, demanded and obtained a covenant of peace with him. Just so at this day the towns, and even cities, such as Hamath and Hums in the north, and Gaza and Hebron in this region, cultivate with great care friendly relations with the sheikhs of prosperous tribes on their borders. It appears that the country was deficient in water, and that wells, dug at great expense, were regarded as very valuable possessions. Isaac was a great well-digger, prompted thereto by the necessities of his vast flocks; and in those days this was an operation of such expense and difficulty as to be mentioned among the acts which rendered illustrious even kings. The strife for possession of them was a fruitful source of annoyance to the peaceful patriarch, as it had been the cause of separation between Abraham and Lot before him; and such contests are now very common all over the country, but more especially in these southern deserts. It was the custom in former times to erect towers or castles to command and secure the possession of valuable watering-places; thus Uzziah built towers in connection with -his many wells-’ (2 Chronicles 26:9-10). And to stop up wells was the most pernicious and destructive species of vengeancethe surest way to convert a flourishing country into a frightful wilderness. Israel was commanded thus to destroy the land of the Moabites, by stopping all the wells of water (2 Kings 3:19; 2 Kings 3:25). It would be a curious inquiry for the explorer to seek out these wells, nor would it be surprising if they should be found bearing the significant names which Isaac gave them. All travelers agree that water is so scarce and valuable in that region, that the places where it is to be found are as well known by the Arabs as are the most flourishing towns in other parts of the country. Isaac’s place of residence was the well Lahai-roi, as we read in Genesis 25:11; Genesis 24:62the same that was so named by Hagar (Genesis 16:14). It may have been first discovered by her, or miraculously produced by -the God that saw her,-’ for the salvation of the maternal ancestor of the Arab race and her unborn son, as the fountain of Kadesh afterward was for all Israel, and perhaps that of Lehi for Samson (Numbers 20:11, Judges 15:19). It seems to have been the usual mode to designate the dwelling-place in patriarchal times, and indeed long after, by some circumstance or fact which made it memorable. Abraham dwelt under the oak at Mamre; Isaac at this well; Jacob hid the idols of his family under the oak at Shechem; and long after, Joshua took a great stone and set it up under the same oak, as I suppose. Thus, also, Deborah dwelt under the palm-tree of Deborah; the angel of the Lord that was sent to Gideon came down and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah; King Saul is said to have tarried under a pomegranate tree in Migron; and it is yet quite common to find a village better known by some remarkable tree or fountain near it than by its proper name, The knowledge of these places and things is perpetuated from generation to generation; and I doubt not many of these wells in the south could be discovered, if one had the time and liberty to explore (LB, 559-560). (Cf. Genesis 35:4, Joshua 24:25-27; Judges 4:5; Judges 6:11; 1 Samuel 14:2).

Apparently, the rapid increase of Isaac’s wealth brought about a need of additional wells, and so Isaac’s servants began digging in the valley and found there a well of springing (living, bubbling, gushing) water. But the Philistines were keeping close watch, and immediately on hearing of the discovery they asserted their claim to the new well. No doubt, the distance from Gerar was sufficient to establish Isaac’s claim to the well, otherwise this fair-minded man would never have sanctioned the digging. Isaac’s policy is in keeping with the word, -Blessed are the meek.-’ He leaves a memorial of the pettiness of the strife behind by calling the well Esek-‘Contention-’the Quarrel Well. Perhaps a mild and tolerant humor lies in the name. Yet after all, what a fine testimonial to a great man’s broadmindedness and readiness to sacrifice, lest the baser passions in men be roused by quarreling (EG, 727). Isaac’s servants then moved some distance and brought in a new well: this they named Sitnah, i.e., enmity, hostility. In this case the opposition seems to have been more spiteful, more violent, as indicated by the name. Everyone must recognize that it is magnanimity and not cowardice on Isaac’s part when he yields, because Isaac had ample manpower at his command (EG, 728). Isaac then moved even further away and his servants brought in a well which he named Rehoboth, i.e., wide places, room, rather, plenty of room, that is to say, the Lord hath made room for us. It seems that by now the patriarch had moved beyond the territory that Gerar could legitimately claim. It is possible, too, his generous example might have shamed the opposition. We shall be fruitful in the land, declared Isaac, that is, in this land where we now are. Is not Isaac thinking primarily in terms of that aspect of the Divine promise stated in Genesis 26:4? The character of Isaac is very marked and peculiar. He never traveled far from this spot during his long life of one hundred and eighty yearsprobably never removed from Wady Gerar and its neighboring city. There are but few acts of his life on record, and several of these are not much to his credit. He seems to have been an industrious, quiet man, disposed to wander alone and meditateat least when he had such an interesting theme to think about as the coming of the camels with his expected bride. He preferred peace to strife, even when the right was on his side, and he was -much mightier-’ than those who annoyed and injured him (LB, 561).

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

Digging the Wells of the Fathers

Genesis 26:18. As stated heretofore, digging again here meant re-opening of the wells which Abraham had caused to be dug in previous years. Abraham, a powerful prince of the preceding generation had dug these great wells in Philistia when he was sojourning there, The supply of water was abundant and sufficient for generations to come. But the wells had been stopped up by the envious Philistines. Another great famine descended upon the same area in the time of Isaac. Isaac knew that there was an abundance of sparkling water flowing beneath the obstructions which had been placed in the old wells. He therefore did not dig new wells, but set about restoring (re-opening) the old wells. Having done this, Isaac’s servants set about digging elsewhere in the valley and brought in (as men say in the oil fields) a well of springing (living) water, Genesis 26:13.

We all know that water is necessary to the existence of every living thing, including man himself. Because of this fact, the prophets especially, and many other Scripture writers, were wont to use wells and rivers of water as metaphors of the life-giving sources of salvation. Isaiah 12:3Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. Isaiah 41:18I will open rivers on the bare heights, and fountains in the midst of the valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water. Cf. again John 4:13-14; John 6:35; John 7:37-39; also Revelation 22:1-2. This living waterthe Water of Life to all who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matthew 5:6)poured forth from the old Gospel well, for the first time, on the first Pentecost after the Resurrection: it was on this day that the facts of the Gospel were pro-claimed for the first time (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Acts 2:22-24), that the commands of the Gospel were stated for the first time (Acts 2:38), that the promises of the Gospel were communicated to man for the first time (cf. Luke 13:5, 2 Corinthians 7:10, Romans 10:9-10, Galatians 3:27, etc.), and that the ekklesia came into being, vitalized by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:41-42; Acts 2:46-47). During the lifetime of the Apostles multitudes drank of this life-giving flow, the high and the low, the rich and the poor, the educated and uneducated alike. The Pentecost multitude, the people of Samaria, the Roman centurion and his household, the Ethiopian treasurer, the seller of purple from Thyatira, the Philippian jailor, the fanatical Saul of Tarsus, Crispus the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth, and many others, including a great company of the priests, alike drank of this living water and went on their way rejoicing. (Cf. Acts 6:7; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12-13; Acts 10:1-44; Acts 8:26-39; Acts 16:11-15; Acts 16:27-34; Acts 9:1-22; Acts 18:8). The supply of the water of the Life Everlasting in this old Gospel well was sufficient to quench the spiritual thirst of obedient believers of all ages. (Cf. John 6:63, Matthew 7:24-27; John 5:40; John 10:10, etc.).

As the centuries rolled on, however, the ugly face of human authority reared itself above the glorious image of the Logos. Man presumed to improve upon what the Spirit had revealed in the New Testament, The debris of human wisdom, tradition, and creed (stemming from the attempt to explain Christian doctrine by the use of philosophical gobbledygook and to improve upon the design of the ordinances of Christ by borrowings from the pagan mystery religions) continued to accumulate from generation to generation. Human interpretations, human speculation, human tradition filled the old Gospel well with the debris of the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). The result was apostasy, heresy, clericalism, sectism, and all the devices that Satanic ingenuity could muster to destroy the structure of the Church of Christ as it existed at the beginning. Theologians, priests, cultists, sectists alike departed from the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3), and hewed for themselves and their misguided followers broken cisterns that held no relief for deep spiritual thirst.

Following the Protestant reformations, a group of spiritual leaders, by name Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Walter Scott, and other spiritually-minded men who developed a keen appreciation of the simplicity of apostolic Christianity, its laws, its ordinances and its fruits, set out like Isaac of old to re-open the wells of the apostolic fathers and bring to men again the Water of Life that flowed from the old Gospel well that was opened on Pentecost, Not reformation, said they, but only restoration will revive the spiritual power that characterized the life of the church of the first century.-’ Back of Wesley, back of Calvin, back of Luther, said they, indeed back of Roman Catholicism, back of Greek Catholicism, all the way back to Pentecost, and to the permanent features of the New Testament pattern of the church. The movement which resulted from their work came to be known as the Restoration movement. The message of this movement was essentially a plea for the recognition and acceptance of the Lordship of Christ over His church. This message became known as a Plea, a plea for Christ.

The chief thing in Catholicism is the machine, the visible hierarchy; in fact, Catholicism is the machine. The chief thing in Protestantism is the creed. True, men are breaking away from the creeds, yet the fact remains that the so-called Protestant systems have been built upon their respective creeds and the traditions of the fathers founded on these creedal statements. But the fundamental thing in Christianity as taught and practised by the Apostles and the first Christians was, not the machine (there was no ecclesiastical hierarchy in the apostolic age), not the creed (there were no stereotyped creeds until after the Apostles had passed from the stage of human events), but the personal Christ Himself. Christ was, and is, Christianity; and Christianity was, and is, Christ. That He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and that He ascended to the Father and was made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36; Acts 10:39-43; Acts 17:29-31, Romans 10:9-10)this was the essence of the apostolic message. Christ was all in all apostolic preaching (Acts 8:12; Acts 8:35; Acts 16:31, etc.). (Cf. also 2 Timothy 1:12, 1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 2:20, Revelation 19:11-16).

As the Restoration movement stands for the reproduction of New Testament Christianity, it follows that the central thought and theme of its preaching is likewise the personal Christ. The Restoration movement differs from Catholicism in that it repudiates all ecclesiastical machines; it differs from Protestantism in that it rejects all human names, creeds and ceremonials, It is a protest, not only against Catholicism, but also against those things which Protestantism has borrowed from Catholicism that are not to be found in the New Testament church, The fundamental message of the movement is the preeminence of Christ. The Restoration plea may be defined in a single sentence as a plea for Christ. This plea comprehends the following particulars:

I. The name of Christ. The Restoration message pleads that the name of Christ may be worn by His people, to the exclusion of all human designations, for these reasons:

(1) it is the name in which they are baptized, Acts 2:38; (2) it is the divine name, because Christ is divine; (3) it is the preeminent name, Philippians 2:9-11; (4) it is the only name in which we can be saved, Acts 4:12; (5) it is the name which was divinely bestowed upon the disciples, Acts 11:26; (6) it is the name in which we should do everything that we do, Colossians 3:17. Human names are denounced by apostolic authority, i.e., as religious designations, 1 Corinthians 3:4-5, Romans 8:6-8. The name Christian is both Scriptural and catholic; it is the only name upon which the followers of Jesus can unite.

You and I have no credit at the Bank of Heaven. Suppose you were to step up to the window in that glorious Bank and present a check for your soul, what would the Great Teller say? He would tell you that your check must have an endorsement. Then, suppose you were to offer as endorsement the name of Paul, or Peter, or Martin Luther, or John Wesley, or Alexander Campbellwould any of these names be sufficient security for your soul? Noyou would find them insufficient. There is one Name, and one only, that will be recognized at the Bank of Heaventhe name of Jesus Christ. In it there is salvation, but in no other.

Tis noble to be a Christian,

-Tis honor to bear the name,

To know that we-’re honored in heaven,

Is better than earthly fame.

The name implies one is noble,

It means he is honest and true;

It means his life is Christlike

Does it mean all this in you?

II. The Person of Christ. The Restoration message includes the Person of Christ as the one sufficient creed for all Christians. The word creed comes from the Latin verb, credo, meaning I believe. The only article of faith imposed upon Christians in New Testament times was personal belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, Matthew 16:16, John 20:30-31, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-10, etc. But belief in Christ as the Son of God includes acceptance of the fact of His personal atonement for sin. That He offered His body as a living sacrifice, and shed His blood for the remission of sins, are the two facts of the atonement; and the atonement was sufficient because His Person was divine. Matthew 26:28, Romans 3:24-25, Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 10:20; John 1:14, etc. The creed of Christianity is the personal Saviour.

Human creeds are incomplete statements and can not be universally accepted. At best they are nothing but the opinions of uninspired men. They set limits upon intellectual progress. They divide God’s people by submitting tests of fellowship separate and apart from God’s Word; they are written and enforced without divine sanction. They are superfluous and unnecessary. If a creed contains less than the Bible, it doesn-’t contain enough; if it contains more than the Bible, it contains too much; if it teaches what the Bible teaches, it isn-’t necessary because we have the Bible. Human creeds are the uninspired products of theological speculation and contribute tremendously to the spread and perpetuation of denominationalism.

The true creed of the church of Christ is a Person. It could not be otherwise, logically. Faith does not center in a dogma, nor in an institution. I do not believe in baptism as such, but I believe in the Christ who instituted baptism and to please Him I shall be baptized according to His example. I do not believe in the Lord’s Supper, but I do believe in the One who said, Do this in memory of me, and I shall exert every effort to be in my accustomed place when the memorial feast is spread on each Lord’s Day. We do not believe in things, but in persons. Therefore, says Paul, For I know him whom I have believed, 2 Timothy 1:12.

This divine creed is Scripturalno question about that. It is also catholic, i.e., universally accepted by all who are worthy of the name Christian. It is the all-embracing creed. It includes everything in God’s revelation to man, and embraces everything in man’s relation to God. It is as high as heaven, as broad as the human mind, and as inclusive as the illimitable spaces. This creed was not made at Nice, nor at Westminster, nor at Augsburg. The creed of the living church of the living God is the living, ever-living Christ. Christ is our creed; that is a simple creed; that is a growing creed; that is a heaven sent creed. (Combs, Call of the Mountains, p. 85).

III. The Word of Christ. The Restoration message includes the word of Christ as the sufficient book of discipline for His church. The word of Christ is the New Testament, John 16:14-15; John 20:21-23. It is quite sufficient to furnish the Christian unto every good work, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I recall a lady, who had been reared a strict denominationalist, asking me on one occasion for the book of rules of the church which I was serving as minister. I could do nothing but offer her a copy of the New Testament; this I did, even at the risk of having been pronounced discourteous. Truth is sometimes more needed than courtesy.

The New Testament is the Christian’s book of discipline. He should have no otherhe needs no other. If the Scriptures are sufficient to furnish the man of God unto all good works, written disciplines of human origin are unnecessary. Take this divine discipline and follow it. Are you inquiring what to do to be saved? Read John 3:5. If Jesus says you can not enter into the kingdom. without being born of water and the Spirit, then how can you? Read Acts 2:38. What the Holy Spirit has joined together by the conjunctions, and and for, let no theologian put asunder. May every Christian follow the apostolic exhortation, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, Colossians 3:16.

IV. The Authority of Christ. The Restoration plea is essentially a plea for the authority of Christ. This is fundamental. Most of our present-day religious controversies are not over questions of interpretation, but questions of authority. The Bible teaches that God delegated all authority to Jesus, who, in turn, delegated the same authority to His apostles and clothed them with the infallible presence of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth and to protect them from error in revealing His word to mankind, John 16:13-14. There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that divine authority was ever delegated to any one else; in fact divine authority ended with the work and revelation of the apostles. All authority in Christianity is vested in Christ. Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:22. Every local church is a theocracy democratically administered. In matters of faith and doctrine it is an absolute monarchy subject to the will of Christ which is the absolute law from which there is no appeal. In matters of expediency, or method, it is a democracy subject to the wish and will of the majority. The historic episcopacy has no authority to make any changes in the teaching of Christ: therefore I am not an Episcopalian, but a Christian. The presbytery has no authority over the teaching of Christ; therefore I am not a Presbyterian, but a Christian. Not even the congregation has any authority over the teaching of Christ; therefore I am not a Congregationalism but a Christian. (How utterly absurd that the Board of Officers of any church of Christ should even discuss such a question as the reception of the pious unimmersed! That question was settled for us by Christ and the apostles almost twenty centuries ago. We are presumptuous to even consider or discuss it). I do not believe in baptism, but I do believe in the Christ who commands me to be baptized; therefore I am not a Baptist, but a Christian. I believe that everything in the local church should be done decently and in order, but I do not believe that the church should be named after the methods used; therefore I am not a Methodist, but a Christian. Again, who instituted the ordinances? Our Lord instituted them; therefore, He alone has the right to alter them, to make changes in their observance, or to take them away. The Pope did not institute baptism; therefore the Pope has no right to annul baptism or to substitute something for baptism. The church did not institute baptism or the Lord’s Supper; therefore the church has no right to change these ordinances in any way. They are the ordinances of Christ which are to be perpetuated by the church.

Restore the authority of Christ over His church and bring all professing Christians to accept His authority, and you will have solved many of the problems which harass modern Christendom. You will have swept away all popes, councils, synods, presbyteries, conferences, associations and assemblies which, in the past, have presumed to speak with authority. You will have swept Catholicism off the face of the earth and you will have destroyed every vestige of humanism that lingers in Protestantism. When all professing Christians recognize the exclusive authority of Christ over His church, Christian unity will soon be a reality. May God hasten the day when He shall reign on earth even as He now reigns in Heaven!

V. The Church of Christ. The Restoration message includes a plea for the restoration of the church of Christ. The modern world is so befogged by churchanity that Christianity has largely become obscured. We hear so much in these days about Luther’s Church, Calvin’s Church, Wesley’s Church, and so on, we are liable to forgetin fact the world at large has almost forgotten that our Lord Himself established a church. This church came into existence on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 30. Matthew 16:18here he speaks of it as His church. It is the church of Christ and the only church to which I care to belong. Let us go back of Wesley, back of Calvin, back of Luther, back of Rome, back of Constantinople, all the way back to Jerusalem and find, reproduce and restore the church of Christ, or, using the adjectival form, Christian Church. This is the supreme objective of the Restoration movement of the nineteenth century.

VI. The Ordinances of Christ. The Restoration plea has a specific message with reference to the ordinances of Christ. It says they are not ordinances of the church, but ordinances of Christ to be perpetuated by the church as sacred trusts committed to the church for safekeeping.

The ordinances of Christ are three in number: (1) Baptism, to test the loyalty of the penitent believer. (2) The Lord’s Supper, to test the loyalty of the Christian. (3) The Lord’s Day, which is a memorial of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

True obedience does a thing commanded, does it without question, and does it in the way the author of the command wants it to be done. I might illustrate as follows: A gentleman who is about to die calls his two sons to his bedside. He tells them he owns a farm out in Kansas, that he has made extensive plans for the development of that farm, but that death threatens to prevent the execution of his plans. He asks for a map of the farm. He tells the boys just how he wants the farm developed. He points out on the map the spot where the house is to be erected, also the spot where the barn is to be built. Pointing to a certain place on the map, he says: This is all bottom land. I have prepared it for corn and I want you to plant corn there next spring when you begin to develop the land. Up here on this rolling ground I want you to sow the wheat because it is especially prepared for wheat. Then along the road here is a patch of new ground. The soil is fresh and fertile and I have planned to put an orchard on this spot. Now, boys, said he, after I am dead and gone, I shall depend upon you to develop the farm according to the plans I have given you. The sons agree to do so, and in a few days thereafter the father dies. Several months later the boys decide to go to Kansas and take a look at the farm. Taking the map with them, they make what would be called in modern language a survey. They find the place where the house is to be erected and they agree it is an ideal location. They next find the spot where the barn is to be built and again they agree. They take a look at the bottom land and they see it is quite evident that this is the ground which will produce the corn. They take a look at the rolling land and again they are of the same mind and judgment. They express their astonishment at the wise judgment manifested by the father; thus far they are in complete accord with his plans. By and by they stroll over the patch of new ground. John looks at it for a moment and Bill looks at it, then they look at each other and shake their heads. John says: It seems to me that father has slipped just a bit in selecting this spot for an orchard. It is full of roots and stumps that will retard the growth of the trees. Besides, it is right here along the road and all the bad boys in the neighborhood will be clubbing the apples, pears, and peaches. I think we had better put the orchard back from the road, etc. Bill is of the same opinion. Now I have a problem in mathematics for you. That father gave his sons five specific commands. The commands were very clear-cut; there was no danger of their being misunderstood. In how many of these commands did the boys obey their father? You say, They obeyed him in four particulars, but disobeyed him in one. No, my friends, they didn-’t obey him in anything. They accepted his judgment in the four particulars because it so happened that their judgment coincided with his; but when it came to the last item, they did not agree with the father’s judgment, and instead of obeying him without question, they followed their own judgment in the matter. How like people today! They are perfectly willing to believe and repent of their sins; but when they come to the baptismal water, they stop and say, This is a matter for me to decide in my own conscience, and in many cases they follow their own preference or inclination instead of submitting to the ordinance of Christ in the way it was performed in New Testament times.

That Christian baptism was immersion, under the preaching of the apostles, is readily admitted by scholars of all denominations. There is no more clearly established fact in church history than this. No man of any standing in the world of scholarship questions it for a moment. Moreover, immersion is the only catholic baptism: one who has been buried with Christ in baptism will be accepted in any church in Christendom with but one or two exceptions. There is no argument about immersion; all are agreed that it is baptism; the argument is all over the matter of substitutes for baptism. In other words, the controversy is not over what baptism is, but over what baptism is not. Why not accept the baptism that is unquestionably Scriptural and that is universally admitted to be right?

The plea of the Restoration movement is that the ordinances may be restored to their proper place and significance in the faith and practice of the churches of Christ. VII. Unity in Christ. One of the most important items in the Restoration message is the plea for Christian unitynot union, but unity. There is a great difference between union and unity. Someone has facetiously remarked that by tying two cats together by the tail and throwing them over a clothesline one would have a union, but not much unity. Our Lord prayed for the unity of His people, John 17:20-21. The apostles condemned division in no uncertain terms, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 1 Corinthians 3:1-5. The church of the New Testament was a united church, Ephesians 4:4-6.

It is quite evident that the present divided condition of Christendom is the direct antithesis of the ideal for which our Lord prayed. It is equally evident that divisions are wasting the church and nullifying the effects of gospel preaching. As John R. Mott has said, The price that has been paid for a divided Christendom is an unbelieving world. Someone inquires: Is Christian unity possible? If Christian unity is impossible, then our Lord prayed for an impossibility. Moreover, if Christian unity does not come to such an extent as to include all who claim to be Christians, it will be due to the fact that men will not allow it to come.

The question arises here: How did Christ, through the apostles, go about the task, in New Testament times, of building a united body) This is a worth-while question. The answer is very clear. The first thing the apostles did under the guidance of the Spirit, was to bring into existence a local church of Christ which was a united church. See Acts 2:44-47; Acts 4:32. Note that the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul. This church in Jerusalem was a wonderfully united church. In establishing such a united church of Christ, it should be noted that the apostles did not make their appeal to the Pharisees, nor to the Sadducees, nor to the Herodians, etc., as sects. Nothey made their appeal to individuals to come out of Judaism; those who obeyed the gospel were then added together into a local church and as other individuals came from time to time they were added to the original group. Thus there was a united church of Christ in Jerusalem. The next step was to establish churches of the same faith and order in adjoining cities and towns. By and by there was a church of Christ in Antioch, another in Samaria, another in Philippi, another in Thessalonica, and so on. In this manner the united church of Christ spread over the entire known world even before the death of the Apostle Paul. How was it all done? It started with a united local church in Jerusalem; thence the lines were extended by establishing local churches of Christ in other cities; and the sum total of all the members of these united local churches constituted the united universal church of Christ.

Herein lies a great lesson for the churches of Christ of the present century. Not only the Scriptures, but observation and experience as well, proclaim the absolute folly of appealing to any denomination or denominational group, as such, in the matter of bringing about unity. The appeal must be made to individuals to come out of denominationalism and to unite in Christ. This was the method used in apostolic times and by divine authority. It was the method used by the pioneers of the Restoration movement and the Word of God prevailed mightily. Churches of the New Testament order sprang up all over the country in an incredibly short time. Later, out of an exaggerated conception of religious courtesy, the method was changed from proclamation to negotiation. The result has been temporary stagnation. It should be remembered that a merger of denominations is not unity. The ideal for which Christ prayed is not achieved in a league of denominations, it can be achieved only by the elimination of denominational barriers and the breaking down of denominational walls. I look upon the time and energy that is being spent at present negotiating with the self-constituted leaders of denominationalism, in vain endeavors to achieve consolidation through human schemes of union, as nothing but sheer waste of effort. The thing to do is to rekindle the fires of evangelism; to extend the lines into every community in the land; and leave the results with God. Preach the Word to individuals; plead with them to abandon sectarianism and to become one in Christ Jesus; go here, there, everywhere with the New Testament message; until the whole Christian world shall come to recognize and accept the New Testament basis. Then, if it should turn out that the ideal for which Jesus prayed can not be achieved to the extent of taking in the whole of Christendom, due to the prejudices and perversities of mankind, we may have the satisfaction of knowing that it shall have been realized, to a limited degree at least, in the unity of the churches of Christ; and we shall be comforted by knowledge of the fact that when the Son of man cometh, He will find the faith on the earth (Matthew 24:14). The present-day ecumenical movement has been dubbed rightly, a conglomerate of conflicting units (Bulletin by Harry L. Owens, San Antonio, Texas.)

VIII. Consecration to Christ. The last, but by no means the least, item of the Restoration message, is a plea for personal consecration to Christ.

Baptism is not the end, but just the beginning, of Christian life and service. It is only the consummation of the divine plan whereby we are adopted into the family of God. It is the act in which we put on Christ. Galatians 3:27, John 3:5, Romans 8:14-17. Following baptism we are given the Spirit of adoption as the earnest of our inheritance, and this indwelling Spirit endows us with the privilege of calling God our Father. Baptism is the final act of primary obedience through which we are saved from a state of alienation and by means of which we obtain the right to approach our Father through Christ, our High-Priest, in daily confession and prayer. 1 John 1:9, Hebrews 10:19-22, etc.

In other words, baptism is the consummating act of conversion. Conversion is the complete surrender of self and substance to God, the submission of the human will to the divine. New converts thus inducted into the body of Christ must continue stedfastly in the essentials of Christian worship, Acts 2:42; they must grow in divine grace, 2 Peter 1:5-11; they must bring forth in life and Conduct the fruit of the Holy Spirit, Galatians 5:22-25. They must work out their own salvation, Philippians 2:12; they must fight the good fight of faith; they must press on toward the mark of the prize of the high calling of God; they must run the race with patience. The crown of life is promised only to those who endure, Revelation 2:10, the over-comers.

The Restoration ideal not only demands the proclamation of first principles; it also includes going on to perfection, It takes in the Lord’s Supper, prayer, liberality, meditation, consecration, personal piety and zeal. It includes everything essential to a devout Christian life.

There’s a sweet old story translated for man,

But writ in the long, long ago,

The gospel by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,

Of Christ and His mission below.

Men read and admire this gospel of Christ

With its love so unfailing and true;

But what do they say and what do they think

Of the gospel according to you?

Tis a wonderful storythis gospel of love

As it shines in the Christ life divine,

And oh, that its truth might be set forth again

In the story of your life and mine.

You are writing each day a letter to men,

Take care that the writing is true,

-Tis the only gospel some folk will read

The gospel according to you.

God highly exalted him and gave unto him a name that is above every name. And to think that He loves us so much He is willing to extend us the privilege of wearing that name! That privilege is yours this very moment if you will but accept Him as your Savior and obey him in Christian baptism. Allow Him to enter your heart and assume authority over your soul. No privilege vouchsafed a human being is comparable to this! May God help you to decidenow!

The wells of the fathers must be kept open: no ecumenical conglomerate must be permitted to fill them with theological rubbish. The pure water of the primitive Gospel, the true Gospel, the only Gospel, must be allowed to flow in all its pristine purity. Jesus is the Son of God. He is the Savior of the world. This must be the positive message sounding out from every pulpit that dares to call itself Christian, from now unto the end, His Second Coming, even until the redeemed shall join with the angels before the Heavenly Throne in proclaiming praise to His matchless name:

O that with yonder joyful throng,

We at His feet may fall,

We-’ll join the everlasting throng

And crown Him Lord of all.

Review Questions

See Genesis 26:34-35.

Genesis 26:23-25

7. The Theophany at Beersbeba (Genesis 26:23-25). We now read that Isaac went up from Gerar to Beersheba. (Though Beersheba is said to lie lower than Gerar, yet the general expression for approaching any part of Palestine from the southwest is to -go up,-’ EG, 729). Here Yahweh appears again to Isaac, for covenant matters must be again considered. Isaac has conducted himself in a manner that calls forth divine approval. Besides, Isaac’s faith needs to be strengthened in the matter of the realization of the covenant promise. For one part of the promise is: numerous descendants.. Isaac shall have to walk by faith very largely as did Abraham. That this faith might well be established he is informed that God will surely bring this promise to pass. So we see that the situation is sufficiently important to call for the appearance of Yahweh, the second and last that is granted to Isaac. The substance of Yahweh’s promise is: Fear not as to the realization of the promise given thee, for I am with thee, I, the God of Abraham, thy father, who never failed to make good what I promised to him; I guarantee to make thy descendants (Hebrew -seed-’) numerous, for the sake of Abraham my servant. It is here only in Genesis that the title -my servant-’ is applied to Abraham. By it another aspect of Abraham’s relation to the Lord is covered: he stood in God’s service all his days and faithfully did His will (EG, 729).

Now, any place that is sanctified by a Divine appearance naturally became a sacred spot where Yahweh was wont to be worshiped (cf. Genesis 12:7-8, Genesis 13:4). Hence, following the example of his illustrious father, Isaac erected an altar, and of course offered sacrifice: a fact so obvious that it hardly need be mentioned. It is stated that he called upon the name of Jehovah. This means, as it did from the very beginning (cf. Genesis 4:26), that Isaac acting on behalf of his entire householdas their priestengaged in all the essentials of public worship of God characteristic of the Patriarchal Dispensation, the very heart of which was sacrifice that included the shedding of precious blood (Genesis 4:4-5, Hebrews 11:4, Leviticus 17:11, John 1:29, Hebrews 9:11-22, Revelation 7:13-14). Because of Yahweh’s manifestation at this place it became sacred to Isaac and he pitched his tent there, and as relatively permanent residence was involved, he ordered his servants to (literally) start digging a well there: the success of the attempt is not reported until Genesis 26:32 (ABG, 202).

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

The Essentials of Life

Text: Genesis 26:25. Dr. Bowie (IBG, 675-676)presents some challenging thoughts concerning our text, Genesis 26:25. We have here, he writes, only the bare catalogue of what Isaac did on a particular day. However, there are three nouns in this text which have deep implications: an altar, a tent, and a well.

1. It should be noted that the altar was first. The first thing Isaac did when he moved up to Beersheba was to cause his servants to build an altar there. (Recall that the first thing Noah did on coming out of the ark was to build an altar unto Jehovah and offer the prescribed sacrifice, Genesis 8:20). With Isaac, as with Israel in all its history, God was no afterthought. Existence was not secular, but lifted up always to a religious reference. Isaac was doing what his father Abraham always did on moving into a new environment. The altar was first. When a man is right with God all other matters fall into place. In our affluent society today men have so much that they consider themselves self-sufficient, whereas if God did not provide the food they eat, the water they drink, and the air they breathe, they could not live five minutes. Man is a creature. When he loses sight of this fact, he loses his bearings and brings chaos upon himself and his fellows. We must start with God as the First Truth of all being. Hence if any part of life is to be worth anything, it must begin with the recognition and worship of God.

2. After erecting his altar and calling upon the name of Jehovah (in his office as the patriarch-priest of his household), Isaac then pitched his tent there. Naturally what went on in that tent was commonplace enough: everyday human needs had to be provided for through the routine of ordinary work; the building of an altar could not obviate that, nor contact with the spiritual world take men out of this one. What Isaac kept in mind was that family lifeits duties, loyalties, and affectionsneeded always to be brought under the protection of the altar. Note, too, that Isaac had no mansion, not even a house solidly built and comfortable, adapted to present occupancy, such as men and women desire in our day. He had only a tent. Does not this suggest that the patriarchs were not rooted in material things; that, on the contrary, they confessed themselves to be strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Hebrews 11:12)? Are not we all just such? In the civilization of today, complex and materially rich, there is danger that men may be so satisfied with what they already possess that they do not reach forward to that spiritual communion which pilgrim souls would seek to gain. Yet in the scale of eternal values the great man is he who knows that life here is a pilgrimage (Job 14:1-2, Matthew 6:19-21, Colossians 3:1-3, 2 Corinthians 4:16-18), and that if he does not seek the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10), his life on earth will be aimless and empty, The only happiness to which man is ordained by the very nature of his being is ultimate union with God, the union of the human mind with the Mind of God in knowledge and the union of the human will with the Will of God in love (1 Corinthians 13:12, 1 John 3:2): that alone will be perfect happiness (cf, Matthew 5:3-12; note that the Latin word for happiness is beatitudo, blessedness, hence this ultimate union with God is known as the Beatific Vision; the Latin word was coined by Cicero; Aristotle used the word endaimonia, which means, literally, well-being). To achieve this Beatific Vision, one must be steadfast in growing in the Spiritual Life here (2 Peter 3:18) as programmed for him in the Divine Word (1 Corinthians 15:58, Galatians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; Revelation 2:10, etc.).

3. Finally, having built his altar and pitched his tent, Isaac’s servants digged a well. This was necessary to their existence. Out of it must come the water to slake the thirst of men and cattle; and because of it there could be an oasis of growth and shade. Without water, physical life would come to an end soon. Hence, all through the Bible water is a symbol for the satisfaction of a deeper thirst. (Cf. Psalms 42:1, Isaiah 55:1; John 4:14; John 7:37-39).

Review Questions

See Genesis 26:34-35.

Genesis 26:26-33

8. The Covenant with Abimelech (Genesis 26:26-33). As Abimelech was the standing title of the Philistine kings, so Phicol seems to have been the standing title of the captain (or general) of the army. (Cf. Genesis 21:22 f.) As there was a lapse of seventy years between the visit of Abraham and of Isaac, the Abimelech and Phicol spoken of must have been different persons-’ official titles (CECG, 193). It is fair to conclude that Abimelech was the royal title, just as Pharaoh was in Egypt, and Caesar in Rome. Phicol may also have been a name of office, as mudir or mushir now is in this country. If one of these officers is spoken of, his name is rarely mentioned. I, indeed, never know any but the official title of these Turkish officers (LB, 560). Abimelech brought with him a certain Abuzzah his friend, that is, his confidential adviser, or Vizier-‘an official title common in Egypt from an early period, and amongst the Ptolemies and Seleucids (1Ma. 2:18; 1Ma. 10:65; cf. 2 Samuel 16:16 f., 1 Kings 4:5, 1 Chronicles 27:33 (Skinner, ICCG, 367). (In 1 Chronicles 27:33, we find the rendering, counsellor). (Ahuzzath: note the Philistine ending of the name: cf. Goliath, 1 Samuel 17, also Gath). Note that one idea stands out in the conversation of these Philistines, namely, we are impressed by the fact of Yahweh’s blessings which go with you continually: they do not think it safe to be on bad terms with one who so manifestly stands in Yahweh’s favor. That the name -Yahweh-’ should be used by Philistines need not surprise us. They naturally do not know Him as the One who is what this name involved. They simply take the heathen attitude: each nation serves its own God: we have heard that Isaac serves Yahweh; it must be Yahweh who has blessed His faithful follower (EG, 731). Abimelech makes the overture. But Isaac chides him for his unkindness in sending him away and his inconsistency in now seeking a conference with him, Genesis 26:27. However, the king sees clearly now that Isaac’s God is to be reckoned with: thou art now the blessed of Jehovah; therefore let there now be an oath between us. and let us make a covenant with thee, etc. By whatever motive the proposal was dictatedwhether fear of his growing power, or regret for the bad usage they had given him, the king and his courtiers paid a visit to the tent of Isaac (Proverbs 16:7). His timid and passive temper had submitted to the annoyances of his rude neighbors; but now that they wish to renew the covenant, he evinces deep feeling at their conduct, and astonishment, or artifice, in coming near him. Being, however, of a pacific disposition, he forgave their offence, accepted their proposals, and treated them to a banquet by which the ratification of a covenant was usually crowned (CECG, 193).

The oath, Genesis 26:28, in this case was what was known as a curse-oath, that is, the curse invoked on violation of the covenant. The Jews in later ages were in the habit of using vain and frivolous oaths in their ordinary talk. They swore by the temple, by the earth, by heaven, by the head, etc. So long as they did not use the name of God in these oaths, they did not deem them particularly binding. This practice is alluded to in Matthew 23:16-22 (ADB, 243). This was known as profane swearing (cf. Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12). The judicial oath was of an entirely different character. The validity of this type of oath was recognized by Jesus: indeed He allowed Himself to be put under it (cf. Matthew 26:63-68), and He responded to the solemn adjuration. We find also that good men, an angel, and even God Himself, made use of the oath for confirmation (Genesis 21:23-24; 1 Samuel 20:42; Hebrews 6:17-18; Revelation 10:5-6). It should be noted that the oaths were exchanged on the morning after the feast (Genesis 26:30-31) before the Philistines departed. Apparently the feast, the common meal, was a feature of the covenant ceremony (cf. Genesis 31:53-54) even though the oath-taking did not occur until early the next morning.

9. The Naming of the Well (Genesis 26:32-33). On the same day the oaths were exchanged Isaac’s servants found water. This is the well mentioned in Genesis 26:25. It is possible that it is the same well which Abraham had excavated and named Beer-sheba (Genesis 21:31). The Philistines had stopped it up; now Isaac reopened it and gave it the same name it had borne previously (Nachmanides). Rash-bam holds that it was a different well, there being two of that name (SC, 148). To the rationalistic objection that -identical names of places are not imposed twice,-’ we may reply, in general, that it is -in full accordance with the genius of the Oriental languages and the literary tastes of the people,-’ to suppose that a name may be renewed; in other words, that a new meaning and significance may be attached to an old name. (This is the testimony of a scholar thoroughly acquainted with Oriental manners and customs, Prof. L. J. Porter, in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopaedia, II, 132, latest edition.) This fact sweeps away a host of objections urged against this and similar cases. The whole series of events served to recall to Isaac’s mind the former name and the circumstances which gave rise to it, hence he renewed it. From Genesis 26:15; Genesis 26:18 we learn that all the wells dug by Abraham had been filled with earth by the Philistines, but that Isaac re-opened them, and called them by the old familiar names. This would seem a sufficient explanation of the case before us (ADB, 410).

This was not the restoration of an old, but the sinking of a new well; and hence, by the formal ceremony of inauguration gone through with Abimelech, Isaac established his right of possession to the adjoining district.. One would naturally imagine that the place received this name [Beer-sheba] now for the first time from Isaac. But it had been so called long before by Abraham (Genesis 21:31), in memory of a solemn league of alliance which he formed with a contemporary king of Gerar. A similar covenant, in similar circumstances, having been established between Isaac and the successor of that Gerar monarch, gave occasion to a renewed proclamation of the name: and it is accordant with the practice of the sacred writer to notice an event as newly occurred, while in point of fact it had taken place long before (CECG, 193-194). For similar instances of twofold naming, cf. Genesis 35:6-7; Genesis 35:15, with Genesis 28:18-22, as to the name Bethel; Genesis 35:10 with Genesis 32:28, as to the name Israel; Genesis 14:14 with Deuteronomy 34:1, Joshua 19:47, Judges 18:29, as to the name Dan; Numbers 32:41, with Deuteronomy 3:14 and Judges 10:3-4, as to the name Havothjair). (For a description of the present-day Wady-es-Seba and the two deep wells on the northern bank, which are still called Bir es-Seba, the ancient Beer-sheba, see again jamieson, CECG, 193-194, quoting Robinson’s Biblical Researches, I, 300, 301).

Isaac called the well Shibah, i.e., Sheba) On account of the covenant (connecting Shibah with shebuah (-an oath, covenant-’) according to Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac, 1040-1105), It was the -seventh-’ well which he had dug, according to Ben Jacob Sforno, c, 1475-1550. (See SC, 148). Cf. Genesis 21:31obviously, the name Beer-sheba is best interpreted the well of the oath, rather than of the seven. On the latter view, seven could have been variously interpreted, either as indicative of the seven ewe lambs given, by Abraham to the Philistine king (Genesis 21:28-30), or as signifying the seventh well which Isaac had dug, or as indicating that either (or both) of the patriarchs had put himself under the influence of the number seven, which was regarded among ancients generally as a sacred number. This last view is suggested by Skinner (ICCG, 326); to the present writer it seems rather farfetched. Both points of view seem well justified: there were originally -seven-’ wells; the place was the scene of an -oath.-’ One account emphasizes the former; the other, the latter idea. For that matter, Isaac may well have remembered the name given to the place in Abraham’s time and may have welcomed the opportunity for establishing that name. The expression -unto this day-’ simply carries us up to the writer’s time and is, of course, very appropriate coming from the pen of Moses (EG, 733). At any rate Beer-sheba came to be the principal city in the Judean Negeb. It was situated at the junction of the highway running southward from Hebron to Egypt and the route that ran northeastward from Arabah to the coast. It marked the southern limit of Israelite occupation, so that the entire land came to be described as the territory extending from Dan to Beersheba (Judges 20:1). Beersheba still exists, and retains its ancient name in a slightly modified form. The old wells too are there, of great depth, and of great value to the surrounding Arabs (SIBG, 257).

Review Questions

See Genesis 26:34-35.

Genesis 26:34-35

10. Esau’s Hittite Wives (Genesis 26:34-35). At the age of forty, Esau took as wives two young women of Hittite stock who no doubt were well contaminated with prevailing Canaanite vices. According to Rashi, Esau had been living a dissolute life until then, but now he hypocritically said he would follow his father’s example and marry at the same age he had married (SC, 148). These alliance were contrary to the will of God (Exodus 34:16, Deuteronomy 7:3, Joshua 23:12, Ezra 9:1-3, Nehemiah 13:23-27, 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, 1 Corinthians 7:39; and of his grandfather and parents (Genesis 24:38; Genesis 27:46; Genesis 28:1-2; Genesis 28:6; cf. Genesis 6:2). Esau’s incapacity for spiritual values is further illustrated by this step. He is not concerned about conserving the spiritual heritage of the family (EG, 733). These marriages of Esau were a grief of mind to his parents, possibly because the young women’s personal characters, but chiefly because of their Canaanitish descent, and because in marrying them Esau had not only violated the Divine law which forbade polygamy, but also evinced an utterly irreligious and unspiritual disposition (PCG, 332). (Cf. Acts 17:30). If the pious feelings of Abraham recoiled from the idea of Isaac forming a matrimonial connection with a Canaanitish woman, that devout patriarch himself [Isaac] would be equally opposed to such a union on the part of his children; and we may easily imagine how much his pious heart was wounded, and the family peace destroyed, when his favorite but wayward son brought no less than two idolatrous wives amongst theman additional proof that Esau neither desired the blessing nor dreaded the curse of God. These wives never gained the affections of his parents; and this estrangement was overruled by God for keeping the chosen family aloof from the dangers of heathen influence (CECG, 194). Note that these wives were a grief of mind (according to the Septuagint, contentious or obstreperous) to Isaac and Rebekah. How could it have been otherwise? one might well ask. To the various troubles which the Philistines prepared for Isaac, but which, through the blessing of God, only contributed to the increase of his wealth and importance, a domestic cross was added, which caused him great and lasting sorrow. Esau married two wives in the 40th year of his age, the 100th of Isaac’s life (Genesis 25:26); and that not from his own relatives in Mesopotamia, but from among the Canaanites whom God cast off.. They became -bitterness of spirit,-’ the cause of deep trouble, to his parents, viz., on account of their Canaanitish character, which was so opposed to the vocation of the patriarchs; whilst Esau by these marriages furnished another proof, how thoroughly his heart was set on earthly things (BCOTP, 273).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY-EIGHT

Where was Isaac tenting when he married Rebekah?

Where was the Philistine maritime plane geographically?

Who were these Philistines who infiltrated the region around Gerar in earliest times? From what region did they come? By what name are they otherwise known in the ancient records?

Name the five cities of Philistia? Of what special significance was Gerar?

What was the meaning of the word Philistine? What was the origin of the name Palestine?

What Divine assurance was vouchsafed Isaac at this time? What did God prevent his doing and why?

To what place did God tell Isaac to go?

How did Isaac’s experience with Abimelech in regard to his wife Rebekah differ from Abraham’s experience with the king’s predecessor in regard to Sarah?

What reasons have we for accepting these stories as two separate accounts of two separate episodes?

What was the result of Isaac’s venture into agriculture?

What did Isaac do about the wells which had been dug by Abraham?

What were the names of the new wells dug by Isaac and what did each name signify?

What was the substance of the Divine communication at Beersheba?

How many times in Isaac’s life did Yahweh appear to him?

What was the probable significance of the terms Abimelech and Phicol?

What was the substance of the covenant of Isaac with Abimelech?

Distinguish what was Scripturally known as profane swearing and what was known as judicial swearing? Cite scriptures to authenticate this distinction.

What was the character of the oaths exchanged between Isaac and Abimelech?

What was the other feature of the covenant ceremony? What light does this incident throw on Isaac’s character?

What was the name given to the last well brought in by Isaac’s servants?

How may we relate the naming of this well to the similar naming in Genesis 21:31?

Cite other instances of twofold naming in the Old Testament. How is this to be explained?

What was the location of the ancient city of Beersheba? Does it still exist? What role did this city play in the geography of Palestine?

At what age did Esau first marry? From what ethnic group did Esau select these two wives?

What do these facts of Esau’s marriage indicate as to his character?

How did Esau’s marriage affect his parents?

Name and describe the essentials of life as specified in Genesis 26:25.

LIFE OF ISAAC

Gerar

a.

Birth: Genesis 20:1; Genesis 21:1-22.

b.

Rejection of Ishmael; Genesis 21:8-21.

Beersheba

a.

Command to sacrifice Isaac; Genesis 21:32 to Genesis 22:2.

Moriah

a.

Sacrifice of Isaac; Genesis 22:3-20.

Beersheba

a.

Death of mother; Genesis 23:1-20.

Beerlahairoi

a.

Marriage to Rebekah; Ch. 24.

Trip to Hebron and back

a.

Death and burial of Abraham; Genesis 25:7-10.

Beerlahairoi

a.

Birth of twin sons; Genesis 25:11; Genesis 25:19-26.

Birthright sold; Genesis 25:27-34.

Gerar

a.

Lie about Rebekah.; Genesis 26:1-11.

b.

Great crops and herds; Genesis 26:12-17.

c.

Disputed wells; Genesis 26:18-21.

Rehoboth

a.

Undisputed wells; Genesis 26:22

Beersheba

a.

Covenant with Abimelech; Genesis 26:26-33.

b.

Esau’s wives; Genesis 26:34-35.

c.

Blessing given to Jacob; Genesis 27.

d.

Jacob sent away Genesis 28:1-5.

Hebron

a.

Reunion with Jacob: Genesis 35:27.

b.

Death and burial of Isaac; Genesis 35:28-29.